2. (1) For the purposes of Part XIV.2 of the Act, a red light camera system is the combination of one or more cameras and other equipment of a type described in subsection (1.1) that is installed at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal such that,
(a) it is capable of photographing all or part of the intersection; and
(b) it takes a first photograph of a vehicle when the vehicle approaches the intersection at or above a detectable speed when a red indication is shown and it then takes one or more further photographs in succession. O. Reg. 569/00, s. 2; O. Reg. 245/07, s. 2 (1).
(1.1) A red light camera system may be either of the following systems:
1. Gatsometer RLC, model number 36mST-MC-GL4-ONT, referred to in this Regulation as Gatsometer.
2. TraffiStar SR 520-ONT, referred to in this Regulation as TraffiStar. O. Reg. 245/07, s. 2 (2).
(2) A further photograph referred to in clause (1) (b) may be taken when the green indication is shown. O. Reg. 277/99, s. 2 (2).
(3) A red light camera system may take the sequence of photographs described in clause (1) (b) from the same or different angles. O. Reg. 277/99, s. 2 (3).
The Act is specific in what it requires.Aren't "moving pictures" defined as "a sequence of consecutive photographic images in such rapid succession as to give the illusion of movement"? Sounds like someone trying to create a "legal loophole".
The Hwy Traffic Act isn't "bylaw"...it's provincial. And yes, the video cameras can be used to "monitor" so that legally enabled persons may attend to address situations.But that doesn't preclude the use of these cameras for by-law violations which is basically what they may be used for (i.e. vehicles going straight on a green although they should be turning right). Or maybe they're used to monitor for compliance so they can send an officer out to improve things.
http://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/37908When is a video recording admissible evidence in a criminal trial?
R v Bulldog, 2015 ABCA 251 (CanLII)
by Brock Jones
When does a video recording constitute admissible evidence in a criminal trial?
Canadian courts have struggled with defining an appropriate test for the authentication of electronic evidence, including video recordings. In an earlier commentary I addressed these arguments in context of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice case of R v Andalib-Goortani which addressed the admissibility of an image found on the internet on an anonymous website.
R v Bulldog is a very recent decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal which steps into this debate and provides some needed clarify of the applicable principles. The Court addressed how trial courts should address the authenticity a different from of electronic evidence – a video recording of an assault. [...]
In case anyone is wondering what King is like at 2:10 am, here's some pics from this morning at Spadina & King
Ryerson transit expert challenges the TTC’s findings on the King St. pilot project
A review authored by Ryerson University professor Murtaza Haider and released Monday by the Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association (ORHMA) contends the project’s effect on streetcar travel times has been minimal, and the ridership increase observed on the route may have been achievable without reconfiguring King.
Frankly it's not surprising. There's been a very real hype factor on the results *so far* of the King Project. I too have not noticed a discernible travel time difference. Don't get me wrong, this project has to not only happen, it has to happen on a much greater scale than what it is now, and that takes...tada...*sufficient funding*...