Key Provisions on Automated Speed Cameras (Schedule 5: Highway Traffic Act Amendments)
The bill’s impact on ASE is concentrated in a few targeted changes, primarily repealing enabling legislation while shielding governments from fallout. Here’s a breakdown of the verbatim relevant text and its effects:
1. Repeal of Automated Speed Enforcement Authorization (Section 5):
• The bill fully repeals Part XIV.1 of the HTA, which since 2019 has allowed municipalities to install and operate ASE systems in designated areas (e.g., school and community safety zones). This part outlined requirements for camera placement, ticket issuance, evidence admissibility, and revenue allocation (fines directed to road safety initiatives).
• Impact: If enacted, this would immediately prohibit all municipal ASE programs province-wide. No new installations would be permitted, and existing systems (currently operational in cities like Toronto, Ottawa, and Hamilton) would need to be decommissioned. The government has stated this ban takes effect “immediately upon Royal Assent,” potentially disrupting ongoing contracts and operations before the November 14 commencement date for most of Schedule 5. This aligns with Ford’s 2022 election promise to eliminate these “revenue tools.”
2. Protection from Lawsuits and Contract Breaches (New Section 206.6 in Part XIV.5):
• Verbatim: “No cause of action arises against a municipality… as a direct or indirect result of the breach, termination or frustration of a contract between a municipality and a supplier or vendor of equipment used for an automated speed enforcement system before the end of the term of the contract that occurs following the repeal of Part XIV.1. No costs, compensation or damages… are owing or payable to any person… in connection with anything referred to in that subsection.”
• Impact: This “extinguishment clause” immunizes municipalities, the province, and their officials from liability for abruptly ending vendor contracts (e.g., with companies like Redflex or Verra Mobility). It bars claims for lost profits, revenue, or other damages, even in cases of bad faith or breach of trust, except for constitutional challenges or judicial reviews. No expropriation claims under the Expropriations Act would apply. This provision effectively prevents costly litigation that could delay implementation, but it has drawn criticism for overriding private contracts without compensation.
3. Removal of References and Procedural Clean-Up (Sections 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11):
• These strike out mentions of ASE in sections related to tolls, convictions, regulations, and evidentiary rules (e.g., removing ASE from lists of “automated systems” for offence proceedings under Section 210.1).
• Impact: Ensures no lingering legal hooks for ASE post-repeal, streamlining enforcement to traditional methods (e.g., police radar). It also repeals related signage rules (Section 206.4), shifting focus away from camera-specific infrastructure.
4. New Mandate for School Zone Signage (New Section 128.0.1):
• Verbatim: “The Minister may issue directives requiring a municipality to install signs in school zones… A municipality that receives a directive… shall comply with it.” If non-compliant, the Minister can install signs themselves, overriding local bylaws.
• Impact: This is positioned as a “safety alternative” to cameras, mandating better signage in school zones (e.g., flashing lights or reduced speed warnings). It empowers the province to enforce compliance directly, potentially at municipal expense. While not a full replacement for cameras, it aims to maintain some visibility of speed limits without automated ticketing.
globalnews.ca
