Having read the article..........
While I find the woman's claims of PTSD a bit much............
I also find the officer's actions in this case to be likewise.
To arrest someone, search their bag for ID, and issue two tickets, one for not holding a handrail that seems to be without precedent, plus an obstruct police charge, certainly leaves the impression of an officer on a power-trip, rather than one judiciously enforcing the law.
The original municipal court judge through the tickets out.
While she has lost twice in her lawsuit on the road to the SCC, the minority opinion on the appeal was compellingly in her favour and took a very dim view of the police officer in question.
I look forward to what the SCC has to say about this matter, as there are interesting legal principles at stake.
To wit:
Can a public body delegate its power to make laws to a manufacturer or other third party? (enforcement was based on a pictogram on the escalator put there by the manufacturer, not by the transit authority, and not at the authority's direction or request)
Is a pictogram itself sufficient to infer the existence of a binding law?
If yes, how do the colours chosen impact this? (the minority opinion noted the prominent use of yellow, which is the colour of caution, as opposed to red which is the colour of prohibition) .
Also, can an officer lay a charge or request ID in relation to same on a 'good faith' basis that there is an enforceable law, when in fact there is not one?
Should make for good reading...........a long while from now.
Some days it’s nice to almost be a senior citizen!
Night and Day
