Does streamlining court system mean compromising justice?
Critics of a proposal to introduce an online dispute system for provincial offences warn Ontarians’ rights are being thwarted

TheStar.com
April 28, 2015
Richard J. Brennan

Critics of a government proposal to streamline the courts system by introducing an online dispute system for provincial offences warn Ontarians would be being denied their constitutional right to justice.

Opposition is lining up against what is known as the Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPS), which is designed to simplify the process for offences under the Provincial Offences Act, including the Highway Traffic Act.

John Papadakis, a spokesperson for the Ontario AMPS Opposition Task Force, claimed at a Queen’s Park press conference Tuesday that anyone issued a ticket for various offences under the Provincial Offences Act would be presumed guilty.

“Imagine if government could erase your rights as a Canadian citizen simply by changing the word offence to monetary penalty . . . that’s what administrative monetary penalty is,” said Papadakis, who ran unsuccessfully for Toronto council last fall.

“And this is what the provincial government is trying to do in a dirty, sneaky rotten little trick by sliding this in.”

He called the proposal an “assault on your constitutional rights.”

Christine Burke, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur, said no decision has been made.

“Should the government decide to pursue an online AMP system, the ministry would take steps to ensure that the appropriate procedural protections available to the public through traditional court procedures would be preserved,” Burke said.

She said the types of penalties that could be issued through an administrative monetary penalty system are being explored through the public consultation, but added serious or criminal charges, including those that involve injury or death or likely to result in jail time, will continue to be prosecuted in the courts.

“No one will ever go to jail as the result of the AMP process,” she said, adding that anyone interested to provide their input have until tonight to do it.

Papadakis doesn’t buy it.

“Imagine you are driving along and you go through an amber light (and) a police officer pulls you over and say you went through a red light and you say ‘No, I didn’t’ and the officer writes you a ticket. Currently, you have the right to challenge the officer’s evidence, to obtain that evidence, to go before an impartial judge in a court.”

But AMP, he said, changes all of that.

“You are no longer innocent until proven guilty as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Papadakis said, adding a charged person will no longer have the opportunity to challenge the evidence against him or her.

“You will go before a municipal employee, who is clearly going to be biased. You will make your argument not on your innocence or guilty, you will make your argument on how much penalty you will pay, because you are already guilty,” he said, adding that an appeal will also be heard by a municipal employee.