Has anyone ever contested a ticket for window tint in a vehicle and won?
Garry Hillier
the front windows of my car, said it was illegal. on the ticket he sited
section 155 (A) of the highway traffic act which states:
Window obstruction
155. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle on a highway where
(a) there is in or upon the windshield, sidewings, side or
rear windows or the openings for any of them a sign, poster or other
nontransparent material other than a certificate, sticker or other device
required by this Act or the regulations to be displayed on it or approved by
the minister;
anyone see any loop holes in this?
thanks
garry
Carter
I think the ticket was issued pursuant to the wrong legislation.
S. 155 (A) of the HTA deals only with nontransparent material
being placed on the windows of an automobile.
The ticket should rightly have been issued pursuant to S. 38. (1)
of the Licencing and Equipment Regulations under the HTA (window
glazing). Here is a link to that legislation;
http://www.assembly.nl.ca/legislation/sr/regulations/rc961007.htm#38_
Here is a copy of S. 38;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Window glazing
38. (1) A person shall not place or install in a motor
vehicle non-transparent, translucent or opaque material on or in
place of the
(a) windshield glazing; or
(b) side window glazing that is beside or forward
of the driver on the right and left hand side of the motor
vehicle in a manner or to an extent that the motor vehicle no
longer conforms with the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety
Act ( Canada ) CMVSS 205 Glazing Materials, as amended.
(2) Subsection (1) does not
(a) apply to the equivalent replacement of the
glazing installed by the manufacturer of the motor vehicle;
(b) prohibit the use of clear untinted frost
shields; or
(c) prohibit the use of window stickers as long as
they do not impair the operator's field of vision or otherwise
impair the safe operation of the motor vehicle and are used in
accordance with conditions prescribed by the Act.
(3) The owner of a motor vehicle shall ensure that
the view through a frost shield on the motor vehicle is not
impaired by discoloration, scratches or other damages.
(4) A person shall not place or install a material
on or in place of a window glazing that by reason of sunlight or
the headlights of other vehicles casts a glare at other vehicles
on the highway.
(5) A person shall not operate on a highway a
motor vehicle that contains material that is prohibited by this
section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that this legislation is enacted pursuant to the Motor
Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) CMVSS (Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards) 205 Glazing Materials.
Here is a link to that act;
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulations/acts-1993c16.htm
I would suggest that in order to be convicted the prosecution or
police would have to show that the translucent or opaque material
on the glass did not meet the requirements of CMVSS 205.
That's just my learned opinion but I am not a lawyer.
Carter
lurker
bet you win this one!
Garry Hillier
"Carter" <per_ardua@ad_astra> wrote in message
news:4b7b29c8$0$12446$9a56...@news.aliant.net...
Just Dan
court case. It does appear Gary has been ticketed for the wrong offense. He
merely has to hit print to the docs you posted and he'll have his day in
court.
Well done yourself you old bastard :)
Gary let us know how you make out and how much Carters fees were.:)
"Carter" <per_ardua@ad_astra> wrote in message
news:4b7b29c8$0$12446$9a56...@news.aliant.net...
Carter
> Wow Carter, I have to say I'm impressed. You may have just won your first
> court case.
Naw, as a Cop I won many cases, or I should say the accused(s)
lost them when they challenged me in court.
It does appear Gary has been ticketed for the wrong offense. He
> merely has to hit print to the docs you posted and he'll have his day in
> court.
> Well done yourself you old bastard :)
Old? Relatively I suppose. Bastard? You'll have to prove that.
;^)
> Gary let us know how you make out and how much Carters fees were.:)
No charge, I'm not licensed to practice law.
Carter
World of wow
sure he'll be waiting to outside to give you the correct ticket :)
"Bob Ster" <Bobs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D21DE6F...@209.197.15.238...
> If there's one thing Carter is useful for, it's pointing out the
> technicalities/interpretation of the various statutes.
>
> Would a judge dismiss the charge on a technicality such as this?
>
>
> " Just Dan" <i'm...@mywitsend.ca> wrote in
> news:4b7b3de7$0$12465$9a56...@news.aliant.net:
Derrick
under the other legislation, wouldn't the first still technically be
valid, since window tint is a non-transparent (i.e., does not let
light pass through unobstructed) film applied to the windows?
I would be curious to see how this turned out, if contested.
On Feb 17, 10:05 am, "World of wow" <b...@blah.com> wrote:
> if you're driving the same car to the court and the same tinted window. I
> sure he'll be waiting to outside to give you the correct ticket :)
>
> "Bob Ster" <Bobste...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9D21DE6F...@209.197.15.238...
>
>
>
> > If there's one thing Carter is useful for, it's pointing out the
> > technicalities/interpretation of the various statutes.
>
> > Would a judge dismiss the charge on a technicality such as this?
>
> > " Just Dan" <i...@mywitsend.ca> wrote in
> >>> Carter- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Carter
> Though it may be the case that the ticket should have been issued
> under the other legislation, wouldn't the first still technically be
> valid, since window tint is a non-transparent (i.e., does not let
> light pass through unobstructed) film applied to the windows?
That may, in fact, be correct Derrick. I think it will depend on
the court's acceptance of a definition of 'non-transparent'. I
based my opinion on the wording of S. 155 (A) of the HTA which
gives examples of things which are not allowed, such as signs
posters or other 'non-transparent material'. Signs and posters
are certainly non-transparent but should, I think, be more
accurately described as opaque.
The dictionary definition of transparent is;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
having the property of transmitting rays of light through its
substance so that bodies situated beyond or behind can be
distinctly seen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dictionary definition of opaque is'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not transparent or translucent; impenetrable to light; not
allowing light to pass through.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tinting film is certainly not opaque, it does allow light to pass
through, so I don't think it is adequately covered in S. 155 (A)
of the HTA.
I think what is in question is the degree to which tinting film
allows light to pass through and the degree of clarity with which
it allows objects on the other side to be seen. That is what is
dealt with in S. 38 (1) of the Licensing and Equipment
Regulations under the HTA and it's supporting federal legislation
CMVSS.
>
> I would be curious to see how this turned out, if contested.
Me also.
I suspect what has happened here is that the Newfoundland HTA has
not been properly up dated. Probably when S. 155 (A) was created
the use of tints or tinting film on car windows was not as
popular, if it existed at all, as it is today. It needs to be
updated to specifically include tints and tinting films so that
it is not necessary for citizens and law enforcement officials to
resort to the Equipment regulations in order to know what the law
is.
Carter
Derrick
On Feb 17, 11:35 am, Carter <per_ardua@ad_astra> wrote:
> Derrick wrote:
> > Though it may be the case that the ticket should have been issued
> > under the other legislation, wouldn't the first still technically be
> > valid, since window tint is a non-transparent (i.e., does not let
> > light pass through unobstructed) film applied to the windows?
>
> That may, in fact, be correct Derrick. I think it will depend on
> the court's acceptance of a definition of 'non-transparent'. I
> based my opinion on the wording of S. 155 (A) of the HTA which
> gives examples of things which are not allowed, such as signs
> posters or other 'non-transparent material'. Signs and posters
> are certainly non-transparent but should, I think, be more
> accurately described as opaque.
>
> The dictionary definition of transparent is;
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> having the property of transmitting rays of light through its
> substance so that bodies situated beyond or behind can be
> distinctly seen.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The dictionary definition of opaque is'
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> not transparent or translucent; impenetrable to light; not
> allowing light to pass through.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThatGuy
court house....or you can bank on getting the correct and updated
version of the ticket!
Uncle Mose
> Garry Hillier wrote:
> > had an officer pull me over today and he gave me a ticket for the tint
> > in the front windows of my car, said it was illegal. on the ticket he
> > sited section 155 (A) of the highway traffic act which states:
>
> > Window obstruction
>
> > 155. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle on a highway where
>
> > (a) there is in or upon the windshield, sidewings, side or
> > rear windows or the openings for any of them a sign, poster or other
> > nontransparent material other than a certificate, sticker or other
> > device required by this Act or the regulations to be displayed on it or
> > approved by the minister;
>
> > anyone see any loop holes in this?
>
> I think the ticket was issued pursuant to the wrong legislation.
> S. 155 (A) of the HTA deals only with nontransparent material
> being placed on the windows of an automobile.
>
> The ticket should rightly have been issued pursuant to S. 38. (1)
> of the Licencing and Equipment Regulations under the HTA (window
> glazing). Here is a link to that legislation;
>
> http://www.assembly.nl.ca/legislation/sr/regulations/rc961007.htm#38_
>
> Here is a copy of S. 38;
>
>
> Note that this legislation is enacted pursuant to the Motor
> Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) CMVSS (Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety
> Standards) 205 Glazing Materials.
>
> Here is a link to that act;
>
> http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulations/acts-1993c16.htm
>
> I would suggest that in order to be convicted the prosecution or
> police would have to show that the translucent or opaque material
> on the glass did not meet the requirements of CMVSS 205.
>
> That's just my learned opinion but I am not a lawyer.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Have to agree with you Carter. Seems to me though that both laws could
apply. I guess it depends on how transparent the window tint is for
the first and and the second states that non-transparent, translucent
or opaque material cannot be placed on side windows or windshiled.
Both these laws seem to fit and the police have been giving out
tickets for awhile now based on the first law mentioned here. I seem
to remember someone contesting it a few years ago and they lost. I
could be wrong on this account. Either way it seems to be against the
law to tint front drivers and passenger side windows.
I own a new vehicle that as factory tint on all window behind that of
the driver except the rear. The front drivers and passenger side and
windshield are not tinted. This factory tint is hardly noticeable
from the inside but blocks all view from the outside. I have noticed
that some after market tints block a lot of view at night and in my
mind make them dangerous.
Carter
> Have to agree with you Carter. Seems to me though that both laws could
> apply. I guess it depends on how transparent the window tint is for
> the first and and the second states that non-transparent, translucent
> or opaque material cannot be placed on side windows or windshiled.
> Both these laws seem to fit and the police have been giving out
> tickets for awhile now based on the first law mentioned here. I seem
> to remember someone contesting it a few years ago and they lost.
If that is true, obviously Newfoundland courts have accepted a
fairly lenient definition of the word transparent and consider
any after market tinting to be non-transparent. I can understand
that. I think, however, the applicable legislation in the HTA
could be worded more clearly as the examples given are all opaque
materials.
I
> could be wrong on this account. Either way it seems to be against the
> law to tint front drivers and passenger side windows.
> I own a new vehicle that as factory tint on all window behind that of
> the driver except the rear. The front drivers and passenger side and
> windshield are not tinted. This factory tint is hardly noticeable
> from the inside but blocks all view from the outside. I have noticed
> that some after market tints block a lot of view at night and in my
> mind make them dangerous.
I agree. Beyond the light, UV blocking, tint which all
automobile glass has, and excepting limos which carry VIPs where
it is a security feature, I have never understood the need to add
darker tinting. I suppose it has something to do with the LCF
(Look cool factor).
Carter
Derrick
>
> - Show quoted text -
Interesting point there, Uncle Mose.
In my earlier post, I had interpreted the original law to still be
valid because I had read a definition of "transparent" which
referenced letting light pass through "unobstructed". Since, as I see
it, tinting would obstruct light to a degree, and thus would be
considered "non-transparent".
Now, if that were the case, and since the first law mentions that all
windows, including side and rear, should not be coverd with a non-
transparent material, wouldn't that also provide grounds to argue that
tickets could be issued for having (non factory) tint on the rear
windows, which I had assumed to be legal (the second law only
specifically mentions windows to the driver's front and side)?
Bah !
> Carter <per_ardua@ad_astra> wrote in news:4b7c3dcb$0$12458
> $9a566...@news.aliant.net:
> from view in the back of our SUV. Also helps keeps the sun off the kids'
> faces.
Carter is wrong. The two provisions are directed at different
offences.
Section 155 HTA prohibits operating a vehicle with after market tint
on the windows.
Section 38 of the Licencing and Equipment Regulations prohibits
installing after market window tint.
In other words, the former is directed at the driver, the latter at
the bodyman. They might in some cases be the same person, although not
necessarily.
After market tint prevents float glass from shattering properly on
impact during a collision, and has caused razor like cuts to
passengers during or following a collision. It also prevents the
police officer from being able to see inside the vehicle, a concern of
officer safety. Finally, in some cases, it prevents pedestrians from
making eye contact with drivers before entering a crosswalk.
These are three safety based reasons why the police enforce the
prohibition against driving a vehicle with after market tint. Carter,
you ought to know these.
To the original poster: if you fight this ticket, hopefully the judge
will increase your fine for being so obtuse.
DrewNL
they are charged with.
Bob Ster wrote:
> If there's one thing Carter is useful for, it's pointing out the
> technicalities/interpretation of the various statutes.
>
> Would a judge dismiss the charge on a technicality such as this?
>
>
> " Just Dan" <i'm...@mywitsend.ca> wrote in
> news:4b7b3de7$0$12465$9a56...@news.aliant.net:
>
DrewNL
know what the law actually states of they choose to ignore it in the
interest of flexing their ticket writing muscle or displaying their
power over you. I was pulled over last summer and the officer asked me
to roll up my window (I had tint on the back that would have been
illegal up front). When I rolled up my window, he some SOME tint and
assumed it was the same stuff on the back. He started giving me crap
about it and I asked him if he had a light meter on him to measure the
transparency of both the rear and front windows. He did, and he did! In
the end, my front (side) windows, he said, passed the test for the
required amount of visible light. I cannot remember the number, it's
somewhere around 70%-80% of light has to pass through it.
So he promptly wrote me a speeding ticket to make himself feel better :o)
A
Carter
> Carter is wrong.
I don't think so.
The two provisions are directed at different
> offences.
That's absolutely true and in this case the wrong provision was used.
> Section 155 HTA prohibits operating a vehicle with after market tint
> on the windows.
Nope, that section makes absolutely no reference to after market
tint, only to non-transparent material such as posters, signs,
snow and dirt. That section is fundamentally directed at driving
with obstructed or dirty windows.
> Section 38 of the Licencing and Equipment Regulations prohibits
> installing after market window tint.
Yest it does. Section 38 (5) also says "A person shall not
operate on a highway a motor vehicle that contains material that
is prohibited by this section."
That is very clear and unambiguous and it is the section which
under which the OPs ticket should have been written if the
offence was driving with a prohibited material on his windows.
> In other words, the former is directed at the driver, the latter at
> the bodyman. They might in some cases be the same person, although not
> necessarily.
As you can now see, although parts of the latter are directed at
the body man, they are also both directed at the driver.
> After market tint prevents float glass from shattering properly on
> impact during a collision, and has caused razor like cuts to
> passengers during or following a collision. It also prevents the
> police officer from being able to see inside the vehicle, a concern of
> officer safety. Finally, in some cases, it prevents pedestrians from
> making eye contact with drivers before entering a crosswalk.
> These are three safety based reasons why the police enforce the
> prohibition against driving a vehicle with after market tint.
That is all very true. In most jurisdictions when the police
enforce the prohibition against driving a vehicle with after
market tint they lay the charge under the legislation which
actually prohibits it, not the part of the HTA which deals with
obstructed or dirty windows.
Carter,
> you ought to know these.
I do, look up.
Carter
Bah !
Carter, and everyone else interested, please read the decision
convicting the driver under s.155 of the NL HTA, for having tinted
windows, by the Clarenville, Newfoundland Provincial Court , AT
http://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlpc/doc/2007/2007canlii69296/2007canlii69296.html
.
DrewNL
205 to comply with ANSI2.26 standard. I have read the ANSI2.26
document. The difficulty with this document is that it does not set any
limits, only a standard. It requires safety glazing material to
maintain light transmittance of no less than 70 percent."
I rest my case. Thanks for the document
A
Bah !
> > .
You did read the entire decision, didn't you ?
The driver was CONVICTED.
Just like you will be, for doing the same thing.
DrewNL
his light transmittance was? No. But if we can assume it was too dark,
that's a reason to convict him. The problem is assuming is not a proper
trial. Another/the real reason to convict him here is the judge's
opinion/interpretation. The judge stated that the ANSI docs made no
mention of after market tint/film. It didn't say it was prohibited, but
didn't say it was allowed. From there the judge, armed with a lack of
legislation, made a judgment call. This came down to judge Kennedy's
opinion on the phrase "completely visible". I personally disagree with
his opinion here. I wonder if he's ever seen tint with 70% light
transmittance? That's comparable to sunglasses. Has he ever worn
sunglasses? Did he feel they made objects less than clearly visible? If
this was a case of "I measured Shaun Connor's car with a light meter and
it was 40%", I'd say write the ticket. Here we have no evidence
pertaining to what the situation actually was.
And as an aside, I'll be convicted of nothing. I live in Pennsylvania
where the legislation is clear and not antiquated. I know exactly what I
can have and what I cannot. I don't even have tint on my new car but if
I did, It'd allow 80% light transmittance just to be safe. As I said
earlier tonight, the NL rules leave far too much to opinion. Some people
will ticket, some won't. Some judges will convict, some won't. That's
not fun at all.
Carter
Carter
Carter
Err...no, not necessarily. That was the decision of one judge.
There is enough ambiguity in S. 155 (A) of the HTA to cause
another judge to make a different decision.
Carter
DrewNL
"The ordinary meaning of the words �non-transparent�, in the context of
which it appears in this case in the Highway Traffic Act, I believe
means that something which is non-transparent. Throughout the context
of the legislation, I believe that when applied to the windows of a
motor vehicle, it means that an object in the car must be easily and
entirely visible and detectable. This does not mean that the glass must
be absolutely clear. An object can be easily and entirely visible
inside a vehicle behind a certain level of tinting. The issue is at
what level does the tinting cause the material to be non-transparent"
This, and only this, is the point I've been trying to make. Further,
given this statement, we can surmise that the judge in this proceeding
felt - without seeing it, and without supporting evidence - that Mr.
Connor's tint was too dark. His honour seemingly contradicts himself a
few times.
Bah !
Carter:
First, I posted a decision of a Newfoundland judge convicting under
section 155 of the HTA for a driver having had after market tint on
his car windows.
Second, judges follow precedent. It's called stare decisis. So a
second judge is likely to follow the decision of the first judge.
Third, there is no reported decision supporting your assertion that
section 155 is not the correct provision of the HTA for a driver
having after market window tint.
Admit it, you were wrong.
Carter
> Carter:
> First, I posted a decision of a Newfoundland judge convicting under
> section 155 of the HTA for a driver having had after market tint on
> his car windows.
I know what you posted. I don't agree that a conviction should
have been registered under S. 155 of the HTA because that section
says nothing about after market or any other kind of tints.
> Second, judges follow precedent. It's called stare decisis.
Yes I know what it's called. Judges sometimes follow precedent
and sometimes they don't.
So a
> second judge is likely to follow the decision of the first judge.
Actually he is just as likely not to.
> Third, there is no reported decision supporting your assertion that
> section 155 is not the correct provision of the HTA for a driver
> having after market window tint.
There is no need for such a decision. One only has to read that
HTA section to know it doesn't refer to after market tint. There
is another piece of legislation which does.
There is no requirement that citizens always agree with decisions
made by the courts. In this case I don't agree.
I believe that the proper Act under which prosecution should
occur for an offence related to automobile window glazing is the
Licencing and Equipment Regulations, specifically S. 38, because
that legislation is the only one to specifically prohibit the use
of after market window glazing on automobiles that does not meet
the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Act ( Canada ) CMVSS
205. If you carefully read the court decision which you posted,
you will note that the judge fundamentally agrees because it was
the content of that legislation which led him to his guilty
verdict. He was struggling with the definition of non-transparent
as quoted in S.155 (A) of the HTA and even questioned whether or
not an after market tint met that definition. I suggest that had
S. 38 of the LERs not been available to him on which to base a
decision he would have dismissed the case.
Carter
DrewNL
couldn't make up his mind.
Bah !
since he convicted the driver, by definition the judge was satisfied
beyond reasonable doubt that the offence had been committed. Absent
such proof, the presumption of innocence would not have been
displaced, and the driver would have been acquitted. The conviction
means that the judge had no doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
DrewNL
Carter
> since he convicted the driver, by definition the judge was satisfied
> beyond reasonable doubt that the offence had been committed. Absent
> such proof, the presumption of innocence would not have been
> displaced, and the driver would have been acquitted. The conviction
> means that the judge had no doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
Yes, of course. However he was not satisfied that it had been
committed under S. 155 (A) of the HTA. That dissatisfaction was
quite evident in his written decision. He, in fact, relied on S.
38 of the LERs to reach his conclusion. He did that because both
sections were indicated on the ticket and I think he took 'poetic
licence', if you will, and used S. 38 to deal with both indicated
offences.
Based on the evidence presented it is reasonably clear that the
accused was guilty so I have no argument with the conviction. I
have an argument, however, with the section of the HTA used to
state the offence on the ticket. If the police are going to
charge a specific offence it behoves them to lay the charge under
the legislation which specifically deals with it.
However, having said that, I don't think an appeal against the
conviction would work. It wouldn't work because fundamentally
the use of a tint which doesn't meet the requirements set out in
S. 38 and it's supporting legislation can reasonably be construed
as being an obstruction as described in S. 155.
Carter
Bah !
To return to the original topic of the thread: a driver who had after
market tint on his car windows was charged and convicted under section
155 of the HTA.
As an added bonus, and as a public service, readers of the thread now
know about the CANLII web site, where the public can read, free of
charge, the written decisions filed by judges all across Canada.
For ease of reference, and for bookmarking for future use, the website
is as follows:
http://www.canlii.org/en/index.php
; )
KR
things parents stick up to keep light out of their kids faces are
actually illegal to use? I know that local car safetly groups
strongly discourage parents from using them due to the likelihood that
they will fly off in an accident! They also discourage the stick-on-
ones as they disallow the tempered glass from breaking into little
tiny pieces and instead you have a huge chunk of glass/sun blocking
sticker that could seriously injure people in a rolling vehicle!
For the OP, you may have a case because he quoted the incorrect
section of the act, but I'm not entirely sure...
KR
On Feb 16, 8:27 pm, Carter <per_ardua@ad_astra> wrote:
> Garry Hillier wrote:
> > had an officer pull me over today and he gave me a ticket for the tint
> > in the front windows of my car, said it was illegal. on the ticket he
> > sited section 155 (A) of the highway traffic act which states:
>
> > Window obstruction
>
> > 155. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle on a highway where
>
> > (a) there is in or upon the windshield, sidewings, side or
> > rear windows or the openings for any of them a sign, poster or other
> > nontransparent material other than a certificate, sticker or other
> > device required by this Act or the regulations to be displayed on it or
> > approved by the minister;
>
> > anyone see any loop holes in this?
>
> I think the ticket was issued pursuant to the wrong legislation.
> S. 155 (A) of the HTA deals only with nontransparent material
> being placed on the windows of an automobile.
>
> The ticket should rightly have been issued pursuant to S. 38. (1)
> of the Licencing and Equipment Regulations under the HTA (window
> glazing). Here is a link to that legislation;
>
> http://www.assembly.nl.ca/legislation/sr/regulations/rc961007.htm#38_
>
> Here is a copy of S. 38;
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (5) A person shall not operate on a highway a
> motor vehicle that contains material that is prohibited by this
> section.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bah !
Another great bookmark is the daily dockets of the Supreme Court of
Newfoundland and Labrador, arranged by link to the individual Court
houses, at
https://jer-remote.justice.gov.nl.ca/index.php?wdocket.w_external_docket_select&
Carter
> To return to the original topic of the thread: a driver who had after
> market tint on his car windows was charged and convicted under section
> 155 of the HTA.
> As an added bonus, and as a public service, readers of the thread now
> know about the CANLII web site, where the public can read, free of
> charge, the written decisions filed by judges all across Canada.
> For ease of reference, and for bookmarking for future use, the website
> is as follows:
> http://www.canlii.org/en/index.php
> ; )
I agree, for those who were not familiar with that site, it is
indeed a bonus.
Carter
photographyguy
side and viewable like tint through the other. Signs should be removed from
that. not all signage is opaque/non transparent.
"Carter" <per_ardua@ad_astra> wrote in message
news:4b7bfea9$0$12465$9a56...@news.aliant.net...
> Derrick wrote:
>> Though it may be the case that the ticket should have been issued
>> under the other legislation, wouldn't the first still technically be
>> valid, since window tint is a non-transparent (i.e., does not let
>> light pass through unobstructed) film applied to the windows?
>
> That may, in fact, be correct Derrick. I think it will depend on the
> court's acceptance of a definition of 'non-transparent'. I based my
> opinion on the wording of S. 155 (A) of the HTA which gives examples of
> things which are not allowed, such as signs posters or other
> 'non-transparent material'. Signs and posters are certainly
> non-transparent but should, I think, be more accurately described as
> opaque.
>
> The dictionary definition of transparent is;
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> having the property of transmitting rays of light through its substance so
> that bodies situated beyond or behind can be distinctly seen.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The dictionary definition of opaque is'
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> not transparent or translucent; impenetrable to light; not allowing light
> to pass through.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Tinting film is certainly not opaque, it does allow light to pass through,
> so I don't think it is adequately covered in S. 155 (A) of the HTA.
>
> I think what is in question is the degree to which tinting film allows
> light to pass through and the degree of clarity with which it allows
> objects on the other side to be seen. That is what is dealt with in S. 38
> (1) of the Licensing and Equipment Regulations under the HTA and it's
> supporting federal legislation CMVSS.
>
>
>>
>> I would be curious to see how this turned out, if contested.
>
> Me also.
>
> I suspect what has happened here is that the Newfoundland HTA has not been
> properly up dated. Probably when S. 155 (A) was created the use of tints
> or tinting film on car windows was not as popular, if it existed at all,
> as it is today. It needs to be updated to specifically include tints and
> tinting films so that it is not necessary for citizens and law enforcement
> officials to resort to the Equipment regulations in order to know what the
> law is.
>
> Carter
>
stan
> actually carter, you can now get signage for windows that is mirrored on one
> side and viewable like tint through the other. Signs should be removed from
> that. not all signage is opaque/non transparent.
>
> "Carter" <per_ardua@ad_astra> wrote in message
>
> news:4b7bfea9$0$12465$9a56...@news.aliant.net...
>
>
>
> > Derrick wrote:
> >> Though it may be the case that the ticket should have been issued
> >> under the other legislation, wouldn't the first still technically be
> >> valid, since window tint is a non-transparent (i.e., does not let
> >> light pass through unobstructed) film applied to the windows?
>
> > That may, in fact, be correct Derrick. I think it will depend on the
> > court's acceptance of a definition of 'non-transparent'. I based my
> > opinion on the wording of S. 155 (A) of the HTA which gives examples of
> > things which are not allowed, such as signs posters or other
> > 'non-transparent material'. Signs and posters are certainly
> > non-transparent but should, I think, be more accurately described as
> > opaque.
>
> > The dictionary definition of transparent is;
>
>
> > having the property of transmitting rays of light through its substance so
> > that bodies situated beyond or behind can be distinctly seen.
>
>
> > The dictionary definition of opaque is'
>
>
> > not transparent or translucent; impenetrable to light; not allowing light
> > to pass through.
>
>
> > Tinting film is certainly not opaque, it does allow light to pass through,
> > so I don't think it is adequately covered in S. 155 (A) of the HTA.
>
> > I think what is in question is the degree to which tinting film allows
> > light to pass through and the degree of clarity with which it allows
> > objects on the other side to be seen. That is what is dealt with in S. 38
> > (1) of the Licensing and Equipment Regulations under the HTA and it's
> > supporting federal legislation CMVSS.
>
> >> I would be curious to see how this turned out, if contested.
>
> > Me also.
>
> > I suspect what has happened here is that the Newfoundland HTA has not been
> > properly up dated. Probably when S. 155 (A) was created the use of tints
> > or tinting film on car windows was not as popular, if it existed at all,
> > as it is today. It needs to be updated to specifically include tints and
> > tinting films so that it is not necessary for citizens and law enforcement
> > officials to resort to the Equipment regulations in order to know what the
> > law is.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Back to the original topic.
Tinting windows, especially in this not very sunny climate and other
than maybe the 'back' windows of say a limousine to guard the
confidentiality of guests to the province etc. seems like an
unecessary vanity?
In fact it looks rather ridiculous to see a very ordinary car with
tinted windows; what is the driver and/or other front seat occupant
trying to hide?
Also it does interfere with the recommendation to establish eye
contact with another driver, which can sometimes reduce/avoid an
accident. For example; "That car emerging into my path? Is that driver
looking my way or not; does he see me approaching?". We had one
vehicle that did happen to have a bluish strip along the top edge of
the windshield. Didn't help much because the sun that bothers is
usually the low setting sun from the west. Windshield now replaced due
to a crack and the blue strip is no more.
So the OP question was about a ticket for something added aftermarket
(either by present owner or a previous one) and probably totally
unecessary? Finis.
Carter
> actually carter, you can now get signage for windows that is mirrored on one
> side and viewable like tint through the other. Signs should be removed from
> that. not all signage is opaque/non transparent.
You can't remove the word 'signs' from the legislation because
most signage *is* opaque or non-transparent. Like many parts of
the Newfoundland HTA which haven't kept up with modern
technology, that section needs to be updated.
Carter