Q&A - New Westminster Parking Bylaw Dispute

The screening report is a written report by a "screening officer" stating his findings after speaking to me by phone before an adjudication hearing. It is written by a different person of the same team accusing you. 

The screening report stated that I did not provide grounds to cancel the bylaw offense notice stating that "the current "Learn to Drive Smart" training booklet from ICBC states"... think ahead and find out the rules of the area you're traveling to". In response to the comment about driver's responsibility to know the rules and follow them, I asked anyone present in the court if before setting out on their trip before driving whether they would read the motor vehicle act or  any bylaws of the area they are traveling within and the response was that not a single person answered in the affirmative. I ask then why then am I being be judged by such standard and there was no response.

As for signs that do not need to be posted what is there to prevent a city to remove all the no parking signs along its street and fining all those who park there if it is within their right to do so? If there is no sign to indicate no parking then I could not have reasonably known what was required of me and failing to follow is not an offense.

Anyhow, the only avenues available to appeal the decision, is in Supreme Court on the grounds that the adjudicator made an error on the "question of law" or on "lack of jurisdiction." 

I would like some input about the adjudication hearing itself. This is the best of my recollection.First, I was asked if I understood the charge. I replied I did not. The adjudicator asked me to explain my version using the photographs taken of my car by the bylaw officer. I said the terms "nearest edge of the closest sidewalk" and "intersecting street" caused confusion. The closest sidewalk is the one against my car, and the intersecting street is also the street I was parked on because it intersects at the top and the bottom of the hill. The adjudicator said an intersecting street is an intersection. (It may be at an intersection but not necessarily so since it can intersect at the top and bottom of the hill as in my case but this was mentioned in the hearing). The adjudicator asked whether I went through the charge with the screening officer, and I said yes, after the fact and on looking at the wording on the bylaw I came to a different meaning. He asked if it was my car shown in the picture, and I said yes. He said he is going to find me guilty and he was not going to listen anymore to anything I have to say. I said how could you, since there are 2 interpretations  to the bylaw and how could he choose one? He said for me to stop., he had made his decision. He also said that the city does not have to put up any signs because if there were signs everywhere, you would not be able to do anything, to which I responded, I am not asking everywhere but in the 1100 block Auckland only. I further added that the city is not responsible for directing traffic and for pedestrian safety? to which he added, "I did not say that," to which I added, " that is what you are inferring though." At which point I left the hearing very upset.

A few days later, I was still upset and this did not diminish so this is why I am in the process of appealing the decision to the Supreme court. There are only 2 avenues open to appeal a decision and these are that the adjudicator made an error on the "question of law" or on the "lack of jurisdiction". I realize that a guilty verdict rests on a balance of probabilities but I feel I should still have been given the chance to question my accusers, especially photographic evidence. I felt the adjudicator should have first ruled on allowing or disallowing my version of interpretation of the bylaw. Then a trial should have been conducted. There was not a fair hearing because I was not given a chance to question witnesses and their evidence. This was simply a pronouncement of a guilty verdict or a rubber stamping of papers.

Can anybody see a violation of the question of law or the lack of jurisdiction in this case?

A question of law means that the adjudicator did not follow the proper rules in coming to his judgment.

A lack of jurisdiction means that it is not within the power of adjudicator because he cannot force the city to put up signs since the original cause of the violation was due to the negligence of the City in having signage at the location. It should be noted that if signage was present, there would be no ambiguity on either interpretations of the bylaw.