Automotive

Hit and run in parking lot - Ontario

  • Last Updated:
  • Dec 10th, 2017 7:48 pm
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 12, 2003
7897 posts
952 upvotes
Markham
The province needs to get the the law straight up. People just don't care. They don't stop even they hit a pedestrian, let along a parked car that no one sees it.
Retired Forum Moderator February 2009 - June 2015
[OP]
Newbie
Dec 4, 2017
33 posts
6 upvotes
I don't understand why it is not treated the same way a hit and run is. I get that if no one sees then you get away with it, just like any other crime. But if you have witnesses that place you there then you shouldn't be getting away with it. Hit a car you should have 2 choices: 1) take off and risk a criminal record or 2) stay at the scene and just take a hit against your insurance.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 3, 2007
5217 posts
525 upvotes
Calgary
That's stupid. In Alberta, that's a hit and run and police take that seriously.
Member
User avatar
Jul 31, 2016
324 posts
187 upvotes
Once you find the name of the person involved through insurance, go to the police division that is handling the investigation, tell them that the license plate/car that hit you belongs to so and so and you would like to have them charged with vandalism.
Jr. Member
Feb 20, 2017
190 posts
52 upvotes
Barrie, ON
I've heard of this before and it's also hard to place a driver there without concrete evidence as I could get a friend as a witness and claim it was this plate but the actual owner of the car has to admit they did it, otherwise your SOL.

Any chance a security camera caught the footage?
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 12, 2003
7897 posts
952 upvotes
Markham
TicoGato wrote:
Dec 7th, 2017 11:20 am
Once you find the name of the person involved through insurance, go to the police division that is handling the investigation, tell them that the license plate/car that hit you belongs to so and so and you would like to have them charged with vandalism.
No vandalism, the charge won't go. The guy didn't go use an hammer and slam your car.
It is an Hit & Run case.
Retired Forum Moderator February 2009 - June 2015
Deal Addict
Feb 24, 2007
3567 posts
543 upvotes
In other words.. say you side swipe a car. You simply take off with or without the driver inside the car as long as he/she is NOT hurt. You will be OK because no one is hurt (doesn't care if driver or witnesses present as their opinion is useless). Then you deny the charges and you are free. What kind of logic is this?
FS : Promise NS4300N NAS,Linksys RE400W,E5151,HBB1,VIVOTab RT,MemoPad 8
Deal Addict
Oct 13, 2014
1023 posts
452 upvotes
Somewhere, ON
Zoinkk540 wrote:
Dec 7th, 2017 10:06 am
This is also a reply I received from a friend who is a police officer:

"There is no criminal charge for a this scenario. There is a provincial charge under the HTA of fail to report damage ( on the other guy)". From a quick google sounds like its a fine and not a very hefty one (IF convicted) and 3 demerit points. So like I said...nothing happens.
I am not going to dispute this if only because your friends are in Ontario and for all I know maybe the Crown has a directive that states they will not prosecute such an offence via the C.C. Remember it is up to each provincial Attorney General to decide how they administer the C.C. For all I know this may now even be the standard in Alberta. It was not the standard when I was there and I did convict offenders once I was able to introduce applicable evidence, including identifying the driver pursuant to the C.C. Provisions I noted earlier.
“When you marry the right woman, you are ‘complete.’ If you marry the wrong woman, you are ‘finished.’ And, if the right one catches you with the wrong one, you are ‘completely finished.'"
[OP]
Newbie
Dec 4, 2017
33 posts
6 upvotes
rcmpvet wrote:
Dec 7th, 2017 12:25 pm
In other words.. say you side swipe a car. You simply take off with or without the driver inside the car as long as he/she is NOT hurt. You will be OK because no one is hurt (doesn't care if driver or witnesses present as their opinion is useless). Then you deny the charges and you are free. What kind of logic is this?
I think the deciding factor is whether there are people inside the car not so much whether they are hurt. If someone is in the car they MAY be hurt and thus you must remain at the scene to "render assistance". When empty/parked cars get hit and the driver takes off, no personal injury = no priority. Also true to deny the allegations and you get off free. I think this also has something to do with no injury therefore no lawsuit and a few thousand worth of damage is not worth the insurance company digging any deeper.

rcmpvet wrote:
Dec 7th, 2017 12:25 pm
I am not going to dispute this if only because your friends are in Ontario and for all I know maybe the Crown has a directive that states they will not prosecute such an offence via the C.C. Remember it is up to each provincial Attorney General to decide how they administer the C.C. For all I know this may now even be the standard in Alberta. It was not the standard when I was there and I did convict offenders once I was able to introduce applicable evidence, including identifying the driver pursuant to the C.C. Provisions I noted earlier.
I believe you in that it is up to the provincial AG. And also stems back to the work load. I am sure the system is so overburdened that I would have to have friends in important places to have this actually stick for $2500 worth of damage.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 28, 2007
1109 posts
185 upvotes
I have a true and recent scenario for you.....lady parks car in p-lot at work. Coworker arrives 5 mins later at work and sideswipes her car taking off the front bumper - $2500 in damage. Coworker parks on other side of building spends day at work, tells no one. Witness calls police tells security and eventually police get called. Coworker goes home before police arrive, plans to leave for vacation next day. Tells police she would check at work when she gets back to see if someone reported damage to their car, doesn't have a plate or anything of the vehicle she hit.

Charged with "Fail to Stop" Criminal Code, pleads guilty to Careless Driving and is not allowed to drive her vehicle anywhere but to and from work (criminal conditions), or to and from job interviews, for 1 year, a bunch of other conditions, fines of about $2000 I think? (lost her job being as she was working at a major insurance company, and where it happened). Avoids a criminal record, but she paid for a lawyer, $2000 in fines, restrictive driving for 1 year, 6 points on record, careless conviction, lost job, insurance now doubles (probably triples as she no longer gets company discount).

Often times people are not getting charged in parking lots though because it seems extreme at times to give them a criminal record, or potentially anyway - but the above outcome seems to hit the mark in my estimation.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 28, 2007
1109 posts
185 upvotes
Zoinkk540 wrote:
Dec 7th, 2017 12:40 pm
I think the deciding factor is whether there are people inside the car not so much whether they are hurt. If someone is in the car they MAY be hurt and thus you must remain at the scene to "render assistance". When empty/parked cars get hit and the driver takes off, no personal injury = no priority. Also true to deny the allegations and you get off free. I think this also has something to do with no injury therefore no lawsuit and a few thousand worth of damage is not worth the insurance company digging any deeper.



I believe you in that it is up to the provincial AG. And also stems back to the work load. I am sure the system is so overburdened that I would have to have friends in important places to have this actually stick for $2500 worth of damage.
To prove "Fail to Stop" there is no requirement to have another driver or injuries, just proving they are leaving the scene of an accident to avoid civil or criminal liability is required.
[OP]
Newbie
Dec 4, 2017
33 posts
6 upvotes
QTheNukes wrote:
Dec 7th, 2017 1:10 pm
To prove "Fail to Stop" there is no requirement to have another driver or injuries, just proving they are leaving the scene of an accident to avoid civil or criminal liability is required.
Interesting. Was the strength of the conviction the security footage or did this all step from the parked car filing an insurance claim?
Member
Dec 10, 2007
288 posts
160 upvotes
Arviat
Had this happen to me before back when dashcams were not a thing yet. Police told me it could not be "failure to remain at scene" because it happened in a parking lot and not a public road.

The bottom line is when you are wronged, whether or not the authority will use their resources to help you depends on the magnitude of your case ($ amount of damage, injuries, frequency, is there crime involved, etc)
Last edited by ellesdad on Dec 7th, 2017 1:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Deal Addict
Oct 13, 2014
1023 posts
452 upvotes
Somewhere, ON
OP - just to be clear to all reading this: The first quote in your post #24 was not me, it was instead a copy of your words made in Post #8 to which I bolded the words in order to provide you with an applicable answer.
“When you marry the right woman, you are ‘complete.’ If you marry the wrong woman, you are ‘finished.’ And, if the right one catches you with the wrong one, you are ‘completely finished.'"
[OP]
Newbie
Dec 4, 2017
33 posts
6 upvotes
ellesdad wrote:
Dec 7th, 2017 1:20 pm
Had this happen to me before back when dashcams were not a thing yet. Police told me it could not be "failure to remain at scene" because it happened in a parking lot and not a public road.

The bottom line is when you are wronged, whether or not the authority will use their resources to help you depends on the magnitude of your case ($ amount of damage, injuries, frequency, is there crime involved, etc)
Interesting. I was told it was because there were no occupants in the car rather than location of accident.

Top