Is the Civil Aviation Tribunal ripping us off

[redlaser]

In the 70's if you pleaded guilty and received a low flying fee it would be $50.00, or a similar infraction such as dropping a pumpkin out of an aircraft, now the same infraction will cost you $750.00. The Aviation tribunal has become a money making machine for the government, Their main concern is not aviation safety but how much money they can squeeze out of the aviation community, Just look at the transport Canada's infrastructure, nice new buildings worth millions of dollars, Paid for by us the flying suckers. Get the picture.

[porcsord]

2 things:

1) Maybe don't do buzz jobs or throw pumpkins out of airplanes.

2)$50 in 1970 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $341.34 today, an increase of $291.34 over 51 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.84% per year between 1970 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 582.67%. So really, it's only double.

[redlaser]

I'm being generious when I say $750.00, ive seen fines of 2000$ and 3000$ for a low flight infraction, and even more for flying without a valid C of A, The Civil Aviation Tribunal must be abolished, and we should be allowed to take our alleged infractions to a normal court. The other problem is if you win the Tribunal does not compensate you for your time and expense, yet if you lose your faced with heavy fines, It's a one way business, Government ripoff.

[photofly]

The Transport Appeal Tribunal of Canada (TATC) doesn't set the fines. Those are set by the Minister, listed in CAR 101, and the policy for deciding on them is described in the Aviation Policy Enforcement Manual.

Aviation enforcement (like a lot of things) is now done as an administrative matter, rather than as a minor criminal charge. That is, when TC says you committed an offence, it doesn't at first instance need to provide any evidence or proof to any neutral party - it skips right to levying penalty it decides is appropriate.

Then, you have a statutory right to appeal to the Tribunal, but the standard of proof is only "more likely than not" that you committed the offence, and the fines and other sanctions are regarded merely as incentives to help keep you in line, not criminal penalties.

The whole approach, which appears throughout Canadian regulation across a wide range of government-regulated activities, has been approved by the Supreme Court of Canada as being in the public interest. Not necessarily in the interests of pilots - but in the interests of Canadian society as a whole.

You might have a case that Transport Canada is ripping people off.

[Schooner69A]

Photofly is right. If you've committed a transgression in the eyes of Enforcement and you've been sanctioned, you can appeal to the Tribunal for relief.

However, even if you win, all that you can expect is a reversal of the charge. There is no guarantee that you'll be awarded costs. This is one failing of the system; it costs TC nothing to charge you; if you elect to go to the CATC, it costs them nothing to bring in all their witnesses, the 'judge' (member who will hear the evidence), their lawyers, etc. You, on the other hand, better have deep pockets.

I have appeared as a witness for two appellants and while I don't know the exact figure, I would estimate their costs in the thousands.

Now, if you meet with success on the first go round, TC can appeal and that can have perverse endings...

There was a case in Quebec where and instructor shut off the engine and glided back to the airport for a landing as a demonstration for the student. Unfortunately, he taped everything and put it on the internet. TC saw it and charged him. He disagreed.

On the appeal, CATC found for TC because the pilot couldn't guarantee he could make the airport. On the subsequent appeal of that decision, it was pointed out that glider pilots did it all the time. The 'learned judges' opined that he wasn't trained for it or some such. Appeal dismissed...

[Bede]

I assume that your exercise of "taking TC to court" isn't going so well....

1) The TATC costs far more to operate than any administrative penalties that it upholds from the Minister. When you add up the salaries of the Members, lawyers, staff, etc. it's pretty pricey.
2) Why would you want a "normal court" to hear your case? The TATC is composed of Members with specialized experience. Imagine going in front of a judge and throwing out acronyms. IFR, PPL, ILS, etc. Then try to explain what they all mean and the nuances of the regulations.
3) The rules of procedure in a "normal court" are massive and make it all but certain that the unrepresented litigant will drown trying to navigate these regulations. By contrast, the Rules of the TATC are very basic.
4) The TATC can award costs against the Minister if the case is frivolous. A "normal court" cannot award costs for criminal or provincial offenses.

[photofly]

I think the main (only?) thing wrong with the TATC is the standard of proof for TC to meet is too low.

[Longtimer]

I guess the only comment should be: screw up and you pay, Do not and you will not.

[Bede]

I think the main (only?) thing wrong with the TATC is the standard of proof for TC to meet is too low.

That's the difference between a judicial body that can deprive you of your liberty (ie send you to jail) and one that cannot. The standard of proof of a balance of probabilities is the same for all civil and administrative bodies in Canada.

[photofly]

I know, and I think it's wrong.

When the resources of the state are arrayed against the resources of an individual or a company, the state should have to meet a higher bar than "balance of probabliities". I understand the SCC disagrees, but that's my opinion.

[Bede]

I know, and I think it's wrong.

When the resources of the state are arrayed against the resources of an individual or a company, the state should have to meet a higher bar than "balance of probabliities". I understand the SCC disagrees, but that's my opinion.

Thats fair.

[valleyboy]

Back in the day most everyone would choose to go to the tribunal. It was populated with some very experienced people who understood pilots. We all knew back then we would get a fair review and things from our perspective would be considered. If the tribunal found you guilty you deserved it, that simple.

Has it changed that much ??? Have the weenies taken over, you know the people who just only have black and white thinking in their repertoire.

[digits_]

I think the main (only?) thing wrong with the TATC is the standard of proof for TC to meet is too low.

That's the difference between a judicial body that can deprive you of your liberty (ie send you to jail) and one that cannot. The standard of proof of a balance of probabilities is the same for all civil and administrative bodies in Canada.

Are you saying that you can break whatever CAR and you can not be sent to jail for any of it? Illegal charters, illegal maintenance, flying death traps etc?

I guess your victims can sue you afterwards, but that can't result in jail time either, right?

[photofly]

The Minister can't send you to prison, no. Even if that's what your POI wants you to believe.

There are a bunch of criminal offences involving airplanes that can get you a prison sentence, in the Criminal Code of Canada, and a few things specified in the Aeronautics Act itself. But those involve a criminal trial in court.

[Bede]

I think the main (only?) thing wrong with the TATC is the standard of proof for TC to meet is too low.

That's the difference between a judicial body that can deprive you of your liberty (ie send you to jail) and one that cannot. The standard of proof of a balance of probabilities is the same for all civil and administrative bodies in Canada.

Are you saying that you can break whatever CAR and you can not be sent to jail for any of it? Illegal charters, illegal maintenance, flying death traps etc?

I guess your victims can sue you afterwards, but that can't result in jail time either, right?

CAR's violations, no. Aeronautics Act, yes. The maximum penalties are in the CAR's. However, I imagine the Department of Justice would file Aeronautics Act charges in a Superior Court of Justice. I don't know that for sure though.

[Bede]

Have the weenies taken over, you know the people who just only have black and white thinking in their repertoire.

No idea, but it's a good idea to regularly review the decisions and see what's going on and you can figure out how the CAR's are to be interpreted. Here's a sample:

https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... 5/index.do - TC charter breach, evidence thrown out
https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... 6/index.do - chisel charter
https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... 4/index.do - helicopter landed near restaurant, not considered negligent
https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... 4/index.do - YouTube video contravened CAR's
https://decisions.tatc.gc.ca/tatc/tatc/ ... 0/index.do - AD not complied with, penalty reduced

[redlaser]

TC hires expensive lawyers, use the " Balance of probabilities" much too often in Hearings, and have chairperson's who are not Judges but ordinary citizens, who are in most cases in TC's back pocket, Who will side with TC, I remember one case where I notified the tribunal that I couldn't make it to the hearing because of an ice storm, guess what, they proceeded without me being present, The Aviation Tribunal is a joke, and like I said before should be abolished, The Aviation Tribunal is an instrument of TC to rip us off. Just another money grab for the government.

[Tony Soprano]

TC hires expensive lawyers

No they don't. They have their own staff lawyers who are paid considerably less than what they could earn in the private sector.

use the " Balance of probabilities" much too often in Hearings

Actually they use it all the time. That's in the TATC Act.

have chairperson's who are not Judges but ordinary citizens,

Actually the chair is often a lawyer. Same profession as a judge.

who are in most cases in TC's back pocket

That's pretty inflammatory. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

I remember one case

You've been to the TATC multiple times?

[Conflicting Traffic]

TC hires expensive lawyers

No they don't. They have their own staff lawyers who are paid considerably less than what they could earn in the private sector.

They might have a lower salary, but 1) salary is not the only cost of having employees, and 2) they also have lower productivity. The actual cost per case (or cost per hour, or however you want to measure the real cost of the lawyers) is almost certainly higher than it would be in private practice.

who are in most cases in TC's back pocket

That's pretty inflammatory. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

Who provides the above mentioned salary?

At the end of the day, no matter what your thoughts on how low-cost (!?!?!) these lawyers may be, they are but one element of the governments toolkit. The whole reason the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" exists is because it is recognized that there is a gross power imbalance when private citizens have to face off against government in any adversarial system. Whether the penalties involved are loss of freedom or loss of portions of your livelihood (i.e. - fines), any standard lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt" is unconscionable.

[Tony Soprano]

Whether the penalties involved are loss of freedom or loss of portions of your livelihood (i.e. - fines), any standard lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt" is unconscionable.

The Parliament and Supreme Court of Canada would beg to differ, but hey, you're entitled to your opinion.

[stef]

Thanks for posting the links Bede. I found those very interesting.

[redlaser]

Yes, I've been to the tribunal multiple times to represent pilots that had phony charges by TC against them, I remember one case where the chairman said the pilot was guilty because TC would not have brought a case against him, So we got up and walked out of the tribunal, At the Appeal in front of 3 tribunal members I showed that the presiding tribunal member was bias, They agreed. The first tribunal member was banned as a tribunal member, Just goes to show ordinary people should not be selected as tribunal members nor X employees of TC.

[Aviatard]

Yes, I've been to the tribunal multiple times to represent pilots that had phony charges by TC against them

It would be interesting to read about these cases. The TATC has cases dating back to 1986 online. Which ones were these?

[redlaser]

Some go back to when Zita Brunet was the first tribunal chairperson, I drove her nuts, in some cases TC did not want me to cross exam their witnesses, I remember one case when she wanted to expel the TC inspector from the hearing, he was so agitated, lost his composure.

[switchflicker]

Redlaser, I'd sure like to read about these tribunals. Could you provide a link or a bit more info?
thanks