Working through several recent files, I felt that the following questions and answers would be of interest:

Q. I received a citation that I chose to contest. I signed the back of the ticket and mailed it into Hamilton, Ont. court for a trial date within the 15-day period. A few weeks later we received a notice from the Ontario Attorney General’s Office that the fine had not been paid. Given that the notice said, “amount due”, we paid it. But I feel I got cheated out of my day in court. Did I?

A. In this instance I had the caller fax me a copy of the notice from the AG’s office. What they received was what is called an “Important Message”, so noted in red print at the top right. At the bottom, again in red print, was the “amount due”, with the dollar figure being the amount on the face of the offence notice that was issued. To make the notice even more threatening is reference to what can happen if you default on payment. Plenty of companies and drivers automatically think that means they owe money, so they send in a cheque. What they don’t read is the “squinty print” in the text of the message that asks the recipient to ignore this notice if the fine has been paid, asked for a trial date, etc.

Once a defendant pays the amount due, his or her request for a trial date is ignored since the payment is considered to equal a guilty plea. The monies go into the province’s general revenue.

There is the opportunity to have the matter re-opened, and in some instances it will necessitate an appeal. But the cost for this process falls to the defendant.

I’m not suggesting that the intentions and purpose of the “Important Message” notices are not well founded. In fact, in some instances they have alerted a company to an offence notice that was issued to a driver who did not turn it in. But I do take exception to the style of these notices, which to the uninitiated appears to be a demand for payment from the government. Stating in equally compelling red print that “This is not a request for payment” could clean up the notices.

Q. I recently was issued nine log charges as the result of an audit. Do you think the court would agree to minimum fines on each one if a offered a guilty plea?

A. I’d almost guarantee they’d accept that, but I’d shoot for a better deal. For nine convictions of this type, you’re looking at 45 CVOR points in total and, for argument’s sake, let’s say $2,000 in fines. If your CVOR isn’t in great shape, I’d start out asking for one driver conviction and one company conviction at $1,000 each to save points, and work from there. At the very worst, I’d suggest you should be able to have three charges withdrawn, with minimum fines on the balance. Anything less than that, and I’d go to trial on all of them.

Q. I had a couple of questions relating to my last article about one-man driver service companies charging GST. Both were of the “you’re kidding” variety, referencing the requirement to be registered for GST.

A. The rule? If you are conducting more than $30K worth of business in Canada during a year, you must be a GST registrant. This means that if you’re invoicing $1,000 a week, you must charge your customer another seven per cent and include your GST registration number.

Q. I’m a new long-haul driver and eat most of my meals on the road. My accountant tells me there is a tax guideline for transportation employees (such as truck drivers) that limits their daily deduction to about $20. I’m told that federal government employees claiming meals are entitled to around $50 per day. Is this the case?

A. Welcome to the world of different rules for government versus everyone else. While I don’t recall the precise numbers for either side, there is a limit to what you can claim as a driver. And your figures are about right. (Unless, of course, you’re a truck driver with the federal government.)

Meals are a business and entertainment expense, and therefore a 50 per cent deduction of a set per diem rate. The last time I checked the Treasury Board of Canada’s Web site, federal government employees could claim $52 per diem for meals. (That’s $46 and another $6 for “incidentals”.) And to add insult to injury, when traveling in the U.S., the daily claim for $52 is made in US funds. This subject has been debated heavily in the past, and is due for another round. The first question to the Minister of Revenue should relate to the disparity in government allowances versus business deductions. I’d love to see the business community force a Charter argument relating to the unequal and inequitable application of the law. n

– Blair Gough can be reached at 905-689-2727. The advice in this column is for information purposes only, and should not be taken as legal advice.