Rechenberg v. South Coast BCTA Date:, 2014 BCPC 53

Citation: Rechenberg v. South Coast BCTA Date: 20140206 2014 BCPC 0053 File No: 1346163 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF A REVIEW UNDER S. 257 OF THE SOUTH COAST BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ACT BETWEEN: VERA RECHENBERG APPLICANT AND: SOUTH COAST BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF JUDICIAL JUSTICE B. L. EDWARDS Appearing in Person: Vera Rechenberg

Counsel for South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority: A.R. Westmacott, Q.C. Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: January 24, 2014 Date of Judgment: February 6, 2014 A Corrigendum was released by the Court on April 8, 2014.

The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is appended to this document. [ 1 ] This case was heard as the second of four reviews that were the first such reviews to be heard by this Court under s. 257 of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act and the Regulations thereto of a referral by a disputant of an Arbitrator’s decision. The decisions in all four cases will be released together.

BACKGROUND: [ 2 ] On January 22, 2013, an employee of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority (“TransLink”) issued Vera Rechenberg, Fare Infraction Notice F025566 for failure to produce proof of payment of fare under s. 244(2) of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act (the “Act”). The location of the infraction was indicated on the ticket as at or on “Sky train” and at or near “Braid Station, New Westminster”, B.C.

The ticketed amount of the fine noted on the Fare Infraction Notice for this infraction is $173. [ 3 ] The ticket also indicates a BC driver’s licence number for Ms. Rechenberg and indicates her date of birth (she would have been 31 years old at the time of the Fare Infraction Notice). [ 4 ] On February 3, 2013, Ms. Rechenberg filed a Notice of Dispute with TransLink, together with a copy of the Fare Infraction Notice and a document entitled “Facts of the Case - Honest Mistake”, challenging the ticket. On the Notice of Dispute Form Ms. Rechenberg selected as her grounds for dispute - s. 251(1)(

c) of the Act, which the form stated as 251 (1) (

c) any other ground for cancellation set out in the fare collection bylaw (note: the bylaw does not contain additional grounds for the dispute process [ 5 ] In the document entitled “Facts of the Case- Honest Mistake”, Ms.

Rechenberg acknowledges failing to validate her ticket but argues that: a. it was an “honest mistake” due to a change in routine for her that had her taking the sky train when she was not familiar with the process to validate the ticket at the SkyTrain as compared to the bus, (her normal mode of transit); b. the layout of the stations contributes to passengers failing to validate their tickets - i.e. that the validation machines are “small and mostly not obvious”; there are no barriers, and open stations. c. the fine is disproportionate to the “simple error that does not harm anyone” [ 6 ] Finally, Ms.

Rechenberg asks in her “Facts of the Case” document, that the fine be dropped or reduced or that she be permitted to perform a form of community work service in lieu of payment. [ 7 ] Ms. Rechenberg appends to her Dispute Form copies of various “one zone”, “two zone” and “three zone” fare saver tickets which she validated in November, December and January (there is no year noted in the validation stamp but Ms.

Rechenberg claims that the fare saver tickets were used in November, December and January 2012 (I presume she meant to say January 2013 as she refers to these tickets being used up until the date of the Infraction Notice). The tickets have a value of between $2.50 and $5.00 (depending on the fare saver ticket). [ 8 ] On February 6, 2013, Terry Robins, Supervisor, Fare Infraction and Dispute Services sent Ms. Rechenberg a “Fare Infraction Notice of Dispute Decision” letter on TransLink letterhead (“the Decision Letter”).

[ 9 ] The Decision letter advised Ms. Rechenberg that an unidentified “Dispute Screening Representative " had reviewed the fare infraction ticket issued to Ms. Rechenberg and that the “outcome” of the review was that “this fare infraction ticket has been confirmed and you are responsible for paying the ticketed amount”. [ 10 ] The Decision Letter further advised Ms.

Rechenberg that it was her responsibility to check her ticket to make sure that she had valid proof of payment “when on the system or in a fare paid zone” and that this requirement was noted on the reverse side of each fare saver ticket as well as on the front cover of the book of tickets. [ 11 ] The Decision Letter then advised Ms.

Rechenberg that as per “the Transportation Authority Act” a FareSaver must be validated in the fare box when boarding a bus or in a ticket validation unit prior to boarding a Sea Bus or Sky Train or “otherwise entering a Fare Paid Zone” and that the validated FareSaver must then be retained as Proof of Payment and presented to a Transit Employee upon request.

She was advised that she had failed to present this proof when asked to do so. [ 12 ] The Decision Letter then indicated that this “tariff” could be viewed on TransLink’s website (a link was provided to the website) and the letter, then, advised of her right to appeal and how to exercise that right. [ 13 ] Ms. Rechenberg filed a “Fare Infraction- Notice of Appeal” form which purports to be dated “March 7, 2012”. In the November 5, 2013 Affidavit of Terry Robins, TransLink refers to this Notice of Appeal as having been filed by Ms.

Rechenberg on March 7, 2013 which I take as the correct date for the purposes of this Review. [ 14 ] Ms. Rechenberg appended to her Notice of Appeal an undated document entitled “Facts of the Case - Honest Mistake” which is not the same document that was appended to the Notice of Dispute and which contains different information than in the Notice of Dispute. I will refer to this document as “Facts of the Case - Appeal”. [ 15 ] Also appended to the Notice of Appeal photocopies of what appear to be monthly Fare Cards for TransLink.

Those which are legible appear to read “Jan 2012”, Jun 2012” “Aug 2012” Jul 2012” “Oct 2012”. Ms. Rechenberg indicates in her “Facts of the Case” document that “I am using public transit on a regular basis to go to work and normally I have a monthly bus ticket (mostly 2 zones), see attached evidence. [ 16 ] Ms. Rechenberg indicated in her “Facts of the Case - Appeal” that in the country where she was born, that a Fare Paid Zone is a line which means “you have to pay before, because afterwards there is no way to pay or validate, so you have to go back”. [ 17 ] Ms.

Rechenberg stated that she switched from monthly bus tickets to purchasing 10 booklet tickets in November and December 2012 and January 2013, in part because she was on vacation in November and December and, in part, because she “used more often the car or was dropped off/picked up from my partner” and therefore “had a lot of invalidated tickets remaining in January” which she wanted to use before purchasing a monthly pass again in February. [ 18 ] Ms.

Rechenberg stressed that her normal routine is to take a bus, on which she validates her ticket, then the Sky Train, followed by another bus, in order to get to her work. She noted that she needed a validated ticket to get on the bus so it would not make sense for her to, intentionally, fail to validate her ticket on the Sky Train.

She claimed to have made an “honest mistake” and again requested that the fine be “dropped or reduced” or that she be permitted to do “social service” in lieu of paying the fine. [ 19 ] On March 28, 2013 an unknown Arbitrator, whose initials are typed onto the form as “JS” completed a Fare Infraction Appeal - Arbitrator’s Decision in which he or she confirmed the Fare Infraction Ticket issued to Ms.

Rechenberg. [ 20 ] This form allows an Arbitrator to simply check options indicating whether the Arbitrator : - requested any additional information from the Disputant or TransLink(here the “No” options were selected for both the Disputant and TransLink) - decided to confirm or cancel the ticket (here the “confirmed” option was selected) - considered any provisions of the Act or bylaw (no reference is made to any legislative authority for the Arbitrator’s decision) - considered information set out in the Notice of Appeal; Notice of Decision; Dispute Form, or the Ticket [ 21 ] There is no reference in the decision to any of the submissions of Ms.

Rechenberg contained in the two separate documents entitled “Facts of the Case - Honest Mistake of Fact”; neither the Dispute version nor the Appeal version is mentioned. [ 22 ] The Arbitrator’s “Reasons for Decision” are extremely brief and simply make one statement and then offer a comment regarding his/her inability to reduce the amount of the fine or cancel the ticket: It is unfortunate that the disputant forgot to validate their ticket. The Arbitrator has no authority to reduce or cancel the ticket.

[ 23 ] In a Referral for Review Form, signed by Ms. Rechenberg on April 22, 2013, she stated that the basis for her request for a judicial review of the Arbitrator’s decision is “Other - Honest Mistake” and she appended a copy of the Fare Infraction Ticket, the Arbitrator’s Decision and copies of her “Honest Mistake” documents (both the Dispute and Appeal versions). [ 24 ] In further support of her referral, Ms.

Rechenberg filed an Affidavit, sworn April 25, 2013, in which she noted that she had unintentionally entered the fare paid zone due to a change in her routine; that she connected the term “Fare Paid Zone” with entering a TransLink vehicle (bus) or the Sky Train itself due to there being open gates and because she was "born and raised in a country where this is the case”; and that the layout of the station itself is not clear and that, in her view, TransLink had acknowledged this by installing fare gates. Ms.

Rechenberg appended a CBC news article, posted online on January 24, 2013 (two days after she was issued the ticket at issue here) regarding the installation of these gates. [ 25 ] On November 5, 2013, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority, (which operates as “TransLink” and has referred to itself as such throughout the process until this point), filed a Response to Referral claiming that the Disputant’s Referral for Review was not supportable because the Disputant had failed to produce proof of payment for inspection while in a fare paid zone and because the Arbitrator had “properly confirmed the ticket on the basis that none of the permitted grounds for dispute set out in s. 253 of the SCBCTA Act were applicable”. [ 26 ] On November 13, 2013, Judicial Justice Edwards considered the Referral for Review filed by Ms.

Rechenberg and the Response to the Referral of TransLink and held that: The Arbitrator has failed to indicate whether he or she considered the evidence of Ms. Rechenberg and satisfied him or herself that the alleged infraction occurred. Further, the Arbitrator has failed to address whether the ticket properly complies with the requirements of s. 249 of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act. Given the differing versions of events provided in the sworn affidavit of Ms.

Rechenberg and in the statements which she provided to the Arbitrator and to the Authority when the ticket was first issued, and given the complete lack of any evidence by the Authority as to the circumstances leading up to the ticket being issued by the Fare Officer, I cannot confirm the ticket without hearing further evidence.” [ 27 ] The matter was set for hearing on January 24, 2014. FURTHER FACTS THAT EMERGED FROM THE HEARING: [ 28 ] At the hearing Ms.

Rechenberg testified that she did not see the line for the Fare Paid Zone and that when stopped she told the officer that she had forgot to validate her ticket but he told her that it was “too late” and she was fined. [ 29 ] On Cross-Examination by counsel for TransLink, Ms. Rechenberg that she had used a ticket from her booklet of 10 tickets, that she knew that the booklet indicated on the front of the booklet of tickets that the tickets had to be validated and that condition #4 on the reverse of each ticket also indicated that the ticket had to be validated. [ 30 ] Ms.

Rechenberg agreed with the suggestion put to her by counsel that she was not disputing that a ticket needs to be validated and that she had not validated her ticket on the date in question and, further, that her real issue was that she thought the amount of the fine was unfair. [ 31 ] Cst. Meldrun testified that on January 22, 2013 at 7pm he was on duty and in uniform for the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Police and that he was conducting “fare checks” at the top of the escalator leading to the outbound/east platform at the Braid Station of the Sky Train. [ 32 ] Cst.

Meldrun testified that he stopped Ms. Rechenberg and that she produced a one zone fare ticket. He stated that Fare Saver tickets are available in booklets of 10 tickets and that each ticket must be validated or it is “like a blank cheque”. [ 33 ] Cst. Meldrun further testified that the Fare Paid Zone at this particular station is marked by "big yellow tiles at the bottom of the escalator" and a "big sign above the escalator". [ 34 ] Under cross-examination Cst. Meldrun stated that he was relying on his notes from the day in question when he indicated that Ms.

Rechenberg had produced an unvalidated ticket when asked for proof of payment. [ 35 ] Cst. Meldrun added that his notes indicated that Ms. Rechenberg had stated to him that she was “in a hurry to catch the train” as her reason for not validating the ticket. [ 36 ] Counsel for TransLink asked that I refer to the Book of Authorities and written submission which she had filed in a review heard earlier the same day as the hearing of this matter and for which reasons will be issued simultaneous to this matter, i.e. the Wadolowski review, Vancouver Registry 1345833.

In Wadolowski , the Court agreed to accept the Book of Authorities and the written Submission for TransLink as generally applicable to all of the reviews under s. 257 of the Act set before the Court on January 24, 2014.

[ 37 ] Counsel for TransLink, summarized the case law with respect to role of the Court on review and the standard of review, arguing that the standard is “reasonableness” and that, in this case, the Arbitrator’s decision was a reasonable one based on the information available to him/her at the time. [ 38 ] Further, TransLink's submission was that the evidence at the hearing was that Ms. Rechenberg did not dispute that the ticket that she produced for proof of payment to Cst.

Meldrun was not validated and that “honest mistake” was not a ground for cancelling the ticket. [ 39 ] Finally, TransLink referred the Court to South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Bylaw Number 81-2012, effective January 1, 2013 (the “Tariff”), Appendix #2 which identifies the various “Fares” and forms of “Proof of Payment” for differing modes of transit that were applicable on the date in question. The Table in the Tariff at p. 23 provides that a Fare Saver - Adult ticket may be used as Proof of Payment on “Conventional Transit” if the Purchaser displays a Fare Saver “that has been validated”.

THE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME APPLICABLE TO FARE INFRACTION REVIEWS: [ 40 ]

Part 12 of the Act sets out the procedure for “Fare Recovery” by TransLink [ 41 ]

Section 244 sets out the requirement for persons entering a fare paid zone or boarding a transit vehicle that is not in a “fare paid zone” to pay the fare required by the tariff, obtain proof of payment that the fare was paid or the requirement for payment was satisfied in a manner authorized by the fare collection bylaws, and produce that proof of payment at the request of a transit employee. 244(1) A person entering a fare paid zone or boarding a transit vehicle that is not in a fare paid zone must (

a) pay the fare required by tariff or satisfy the requirement for that payment in any other manner authorized by the fare collection bylaw, and (

b) obtain the proof of payment required by the fare collection bylaw, if any, that (

i) the fare was paid, or (ii) the requirement for its payment was satisfied in a manner authorized by the fare collection bylaw. 244(2) A person must, while in a fare paid zone or a transit vehicle that is not in a fare paid zone, retain the proof of payment, if any, required under subsection (1)(

b) and produce it for inspection at the request of a transit employee. [ 42 ] Fare Collection Regulation , B.C. Reg. 190/2012 came into force on September 4, 2012 and was the first fare collection bylaw passed. It provided detail, in

section 10, as to what was needed in order to comply with section 244(1)(

b) of the Act. In other words, the bylaw set out what was needed to constitute “proof of payment” of a fare. [ 43 ] To comply with section 244(1)(

b) of the Act in relation to a fare, a person must (

a) obtain and retain any receipt issued by the authority or a related party for the payment of that fare, (

b) if a pass that is valid for the application to the fare is used, retain the pass, or (

c) if under the tariff another form of payment is authorized and that other form of payment is issued, retain that form of payment and obtain and retain (

i) any receipt issued by the authority or a related party, and (ii) any record in the person’s power or control, whether in electronic from or otherwise, that confirms that the form of payment was used in payment of the fare.

[ 44 ]

Section 243 of the Act defines “fare”, “fare paid zone” and “tariff” as follows 243 In this part: “fare” means a user fee established under section 29(2) “fare officer” means a transit employee who is employed or retained as a fare officer by, or with the authorization of, the authority, and includes a member of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Police Service “fare paid zone” means any transit facility or service to which access is restricted by sign to those persons who have (

a) paid the fare required by the tariff for that access, or (

b) otherwise satisfied the requirement for that payment in any other manner authorized by the fare collection bylaw; “tariff” means the applicable fare structure from time to time established by the authority [ 45 ] South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Bylaw Number 81-2012, effective January 1, 2013 sets out the “tariff” or fare for a variety of different modes of transit at various times.

As the Court noted in Wadolowski , supra , the Act itself together with all of the applicable bylaws, is not reading for the faint of heart and is certainly not easily understandable by the average member of the public who might ride the transit system. It must be especially bewildering for those immigrating to Canada from a country where transit is operated in a very different manner. Ms. Rechenberg has clearly identified herself as such a person. [ 46 ] First, the reader must read the definition

section to try to determine which of the Appendices is applicable. There is a definition provided for “Sky Train” which includes the Expo Line, Millenium Line and Canada Line.

However, at page 4 of the Tariff Bylaw there is a definition for “Conventional Transit” which is defined as: Transit service provided by or on behalf of TransLink in the Transportation Service Region, except WCE Service, Handy DART service and Canada Line service between Bridgeport and Templeton Stations The rider is expected to know that this definition means that a bus or Sky train that is not operating between the Bridgeport and Templeton stations is considered to be “Conventional Transit”. [ 47 ] If the reader has safely navigated the Tariff Bylaw to this point, then she must locate “Appendix “2” - Fares and Proof of Payment/ Table “1” Cash Fares and Proof of Payment” which provides for Proof Of Payment or Cash Fare.

One form of acceptable Proof of Payment is listed under various headings as: “Fare Saver- Adult/FareSaver**(90 min. from validation, except Bowen Island (110 min. from validation) [ 48 ] The reader is expected to also read “Appendix “I” Fare Zones” (which confusingly has the header “Appendix 1” ) which lists under the sub-heading “Conventional Transit” a series of “Zones” with descriptors that include the names of districts, cities and locations described only by vague terminology which may be understandable to a bus driver or TransLink administrator but likely few others.

The West Coast Express Fare Zone Map has the Fare Zones, described in words, coloured and numbered and is quite illustrative. There is also a map for HandyDart which describes zones differently. There is a coloured map for “Conventional transit” which has the zones coloured but no code associating the colour with any particular number. I note this because the maps and lists are meant to guide the reader to understanding the applicable fare that must be paid for any particular form of transit. DISCUSSION: [ 49 ] Ms.

Rechenberg successfully navigated the legal maze that governs users of transit services offered by TransLink in the Lower Mainland. She understood that if she wished to use a Fare Saver Ticket to pay for her fare that she must have the ticket validated before entering a Fare Paid Zone.

[50] This case before the Arbitrator was to determine whether Ms. Rechenberg had been properly issued a ticket for failing toproduce proof of payment to a transit employee on request while in a Fare Paid Zone as required by s. 244 of the Act. The Arbitratorconcluded that Ms. Rechenberg forgot to validate her ticket and that the ticket should be confirmed. [51] This Court has been tasked under the Fare Infraction Review Referral Regulation with reviewing the Arbitrator’s decision. STANDARD OF REVIEW: [52] The law is settled that there are only two common law standards of review: correctness and reasonableness.

See e.g. Dunsmuirv. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9; Smith v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd., 2011 SCC 7; Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2011 SCC 61. [53] The standard of “correctness” applies to constitutional issues; questions of “general law” that are both of import to the legalsystem as a whole and outside of the adjudicator’s specialized area of expertise; the drawing of jurisdictional lines between twospecialized tribunals and true questions of jurisdiction or vires: Smith, supra at para 26. [54] The reasonableness standard is to be applied to issues involving the

interpretation of a tribunal’s enabling statute or statutesclosely connected to its function; issues of fact, discretion or police, or issues involving inextricably intertwined issues of law and fact:Smith, supra at para 26. [55] Reviewing courts are to give deference to the decisions of tribunals and statutory decision-makers when they are decidingmatters within their own expertise or when they are interpreting their own statute: Alberta Teachers’ Association, supra at para. 34 orwhen deciding questions of mixed fact and law: Dunsmuir v.

New Brunswick, supra. [56] The decision of an arbitrator under the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act is a question of mixed factand law and involves the

interpretation of the “home” statute of both the Arbitrator and TransLink and must, therefore, be accordedsufficient deference by this Court. [57] If, therefore, the Arbitrator’s decision “falls within a range of possible acceptable outcomes that are defensible in respect of thefacts and the law” as established by the record before me, and the evidence admitted at the hearing, then the decision must be consideredto be a “reasonable” one”: Dunsmuir, supra at para. 47. [58] The difficulty in this case lies with the Reasons for Decision issued by the Arbitrator.

Those Reasons simply were not adequateto permit a review of their reasonableness. [59] In Wadolowski, supra, this Court followed the test for reviewing courts when considering the adequacy of reasons given by anadministrative tribunal as identified by the Federal Court of Appeal in Vancouver International Airport Authority v.

Public ServiceAlliance of Canada, 2010 FCA 158 , where the Court summarized the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in Dunsmuirand Lake. [60] In Vancouver International Airport Authority, the Court identified the purpose of Reasons for Decision as: [13] These purposes include “fairness to the parties” and “justification, transparency and intelligibility”: Baker,supra at paragraph 43; Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 , [2008] 1 S.C.R.190 at paragraph47. In the area of Ministerial discretion in the extradition context, the Supreme Court in Lake v.

Canada, 2008 SCC 23 , [2008]1 S.C.R. 761 at paragraph 46 has emphasized that the reasons must inform the parties why the result was reached.

They mustalso make it possible for the supervising court to review the decision. [14] Our Court has held that reasons in the administrative law context must provide an assurance to the parties that theirsubmissions have been considered, enable the reviewing court to conduct a meaningful review, and be transparent so thatregulatees can receive guidance: Canadian Association of Broadcasters, supra at paragraph 11; VIA Rail Canada Inc., supra at paragraphs 17 to 22. [15] In the area of criminal law, the Supreme Court has more fully developed the purposes underlying the giving ofreasons.

These should not be imported uncritically into the administrative law area, as the two areas haveimportant differences. Nevertheless, there is some overlap with the purposes and functions identified above.Enough information must be given so parties can assess whether or not to exercise their rights of review,the supervising court can review what has been done, and the public can scrutinize what has happened:Sheppard, supra at paragraphs 15 and 24; R.E.M., supra. [61] The bald assertion that Ms.

Rechenberg failed to provide proof of payment provides no rationale for why the decision wasreached nor does it even hint at the thinking process that occurred. It makes it impossible for this Court, in a supervisory role tomeaningfully review the decision. [62] The Reasons for Decision clearly fail to provide enough information for Ms. Rechenberg to assess whether she had been treatedfairly, or indeed whether any of her submissions were considered. Similarly, the reasons do not afford the opportunity for a member ofthe public, reading the decision, to understand the rationale for the outcome.

Accordingly, the reasons cannot be said to be “reasonable”. [63] There is simply no evidence in the Arbitrator’s Reasons for Decision to support TransLink's assertion in its Response to theReferral that the Arbitrator "properly confirmed the ticket on the basis that none of the permitted grounds for dispute set out in s. 253 ofthe SCBCTA Act were applicable”. In fact, there is no evidence in the Arbitrator’s Reasons for Decision that the Arbitrator reviewed thelegislative scheme at all, or that the submissions made by Ms.

Rechenberg were given any weight. [64] That would be the end of the matter but for the fact that the legislature has provided not just for a review of the record by theCourt, but has further provided in the Fare Infraction Review Regulation, OIC 88/2013, s. 7 that the Court may receive “additional

evidence” at a hearing to determine whether there are grounds to justify cancelling the ticket. [ 65 ] This Court had the benefit of hearing from the officer who issued the Fare Infraction Ticket to Ms. Rechenberg as well as from Ms. Rechenberg, herself. The Arbitrator did not have that opportunity, or rather, did not seek any further information from the Officer or from Ms. Rechenberg. [ 66 ] While Ms.

Rechenberg has offered a variety of reasons for failing to validate her ticket at the “Dispute” and “Appeal” stages of the process, I accept her evidence at the hearing and in her closing argument to this Court that she made an “honest mistake” and that she “never tried to say I didn’t do it”.

She candidly acknowledged under cross-examination that she knew she had to validate her FareSaver ticket, that she had forgotten to do so and that this, in her view, amounted simply to an honest mistake for which she thought the amount of the fine was “unfair”. [ 67 ] In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that while Ms. Rechenberg may not have intentionally neglected to validate her ticket on January 22, 2013, she, nevertheless, failed to produce proof of payment for inspection at the request of a transit employee while in a Fare Paid Zone contrary to s. 244(2) of the Act.

That failure forms the basis for an infraction under s.247 of the Act and Cst. Meldrun was entitled to exercise his discretion to issue her a ticket for that infraction. I am further satisfied that the Fare Infraction Notice that Ms. Rechenberg was given by Cst. Meldrun met the requirements of s. 249 of the Act. [ 68 ] As a result, I am confirming the ticket under s. 13(

a) of the Fare Infraction Review Regulation . AMOUNT OF THE FINE: [ 69 ] Ms.

Rechenberg has pleaded with TransLink, the Arbitrator and with this Court to cancel the ticket, reduce the amount of the fine or permit her to perform a type of community service in lieu of payment of the fine. [ 70 ] The Legislature made no provision under the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act or the Regulations under it, for the ticketed amount on a Fare Infraction Notice to be reduced by TransLink, an Arbitrator or the Court even in cases where the imposition of the $173 fine might result in an undue hardship. [ 71 ] This apparent oversight is particularly glaring given that the users of the transit system in the Lower Mainland, as in many urban centres, include significant numbers of youth, students, the disabled, new immigrants and low-income workers for whom the fine of $173 for failure to provide proof of payment of a fare amount of less than $5 might result in a very real hardship. [ 72 ] The fine for “failure to produce” under the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act strikes the Court as particularly harsh when considered in the context of fines under the Motor Vehicle Act , a statute who has as its purpose governing the conduct of drivers and ensuring public safety on the roads.

For example. failing to stop at a red light draws a fine of $167 under the Motor Vehicle Act ; speeding attracts a fine of $138; failure to produce a driver’s licence has an $81 fine, etc. All of these fines are less than that imposed on transit riders. [ 73 ] Having said all of the above, given the limits of this Court’s jurisdiction under the Fare Infraction Review Referral Regulation , and given that this Court has confirmed the ticket under s. 13(

a) of the Regulation; I find that this Court has no jurisdiction to reduce the amount of the fine from the ticketed amount. I order that Ms. Rechenberg pay the fine in the amount of $173 by December 31, 2016. B.L. Edwards Judicial Justice CORRIGENDUM - Released April 8, 2014 In the Reasons for Judgment dated February 6, 2014, the following change has been made. [ 74 ] On page 3, paragraph 9, the Applicant was incorrectly referred to as Ms. Wadolowski. The paragraph should now read as follows: The Decision letter advised Ms.

Rechenberg that an unidentified “Dispute Screening Representative " had reviewed the fare infraction ticket issued to Ms. Rechenberg and that the “outcome” of the review was that “this fare infraction ticket has been confirmed and you are responsible for paying the ticketed amount”.