by BRIAN LOCKHART
A Norfolk County farmer plans to fight provincial convictions concerning a pick-up truck he's modified for farm use and is appealing to farm groups for help.
On April 1, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld seven convictions against Peter VanBerlo under the Highway Traffic Act and added two more under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.
VanBerlo insists his vehicle met Ministry of Transportation requirements relating to a “self-propelled implement of husbandry.”
The Ministry of Transportation charged VanBerlo under the two Acts after officials stopped his modified pick-up truck in August 2006. The truck was towing irrigation pipes. One of VanBerlo’s employees was driving. Charges included not having plates on a vehicle and not having insurance.
The original 2008 Ontario Court of Justice decision resulted in convictions for VanBerlo for the seven charges under the Highway Traffic Act but acquitted him of the two counts under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act. The April 2010 decision upheld the Highway Traffic Act charges and added convictions for the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act charges.
Court of Appeal judges ruled that the vehicle “is a pick-up truck which is now better able to be used in farm fields for farm tasks but it is still fully capable of being operated on a highway.”
The court’s written decision acknowledges a provision under the Highway Traffic Act that permits “self-propelled implement of husbandry,” but rules that VanBerlo’s vehicle “never lost its true character of being a pick-up truck.”
Had they found the truck to be a farm husbandry vehicle, none of the charges would apply, VanBerlo says.
The modifications on the 1976 model truck, VanBerlo says, were “obviously intended to create a working farm vehicle.”
He says he spent $16,000 to adapt it for transporting farm equipment. The modifications included a diesel engine, heavy-duty hitch, large tread snow tires, and conversion to four-wheel drive.
“Who in their right mind would take a 30-year-old vehicle and put $16,000 into it if they weren’t building it for a specific use? And I tried to explain that to them (ministry officials).”
VanBerlo says he checked farm regulations before modifying the truck so he would comply with regulations. But most of the changes were under the hood and ministry officers did not look under the hood.
If they make a law and give you the guidelines and you follow them with good intentions, “how can they turn around and fine you when they don’t understand what you did?” he asks.
The Ontario Ministry of Transportation has published a guide for farm vehicles on the highway that defines farm equipment rules.
“If someone is using a vehicle but they are wondering if they can use it on the road for other purposes without a license, they should definitely consult that guide,” says John Goudy, a lawyer with Cohen Highley LLP in London, Ontario.
If they aren’t satisfied after reading the guide that they are in compliance with the Act, Goudy recommends calling the Ministry.
VanBerlo says his fight isn’t over, and it’s not just about the fines, which, combined, amount to thousands of dollars. He’s also racked up $30,000 in legal fees.
He calls the convictions “totally unreasonable.”
He has appealed to several groups including the Ontario Federation of Agriculture for help.
“I’m disappointed in the courts,” he says. BF
Comments
For $16,000 in conversion costs, and $30,000 in legal fees, he could have bought a completely-roadworthy vehicle, and never had the problem in the first place.
If it looks like a truck, it's a truck - I have no sympathy for people who soup up engines and drive trains, yet can't justify doing the sort of safety compliance every body else has to to.
Pardon me for thinking "totally unreasonable" describes what he sees in his mirror.
I too have recently had a run in with the MTO.It was in regards to my so called ``non slow moving vehicle`` A pickup truck that is used solely for farm work i.e picking up and dropping off farm workers, a service vehicle for my tractors and implements when in field and to deliver farm supplies to and from multiple farms which my father owns or i contract work for. And like you i have only made modifications which were mechanical upgrades. the upgrades that actually make it better suited to farm work. I really am upset that because i didnt chop the vehicle down, which actually would make it worse like cutting off the roof or removing the cargo box or even taking the doors off i am being charged. just think; your in the field and it starts raining so u sit in your farm vehicle and put your supplies inside to keep dry but wait theres no roof. or u have to drive some migrant workers to another farm but now have to make multiple trips because u no longer have safe seating for all. wheres the justice and to say i have to have full plates and insurance on a vehicle that might see the road once a week is just a money grab. Thanx so much for all your support MTO and Canadian government, its nice to know your helpin us farmers out oh and i was on a dirt road doing 40kmh when i was charged.
The "Government" is hellbent on destroying the farmers in Ontario. They prefer the "imports" of fruits and vegetable from poor countries and let the Canadian Framers starve to death and leave the farms! It's a sad day for farmers and it's just the beginning of the war on farmers !
Post new comment