Critics of a government proposal to streamline the courts system by introducing an online dispute system for provincial offences warn Ontarians would be being denied their constitutional right to justice.

Opposition is lining up against what is known as the Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPS), which is designed to simplify the process for offences under the Provincial Offences Act, including the Highway Traffic Act.

John Papadakis, a spokesperson for the Ontario AMPS Opposition Task Force, claimed at a Queen’s Park press conference Tuesday that anyone issued a ticket for various offences under the Provincial Offences Act would be presumed guilty.

“Imagine if government could erase your rights as a Canadian citizen simply by changing the word offence to monetary penalty . . . that’s what administrative monetary penalty is,” said Papadakis, who ran unsuccessfully for Toronto council last fall.

“And this is what the provincial government is trying to do in a dirty, sneaky rotten little trick by sliding this in.”

He called the proposal an “assault on your constitutional rights.”

Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur later told reporters no decision has been made.

But she did say that provincial offences take up about 17 per cent of the courts’ time, “so we wanted to look at other avenues” for dealing with parking tickets, speeding tickets and so on and “to reduce the numbers of cases that appear before the provincial court as we speak.”

Meilleur acknowledged that under AMPS, a person would not be able to appeal to the court but rather a tribunal. She also added that Supreme Court has ruled that a system like this does not run counter to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as opponents have suggested.

Christine Burke, a spokeswoman for Meilleur, said serious or criminal charges, including those that involve injury or death or likely to result in jail time, will continue to be prosecuted in the courts.

“No one will ever go to jail as the result of the AMP process,” she said, adding that anyone interested in providing their input have until tonight to do it.

Papadakis doesn’t buy it.

“Imagine you are driving along and you go through an amber light (and) a police officer pulls you over and say you went through a red light and you say ‘No, I didn’t’ and the officer writes you a ticket. Currently, you have the right to challenge the officer’s evidence, to obtain that evidence, to go before an impartial judge in a court.”

But AMP, he said, changes all of that.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“You are no longer innocent until proven guilty as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Papadakis said, adding a charged person will no longer have the opportunity to challenge the evidence against him or her.

“You will go before a municipal employee, who is clearly going to be biased. You will make your argument not on your innocence or guilty, you will make your argument on how much penalty you will pay, because you are already guilty,” he said, adding that an appeal will also be heard by a municipal employee.