GO’s fare enforcement policy has changed this year: warning, then $35 fine, and then it keeps going up from there.
From the GO website:
“Therefore, as of October 10:
- First time offenders will be issued a $35 fine, reduced from $100 to add a middle ground between warnings and large fines
- Second offences, the fine will be $50
- Third offences, a $100 fine will be issued
- Passengers with four or more offences would be automatically served a Provincial Offence Notice, with a set fine of $200.”
Corporate policy for public communications is still zero-tolerance, hence the $35 fine for first offenders on the website. A Revenue Protection officer will not get in trouble for issuing a $35 fine for someone committing a first offence, especially for occasional travellers (which is what probably happened to @egotripin). There are limited circumstances where only a warning will be issued, but it's still preferred for the officer to issue a $35 notice and have the passenger email Compliance Services because they're more able to look back on a customer's travel history vs revenue protection scrolling through on their mobile device. From what I've been told, Compliance Services will usually cancel or reduce the fine. But for public communications purposes, it's still zero tolerance to encourage compliance.
Nothing in the link you provided speaks about some kind of offline mode not allowing inspectors to validate the fare, and this tapping on with one card and trying to validate with another is not at all what's been reported.
This link was for Presto device availability, it was placed in the wrong location. This is the link regarding the TTC's request for real-time fare inspections:
Page 83 of this report under "Transactions on Devices that Do Not Upload on Day of Transaction Occurrence" speaks about readers operating while offline.
Find me any legal authority to issue a penalty notice when a fare has been factually paid. It's not any sort of stretch to claim that it is unreasonable to issue notices for fare evasion when the officer actually has no way to know whether a fare has been paid or not.
The legal basis for issuing a penalty notice (or equivalent) varies. And, saying that they have no way to know whether or not a fare was paid is a stretch. Fare Inspectors and Revenue Protection can see your contactless transaction history as long as the reader has uploaded the transaction to the central system. The
last board report indicates a 99.83% availability rate.
Administrative Penalty System
Under the administrative penalty system used by GO/UP Express for offences 1-3.
Ontario Regulation 282/10 was enacted under section 21.1 of the
Metrolinx Act 2006. Metrolinx is granted the authority to enact bylaws and collect administrative fees (fines) in accordance with those by-laws.
By-Law No. 2 section 2.24 requires persons presenting a ticket for travel (as defined in the by-law) to comply with the
PRETO Contactless Terms & Conditions. The liability section indemnifies Metrolinx for any damage, loss, expense, or inconvenience because the PRESTO contactless system is delayed or fails to process a transaction (as had happened in this case).
The Administrative Penalty System is similar to contract law. However, the process is modified by a combination of regulation and legislation to have elements of the provincial offences system.
Inspection Fare System (Contract Law)
This was the old system and is no longer used (unless the device Revenue Protection is using is operating in offline mode). This system falls under contract law. It's like how if you open a bank account, you agree to pay overdraft fees if your card is overdrawn. The
PRETO Contactless Terms & Conditions is the equivalent.
Provincial Offences System
This system is used by the TTC. It is also used by GO for repeat offenders. Provincial Offences are different from the Administrative Penalty System because persons issued with a Provincial Offence Notice can be issued a punitive penalty, and are thus entitled to a trial. Under the
Provincial Offences Act 3(2), a Provincial Offences Officer who merely believes that an offence has been committed can serve an offence notice or summons. For further clarity, an offence under the Provincial Offences Act means "an offence under an Act of the Legislature or under a regulation or by-law made under the authority of an Act of the Legislature". In this case, the two relevant acts are the
City of Toronto Act and the
Metrolinx Act. The relevant by-laws are
TTC by-law 1 and
Metrolinx by-law 2.
If Revenue Protection sees that the card is unrecognized, and they merely believe an offence has been committed, then they can write a notice under the Provincial Offences Act. Under the act, the onus is on you to prove that Revenue Protection did not believe you committed an offence and despite this, served you a notice anyways.
