The Limitations Act and 407 ETR

I’ve been getting a lot of questions about the Superior Court ruling that took place November 4th, 2014 between 407 ETR and Ira Day. Many people feel they should be able to get their plates back because 407 ETR did not appeal the Superior Court ruling which basically told the company that they had to abide by the law like any other company.

You’ll recall that Justice Edwards ruled 407 ETR is not exempt from the Limitations Act and went on to say “There is nothing from my review of the Limitations Act nor the Highway 407 Act which would explicitly exempt the 407 ETR from Ontario’s limitation regime, nor is there anything that prescribes a separate limitation period for the toll debt. Presumptively the toll debt owed to the 407 ETR is, in my view, subject to sections 4 and 15 of the Limitations Act…In my view it would take explicit language in the 407 Act, and or an exception provided for in the Limitations Act, to give to the 407 ETR an ability to make a claim free of any limitations defense. No such language can be found in the 407 Act, nor is there any exception in the Limitations Act.”

People are frustrated because the Ministry of Transportation still honors 407 ETR’s Plate Denial requests beyond the 2 year period Justice Edwards ruled on.

This article will hopefully explain to you why that is. As many of you know, January 15th, 2015, 407 ETR went before the Supreme Court of Canada to make a case under the doctrine of Paramountcy. Essentially, this private company decided the Province of Ontario needed to be defended because they felt that the Province should be able to ignore Federal laws, if it’s in their public policy’s best interest. We all know it’s in 407 ETR’s best interest to be able to continue to ignore the rules. Nonetheless, this is the spin that went before the Supreme Court of Canada.

This is why 407 ETR didn’t bother appealing Justice Edwards’ decision. They put all their eggs in one basket. The notion was if they could get the Supreme Court Justices to agree with their delusional thinking, then it wouldn’t matter if they breeched the Bankruptcy Act, the Limitations Act or any other law as long as the Province was complicit in what they were doing. So far the Province has been complicit and the public is getting fed up with it.

One thing that always bothered me about this bold move by 407 ETR is how this private corporation felt the need to defend the Province from the public to protect some urgent principal. How arrogant!

The problem is that there is no public policy in this case that needs defending. Justice Edwards said as much in his ruling and comments made by the Supreme Court Justices at the hearing on January 15th, 2015 revealed that as well.

Basically, 407 ETR is exploiting their power by throwing money at their problems rather than addressing them.  They prefer to drag these customer service issues out rather than fix them. Not only are they spending money on court cases, trying to invent a reason for them to ignore the law, but they are also heavily investing in PR firms to come up with prestigious customer service awards to make it look like they are doing everything by the book and are without fault.  Wouldn’t it be a lot cheaper and easier to conform to the law and make changes in their operations? 407 ETR would probably tell you that it’s just wishful thinking on our part.

Incoming search terms:

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

60 Responses to “The Limitations Act and 407 ETR”

  1. TJ says:

    Dear Tammy

    Bankruptcy and the limitation act are two different animals.
    In Ontario debt is not extinguished with the passing of the 2 years. It only prevents court action to recover money owing.
    The problem with the November ruling is it allows the 407 to stall when the SOL begins to run. Basically they can choose when to put you in plate denial, and not till then does the clock start ticking. This is wrong and should have been appealed.
    What is before the Supreme court now is the principal of Fresh Start as it pertains to bankruptcy.

    Judging by the reaction of the judges that I saw the 407 is going to lose this one.

    • TJ says:

      You said the court basically told 407 they have to abide by the law like others. Completely wrong.

      The court continued to give them special powers by ruling the 2 yrs start from when they decide to put you in plate denial.
      The court gave them a blank check.

      • Tammy Flores says:

        TJ – I agree with you, however, like I said before the 407 ETR is playing a bigger game. I had a few lawyers tell me that the company would appeal Justice Edwards decision. They didn’t and the reason was because they had a bigger strategy play. Arguing Paramountcy. Yes, they are applying it to the Bankruptcy Act, however, if they are successful it will apply to any other Act as well. Essentially, they are saying if the Province is complicit in what they are doing because of their public policy, there is no conflict with the Bankruptcy Act… but there is a silent application to any other law as well. Trust me on this one.

        I’m not saying the company is right. They are delusional, but this is their strategy. That’s why they didn’t appeal Ira Day’s case. The amount of people in Plate Denial over the 2 year period is quite large.

        The positve in this is that if they lose the appeal at the Supreme Court of Canada, we can revisit the Limitations period in another case.

  2. TJ says:

    Why would 407 appeal the Day case. That is ludicrous.
    They won.

    They have an unlimited SOL.
    Your lawyers you speak of are wrong….wait and see.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      I wouldn’t say they were wrong, I would say they aren’t seeing the bigger picture. Hopefully now they understand 407’s strategy. Trust me, once the ruling comes down from the Supreme Court, we will have a better ability to “predict” the future when it comes to 407 ETR. If they lose, we will take another Limitations case to court.

  3. TJ says:

    I will say now the Supreme court will rule against 407 on the bankruptcy issue in my humble opinion. You heard their questions and saw their faces and gestures.

    Yes the limitation issue does have to be appealed as it goes against all recent case law in the last several years.

    The judged relied on the doctrine of special circumstances, which has been repeatedly denied under the new SOL.

    It is Day’s lawyers that should have appealed.

    Friday I spoke with the Office of the President of 407 re a 1300 dollar bill I received. It related to a 2001 trip for 24.00.

    I was informed 407 had no photos on file prior to 2005. They claim they do not have the hard drive space to keep them.
    By the end of our discussions they were willing to drop the bill to 156.00 dollars….why?

    • Tammy Flores says:

      I think they can see the writing is on the wall and they are trying to take away the steam this little “movement” has. Have them send you that agreement in writing if you are going to agree or else the Limitations period will start all over again if you just pay it.

  4. TJ says:

    No once a limitation period has passed…..nothing you or they do can restart it.
    Since this was back in 2001 when the SOL was 6 years it has long passed.

    An acknowledgment in writing or by partial payment must be made within the limitation period or it does not count and has no effect.

  5. TJ says:

    It is section 13.9 that makes this very clear.


    13. (1) If a person acknowledges liability in respect of a claim for payment of a liquidated sum, the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a charge on personal property or relief from enforcement of a charge on personal property, the act or omission on which the claim is based shall be deemed to have taken place on the day on which the acknowledgment was made. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 13 (1).


    (2) An acknowledgment of liability in respect of a claim for interest is an acknowledgment of liability in respect of a claim for the principal and for interest falling due after the acknowledgment is made. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 13 (2).


    (3) An acknowledgment of liability in respect of a claim to realize on or redeem collateral under a security agreement or to recover money in respect of the collateral is an acknowledgment by any other person who later comes into possession of it. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 13 (3).


    (4) A debtor’s performance of an obligation under or in respect of a security agreement is an acknowledgment by the debtor of liability in respect of a claim by the creditor for realization on the collateral under the agreement. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 13 (4).


    (5) A creditor’s acceptance of a debtor’s payment or performance of an obligation under or in respect of a security agreement is an acknowledgment by the creditor of liability in respect of a claim by the debtor for redemption of the collateral under the agreement. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 13 (5).


    (6) An acknowledgment by a trustee is an acknowledgment by any other person who is or who later becomes a trustee of the same trust. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 13 (6).

    Personal property

    (7) An acknowledgment of liability in respect of a claim to recover or enforce an equitable interest in personal property by a person in possession of it is an acknowledgment by any other person who later comes into possession of it. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 13 (7).

    Liquidated sum

    (8) Subject to subsections (9) and (10), this section applies to an acknowledgment of liability in respect of a claim for payment of a liquidated sum even though the person making the acknowledgment refuses or does not promise to pay the sum or the balance of the sum still owing. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 13 (8).

    Restricted application

    (9) This section does not apply unless the acknowledgment is made to the person with the claim, the person’s agent or an official receiver or trustee acting under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) before the expiry of the limitation period applicable to the claim. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 13 (9).


    (10) Subsections (1), (2), (3), (6) and (7) do not apply unless the acknowledgment is in writing and signed by the person making it or the person’s agent. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 13 (10).


    • Sue says:

      Hi: in 2007 I split from my relationship and found that he had racked up my 407 to 1290, we agreed in the separation he was to pay it. I have recently found out that it was never paid, I am in plate denial and the bill is now over 10,000.00 The bills were all prior to 2007. Does a statue of Limitations apply in this case? I am suing the ex for this due to our agreement, but if again he doesn’t pay, what is the consequence for me. Isn’t 7 years plate denial long enough? Prior to me knowing any of this a month ago, 407 Etr collections called me and I said we were in court, as it was not my bill. (so does that start the limitations all over again) UGHHHH I would really like to know what to do here.

      • Tammy Flores says:

        There is a case still pending on this. I will let you know how it turns out.

      • TJ says:

        As far as the debt owing….it is too old for them to collect using the courts.
        However as the law stands today they can keep you in plate denial until you pay.

        The case that tammy refers to has nothing to do with removing their right to plate denial….just when it starts.

        • Tammy Flores says:

          TJ the case I am referring to is the same case.

          • TJ says:

            Yes the Day case.
            The info I have from a inside source has told me at this point the lawyers and 407 have approached the judge just for clarification as to what constitutes Plate denial. Is it when 407 notifies the Registrar,
            Or when you actually go in for your plate around your birthday and are refused.

          • Tammy Flores says:

            Actually, I had a conversation about how the process should only take 4 months to place someone in Plate Denial. The problem is that the company views those sections in the act as a suggestion and not that they have to follow the alloted time that they “may” send out a section 16 and 22. If the company is told that they have to follow the times in those sections, then it would be 2 years after the 4 month process.

          • tj says:

            As the difference between these 2 times could be as much as 2 years.

          • TJ says:

            Your right it should be 4 mths, but they have followed the law as it does say May…not SHALL.

            The province gave them the choice.

            This Judge was not dealing with that aspect of the law….only when the SOL begins…which he still dropped the ball on.

          • Tammy Flores says:

            Perhaps, but I still feel the 407 Act is Ultra Vires because it flies in the face of the Consumer Protection Act, the Bankruptcy Insolvency Act, Limitations Act and probably a few more. The Province could choose do something about it, but refuses too. Perhaps they need to be sued as well? I will remind you of the article written by Jennifer Brown for Canadian Lawyer Magazine called “It’s Game On In Bet-The-Company Litigation”. In layman’s terms, I see the meaning behind what she wrote bascially being that 407 ETR’s lawyers are advising the company to continue to practice as they are, knowing full well in advance, that their practice is risky, but to continue in that way regardless of whether or not it is ethical or follows all the laws of Ontario and Canada as they agreed to do in the Concession Agreement they signed with the Province. They have essentially declared war on consumers. Rather than conform to the law, they are trying to change the law. This is very reprehensible behavior on their lawyers’ part and arrogant behavior on the company’s part to think they can just ignore the laws of the land they are operating a business in. Citizens should be outraged for being played!

          • TJ says:

            What this does bring up is at 4 mths they have discovered the claim and their loss. Whether they choose to exercise their right to put you in denial or not should have no bearing.
            They knew at 4 mths they were not being paid so the SOL should start then.

            All the case law says when discovered…no willy nilly additions like plate denial.

          • Tammy Flores says:

            That I agree with 100%!

  6. D Murph says:

    The MTO is not a “Collection Company” the 407ETR is Private Company not a Crown Corporation!!! and this ridiculous practice of illegal plate denial must be ended,at the Government Level, no one has a FINE of any nature according to our Laws ?
    Public Policy can be thrown out the door at this point!
    This is a matter of the 407etr, deliberately breaking the laws of the Federal and Provincial/Governments Legislated Laws and robbing us of our right as Canadians to travel freely, on our highways, in our Country!!!
    Why aren’t they being stopped???

  7. D Murph says:

    I believe these judges and political pawns of this scheme, need to be rounded up and sat down all at once to have the actual STATUTE of Limitations Act read out loud to them! As it does exist, as a fact of legislation in Canada and Ontario.
    I am positive all of these bogus debts and people in plate denial would be be purged and released from plate denial scam!
    Our Canadian! MTO/ Ministry of Transportation, needs to be released of any and all responsibilities of collecting these so called fines, on behalf of the 407etr.

  8. KR says:

    Since 2000 I have been fighting the 407. Today! I have VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    My bill was written off. My plates are no longer in denial!

    This latest legislation can actually help a lot of folks. Even with its imperfections.

  9. Tracey says:

    KR please tell us how you accomplished this. FYI its 15 years since 2000 – are you sure that it doesnt fall under the 15 year clause Ive been hearing about?

  10. NIck D says:

    Today marks two years to the day that I received my notice of plate denial. I haven’t used the highway since 2010 but have an outstanding balance (mostly interest). I’m looking for advice as to how to proceed. Any thoughts?

  11. TJ says:

    If in fact it has been 2 yrs, they can no longer win in court.
    However you will stay in plate denial until you pay.
    If they do take court action and you do not attend to advance your Affirmative Defence that the SOL has expired, they will win a default judgment for the money owing.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      TJ I am looking forward to what the Supreme Court has to say as to whether it’s a debt collection remedy or a “behavior modification” mechanism as the company suggested. Based on that it will be a spring board for the future. If anyone needs a behavior modification it is this company and their shady business practices. I have a member in our group that lost her home and was forced into bankruptcy over this exact reasoning you present. It’s beyond unfair because she couldn’t get legal representation because she couldn’t afford the retainer and was steam rolled by this multi national corporation. They deserve to hurt for that. Their behavior should NEVER be condoned and it’s about time people are equipped to defend themselves from these predators. Is my wording too strong? Believe me, I am trying to be polite about what I really think about this company.

      • TJ says:

        Was her debt over 2 yrs old, and did she go to court?

        • Tammy Flores says:

          According to her, yes and she couldn’t afford the retainer for the lawyer. I’m not sure of all the details, but it sure is a story of being bullied by a multinational.

          • TJ says:

            I do not believe it as first off there is no record of this court case and second had she raised the defence of the SOL….this issue would have been dealt with long before the DAY case. There is more to her story that she is not telling.

  12. TJ says:

    The onus is on you to present this defence.

  13. TJ says:

    If you check the court records there is in fact very few cases that the 407 has been in court re customers accounts.
    That’s why the Day case and the bankruptcy case are so important.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      OK she claims that there was a judgment made against her. I will see what I can find out.

      • TJ says:

        My guess is she either did not attend therefore a default judgment would have been rendered or she did not raise the SOL or could not because it had not passed. Still does not explain why there is no record of this case.

        Yes they do bully but even without a lawyer it is your responsibility to do some research and raise some kind of defense.
        How much was her bill that it would cause her to lose house. Something is missing.

  14. TJ says:

    In the Day case he never disputed that he was on the hwy all those times…he was simply trying to abuse the system and then rely on the SOL to beat the charges.
    Had the judge followed the existing law he would have but since he added the FROM Plate Denial Day got stung.
    Seriously in his case it was not one or two trips but many many more.
    Hard to feel sorry for him.

  15. TJ says:

    According to the Nov. 4 judgment, Day has travelled on the 407 about 3,700 times since his last payment in December 2010, racking up $13,000 in unpaid ETR fees in his Porsche 911. When the 407 ETR filed a suit against him in June 2013, his lawyers, Ronald Manes and Josh Ginsberg, argued that any outstanding bills older than two years were off limits because of the statute of limitations.

    And I am suppose to feel sorry for him…I think not.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      Which really ticks me off, because the people I advocate for aren’t even trying to game the system. I am glad this is going forward, but don’t condone that type of behavior by people that want to drive on the highway without paying.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      But then again, the message that needs to be sent to this company is that you can’t just sit on your butt and do nothing. You have to take action because the Plate Denial process is not the only thing you have in your arsenal to stop someone from driving on your highway without paying. You have to follow the rules. You have 2 years to collect. The company invested in special scanning equipment in OPP cars and denies it is to catch “toll evaders” there is a reason they are careful to say that because they know that Plate Denial is not set up as a “behavior modification” but a collection tool.

  16. TJ says:

    Exactly what are the OPP going to do if they scan a toll evader. They can do nothing if they have not broken any laws.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      Exactly the point! Why is the company investing in and equipping the OPP with any scanning abilities whatsoever? I think they know their game is up and that they have to modify their behavior, but that’s just speculation at best. I personally have no problem with them going after true toll evaders and creating an offense and a fine that will go through the default fine control centre like any other fine, but this skirting consumer protection laws has to be over.

  17. TJ says:

    Why would you like to see a private company have the ability to collect debt using a fine system .
    They should collect like any other creditor …through the courts.

    This is not a Provincial Hwy it is for now a private road.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      I don’t want that at all. If they think toll evasion needs behavior modification… I think there should be more of a threshold for them to prove. If it is strictly for collection then… follow the rules. They want to paint toll evaders like criminals not me.

  18. Ali says:

    The problem with 407 Act is that it has transferred the executive power of the government of Ontario to 407 corporation, as such, for collection of an unpaid bill, the 407 corporation Need Not to seek a judgement form the court; they can directly go to enforcement stage, and the government of Ontario is bond to enforce such collection on their behalf.

    In other words, the Government of Mike Harris has partially sold out and relinquished the executive power of the province of Ontario to a private corporation in the sales transaction of 407 to the private corporation, in other words, the province has sold out its executive power to a “Private and Foreign” entity.

    Such transition is “De Facto Null and Void”, because the power of a government is extra-patrimonial, meaning that is not salable entity: such power cannot be taken as a consideration in a sale contact; it’s like someone selling his house with his children included in a real estate transaction; children are extra-patrimonial, they cannot be bought or sold as part of a transaction. The same applies to the executive power of the government of Ontario, such power cannot be bought or sold, the executive power of the government of Ontario cannot be taken as a consideration in any sales contract.

    I hope the Supreme Court of Canada get to the bottom of the 407 problems; the mess that Mike Harris government left behind.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      You sound very smart, the kind of people I need help from. I don’t know if what you are saying is true, but it sure does sound good. I’ve been looking for an in to the whole Plate Denial process. I will run it by the lawyers and see what they say. Thanks.

      • Ali says:

        During the sales process of Highway 407, the Government of Mike Harris had to sweeten the deal to move the transaction forward, as a result, they enacted the 407 Act; the Act put the executive power of the government of Ontario behind the buyer, in other words, the government of Mike Harris surrendered its executive power to the “Foreign Buyer” to sweeten the deal.

        The 407 Act authorizes 407-Corporation to bypass the court process and directly go to the authority for enforcement, as such, 407-Corporation needs not to seek a court order, “ they can issue their own order” to the Government of Ontario for enforcement against a debtor and the government is bond to enforce such order.

        In Canada, normally, a creditor must go to court to get a court order against a debtor, and then take that court order to sheriff or a government authority ( e.g. OMT ) for enforcement.
        Whereas, the 407 Act puts the executive power of Government of Ontario under the authority of 407-Corporation, as such, an order of 407 Corporation to government of Ontario technically has the same weight and power as an Ontario court order; both mobilize the entire enforcement capabilities of the government of Ontario against a debtor: i.e. Ministry of Transportation, Police, OPP, RCMP, and all other enforcement agencies of the government goes under the authority of 407-Corporation against a debtor to collect an unpaid bill on its behalf.

        The 407 Act allows 407-Corporation to bypass the court process and issue “its own executive order” to the Government of Ontario for enforcement against a debtor, and the government is legally bond to enforce such order.
        In other words, the government of Mike Harris had surrendered its executive power to 407-Corporation (i.e. Foreign Entity) to collect the unpaid bills on its behalf.

        • Tammy Flores says:

          Interesting, so that’s how it technically works… sort of. This would apply to the Plate Denial process, however, they still have to get a court order to garnish someone’s wages and to enforce collection using the other means available to companies. The problem is WHEN they are allowed to do that. Also, the question is if Plate Denial is a collection tool OR a behavior modification as the company claims it is.

          Of course I would say this is a company like any other company and doesn’t deserve the power it thinks it has. They bought a highway without a gate and it is up to them to protect their bottom line, NOT the public. There is a public interest to make sure tolls are paid, but this company doesn’t ask for just tolls.

          I noticed something when the Default Fine Control Centre didn’t handle 407 ETR issues. What really bothers me is the lack of will, by the Province, to reign this company in. I mean, based on what you said previously, am I to surmise that it can be… for lack of a better word… rescinded?

          I spoke with the architect behind the agreement and he said that the Province can absolutely change the agreement, with zero financial consequences, even taking it back into their hands 100%. Perhaps this is what he was thinking?

          Regardless, this is what I was told. At the time, MPP Clement did not handle the sale of the interest in highway 407’s operations. A whole ministry was set up to handle this transaction and Minister of Transportation Clement kept an eye on things at a distance. A Minister without Portfolio was given responsibility for privatization. His name was Rob Sampson. I received a legal opinion from the City of Oshawa that stated regarding the 407 ETR their “powers may only be exercised in accordance with the terms and conditions of an agreement between the Minister for Privatization and the Owner.” So naturally, I start to call around to find out who the Minister for Privatization is. Guess what? There is no Ministry for Privatization.

          The cabinet position of “Minister without Portfolio with Responsibility for Privatization” was created in 1996 by the provincial government as a short-term initiative. The responsibility of administering the 407 Act was transferred under an Order in Council from the above-noted Minister to the Minister of Transportation in 1999. The position of Minister without Portfolio with Responsibility for Privatization has not existed for many years. 407’s statutory rights and obligations are independent of those of the minister charged with administering the Act. The statutory powers of a minister may be transferred to another minister, as was the case. However, this does not affect the statutory rights and obligations of 407.

          The 407 Act does allow the company a unique ability to oblige the Ministry of Transportation to withhold a person’s vehicle registration until a toll debt is paid and according to Lou Politano, the Ministry of Transportation’s Regional Director, when the 407ETR sends a claim to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, they send a security-encrypted electronic transmission that gets uploaded to the Ministry’s database. The transmission includes a unique file number for that report and details to identify the license plate number, the 407ETR Account number, the amount the company claims is owing and the date on which the company was supposed to have sent the Plate Denial Notice to their customer. Furthermore, each transmission includes a statement from the Chief Financial Officer at 407ETR certifying that 407ETR has complied with the requirements of the Act in the issuance of notices.

          What are the requirements of the Act? For one thing, Jodie Parmar, former VP of Corporate Development, Privatization Secretariat/Ontario that successfully led the $3.107 billion privatization of Highway 407 says that there are provisions in Section 19 of the 407 Act for LGIC-appointed, independent dispute arbitrators, but we know nothing about them.

          However, the 3 independent arbitrators that are LGIC appointed each and every year, have rarely been used and a consumer has NEVER been successful using them as a dispute mechanism. The company, through high paid lobbyists, have had it’s way with the Province and instead pushes everyone through their bias, 4 tiered internal process which includes an internal Ombudsman that investigates the company’s investigation that is never wrong.

          There is no transparency with respect to how much a person actually owes because often times the person never received a bill or notice prior to being told by the Ministry of Transportation that 407ETR has them in Plate Denial, despite the 407 Act saying that they have to give you notice. Also, the company will continue to add whatever interest and fees they see fit for up to 15 years even after they have used the Plate Denial process to collect. The 407 Act doesn’t give them that right. They are overstepping.

          Whatever the case, they have to do something because the company is out of control. The Hydro One billing fiasco has nothing on what this company has done to people.

          • Ali says:

            The only way out of it would be that the Supreme Court of Canada declares the 407 transaction unconstitutional and order the province of Ontario to renegotiate the sales contact with the foreign buyer.

            In a sense, Mike Harris government has traded the executive power of its government for money; but the executive power of a government cannot be traded, sold or exchanged as a consideration in a sales contact and “this is the fundamental fact” in this case.

            I hope the supreme court of Canada recognizes this fundamental fact, and nullifies the 407 contract on the ground of “unconstitutionality”, and order the province of Ontario to amend the 407 Act or renegotiate the 407 sales contact the foreign buyer.

          • Tammy Flores says:

            I just added more research I have on my previous comment. I really hope the courts will help us out of this mess. Paying your tolls is in the public interest, but allowing this company to behave as it has, is not in the public interest. I will have to do more research to fully appreciate what you are saying. It really does look like this is the best move forward.

  19. Ali says:

    the Plate Denial is a Collection Tool that no other Canadian corporation has; It’s like for instance Bell or Rogers Cable work out a deal with the federal government of Canada for “Passport Denial” if a customer defaulted to pay his Cable or Cell phone bill, such relationship between a private entity and the federal government is unconstitutional, not to mention it’s illegal.

    As to behavior modification argument; one might ask, why should a private corporation such as 407-ETR be allowed to such grandiose moral standing which motivated purely by profit objectives – going in so far as setting the standard of “Acceptable Behavior” for the people of Ontario?? – what arrogance, this is the most ridiculous argument they made and they know it too well.

  20. S.A says:

    This is a little confusing as to what’s resolved.
    Could you help please
    In 2008. I filed for bankruptcy including 407 etr at that time the bill was less than $200
    Now with interest it’s almost $3500
    Does this ruling go in my favour?
    How do I word my inquiry into the matter when I call 407 etr
    Please advise


  21. BB says:


    My husband has been in plate denial for nearly 10 years now.

    This all started as a disputed bill and has spiraled out of control. We have not used the highway since around 2001. (He paid the bills except for the disputed)

    We just bought a new car in February. Even though we told the dealership that the car would have to be registered in my name, they attempted to register in his name.

    I guess this woke up the 407. He hadn’t received a bill for years. Today he received a letter from a law firm representing the 407.

    This is what it said:

    “We are the lawyers for the 407 ETR Company Limited in the above captioned matter. As this unpaid account may have a negative effect on your personal credit rating, it is imperative that you send payment in full immediately to our office. Pursuant to section 22 of the Highway 407 Act you have been placed in “plate denial” for non-payment of tolls and charges and the registrar of Motor Vehicles will not permit you to renew your vehicle registration until you pay the amount above. Driving a vehicle without valid registration is an offence under section 7 of the Highway Traffic Act.
    We understand that every opportunity has been given to you to pay this account. Before taking any further action, we are extending you a final opportunity to satisfy this debt”

    My questions…
    Are they claiming the plate denial is new?
    Can they remove and then reinstate the plate denial to start the limitation period again?
    Can they take any action against him?
    What should he do next?

    I am wondering if this is a last ditch effort by the 407, knowing that 15 years is dangerously close.

    Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


    • TJ says:

      First …the new Limitation act did not come into effect until Jan. 2004.
      Prior to this the sol was 6 years.

      In any event that has long expired too.
      The 2 yrs from plate denial only takes effeeect as of nov 2014 when the ruling was made.

      The lawyers are just trying to take another kick at the can, but they can not win in court and they know it. They are hoping you do not.

      However they can keep him in plate denial forever as of now.

      • TJ says:

        The only “Further action they speak of is to keep him in denial.
        They can sue but can not win.

        • BB says:

          Thanks for the response. Glad to know they can’t come after us for the money.

          This next question is a little off topic but I am wondering if anyone knows…

          Can the 407 actually wreck my credit rating now for a debt that occurred 10 to 15 years ago.

          We have very good credit (we pay the people we actually owe money to.) We were hoping to keep it intact.

          Called Transunion to ask:

          Agent A: Yes a debt can be placed on the account at any time and will be on your file for 6 years from the time 407 decides to put it on file at the credit bureau. Nothing I can do about it.

          Agent B: No the debt cannot be placed on the credit bureau now because it has been more than 6 years since the last payment. This agent says if they do put something on file I can have it removed because of the age.

          Agent C: Why don’t you call the 407 and ask them?

          As you can see, my results were totally unsatisfactory. An hour on the phone and I still have no idea what the answer is.

          Does anyone have any knowledge or experience on this one?


          • TJ says:

            No they can not put a debt that is more then six years old as a trade line on your report, however they can make what is called a hard enquiry which simply means they are looking to see if you are in a position to pay on a debt and if it is worth persuing you.
            At the end of the day it has the same negative effect as other creditors can see these enquiries.

            Normally they are done as soft enquiries which no one else see but there is nothing in law as yet to stop creditors from doing this practice.

            I have been in plate denial since 2002 and there is nothing on my report at all to do with 407.

  22. CK says:

    I am wondering if anyone has any thoughts on my situation. In 2004, I had ownership & plates transferred to my name. I was rear ended, and car written off in 2006. Fast forward to July 2012…I received a letter in the mail from 407 ETR that states that I am responsible for toll charges incurred on that plate from the old owner (dating back to 2002!). Toll Charges of 283.69 + $3.00 administrative fee + $1,737.00 of interest, for a total due of $2,023.69!! Of course I nearly fainted. I called them to explain, and even offered to pay the original toll amounts, but they didn’t waiver, they wanted the full amount. I was then issued a notice of plate denial in February 2013. I have no desire to ever pay this amount, it is robbery in my opinion. I have always kept my address updated with the MTO. I don’t know why they waited for 8 years of interest to accumulate before they decided to contact me. Since then I have not been able to drive a vehile in my name. Does anyone have any insight on what my rights are? I just want this nightmare to be over. Oh and, my current balance due is now $6062.67!! LOL

    • Tammy Flores says:

      Well if the debt is from 2002 I would say you are in the clear. It’s 15 years later. At least according to their own rules.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: BlueHost Coupon | Compare CD Rates, Online Brokers and Press Release