A Call for Transportation Minister, Steven Del Duca to intervene in 407 ETR’s Billing Nightmare

The group “Stop the 407 ETR’s Abuse of Power” has been calling for the Minister of Transportation, Steven Del Duca, to intervene and hold 407 ETR accountable for not following consumer protection legislation. While the Ministry of Transportation has responded to my letter, December 9th, 2015, they didn’t address whether or not the Minister has any intentions of intervening.

In an email sent to the Ministry of Transportation dated December 2nd, 2015 I requested for the Minister of Transportation to intervene and pointed out how the company was refusing to comply with the Supreme Court of Canada’s November 13th, 2015 decision. The company is demanding that people be discharged from their Bankruptcy claim before they will release them from Plate Denial and they do not view people in a consumer proposal as qualifying under the court’s decision.

Also, pointed out in the December 2nd, 2015 letter to the Ministry, was whether or not former Minister of Transportation, Jim Bradley, intentionally lied to the public or simply didn’t know what he was saying in a Toronto Star article dated December 1st, 2009.

As pointed out in my last article, the Toronto Star article dated December 1st, 2009 quoted former Minister of Transportation, Jim Bradley, as saying, “Ontario motorists who use Highway 407 and forget to pay their bills can legally be hounded for 15 years if they don’t pay up.” Quoted directly after the Minister was 407 ETR who chimed in, also saying it “has the permission to pursue motorists for unpaid balances and add annual interest of 26.82 per cent for up to 15 years.”

In a very brief response on behalf of the current Minister of Transportation, Steven DelDuca, Peter Verok, Regional Director for the Ministry of Transportation says, “The Concession and Ground Lease Agreement requires 407 ETR to comply with all laws and regulations … We understand that 407 ETR is complying with the two decisions.”, referring to 407 ETR’s case against Ira Day, whereby Justice Edwards ruled that 407 ETR had only 2 years from the time they place someone in Plate Denial to enforce collections and the Supreme Court’s ruling that says 407 ETR has to comply with the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Hopefully the Ministry of Transportation doesn’t think that just because 407 ETR says that they are complying with the court’s decision, that it must be so. After all, they have been ignoring consumer protection laws and regulations for many years.

407 ETR is still in the driver’s seat with respects to Plate Denial. The Ministry of Transportation will not release anyone from Plate Denial unless the company says so. The Ministry of Transportation should really be in the driver’s seat and intervene because of the company’s breach of consumer protection legislation. Surely, there is enough evidence in the courts now to support the Ministry of Transportation to intervene and make the company comply with consumer protection legislation.

Deferring to the lower court’s decision in 2005, where the judge said that the Ministry of Transportation had to deny a person’s plate if the company says so, just makes the Ministry of Transportation look like it’s doing the bidding of a private corporation with no interest in the public’s concerns. The Plate Denial provision was not meant as a tool to keep people in debtor’s prison until they pay whatever usury amounts of money the company tries to extort from people.

We encourage you to reach out to the Minister and request him to intervene so we can rid ourselves of 407 ETR’s billing nightmares once and for all.

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

11 Responses to “A Call for Transportation Minister, Steven Del Duca to intervene in 407 ETR’s Billing Nightmare”

  1. MZ says:

    Good job Tammy.

    I would think that what also has to happen is that the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy has to file charges against the 407 ETR for violating the Act.

    Maybe someone currently in bankruptcy or that has finished the process could formally charge them.

    Its amazing that this continues. Citizens need to realize that these are consumer protection laws. Bankruptcy and consumer proposal is a last resort. A last line of defense against predatory lenders and institutions. It needs to be available and protected if not strengthened.

    Businesses, PPP’s, and even rigged government processes need to be held in check. Especially when we have the risk of anti-consumer and anti-citizen governments that come to power now and then.

    Anyone that is against bankruptcy protections is also against business and democracy imho.

  2. TJ says:

    A Consumer Proposal is completely different from Bankruptcy and the Supreme court ruling had nothing to do with it.
    In order for a proposal to be valid the lender must repeat must agree to the terms.
    They do not have to accept ,,that’s why it is a proposal.
    Second the 407 can hound you for the debt for the rest of your life just as any other creditor can. They just can,t use the courts to do it after 2 yrs.
    15 yrs if you have a transponder agreement between 407 and a company.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      Class Action lawyers don’t agree with you. Neither does Ira Day’s lawyers. Nor do I. We were mislead into believing this company had special privileges no other company had. It’s simply not true and soon everyone will know.

      A consumer can not be contracted into this type of arrangement re: enforce collection for 15 years on transponder accounts. Even if they were allowed, what about those without transponders? A company can contract this arrangement, but not a consumer. 407 ETR knows this but arrogantly ignores it. They think a blurb about it on their statement makes it so. It doesn’t! The other shoe will drop soon.

      You should be angered at the Ministry of Transportation’s behavior. I sure am. Why would he say something that simply isn’t true? There’s more to this than a simple statment.

      • tj says:

        If these lawyers are telling you they can not try to collect on a debt and hound you forever they are dead wrong.
        All the day ruling did is confirm the existingv2 yr limitvto use the courts to collect.

        However the judge left the door open by saying the 2years start from plate denial.

        Ontario law is clear….there is no limit as to how long a creditor can hound you.

        • Tammy Flores says:

          The proper term is “enforce collections”. Plate Denial is an enforcement mechanism according to the Supreme Court. It does not matter if a company is trying to enforce collections through the courts or Plate Denial. The spirit of the law is to prevent debtor’s prison. Anyway, a company cannot hound you forever. If there is a dispute the company has an obligation under the law to act within a certain amount of time. 2 years in fact. If they don’t, it’s a case of you snooze you loose. I don’t know where you are getting your information but you are incorrect. You couldn’t be so far from the understanding of how consumer protection laws work and why they were created.

          • TJ says:

            It is ludicrous for you to keep spouting off about debtors prison.
            That was abolished years ago that people went to jail for owing money.
            That has no bearing at all on Plate Denial…a tool OUR government granted the 407.

            How can you sit there and say that 100,000 of people are not hounded everyday for 10 year old credit card debt….what world do you live in.

            If you are going to run a site to help people then stop misleading them. In Ontario a debt is forver…it does not get extinguished. And if this is what the lawyer is telling you…run.

            Its the old saying better to be thought of as a fool then prove it with your dumb comments.

          • Tammy Flores says:

            I guess we shall see. Don’t you worry about how this site is run. It’s under control. I know I’m right and it’s not one lawyer it’s a multitude of lawyers that understand the law. I never said anything about extinguishing a debt. I merely let you know the rules of engagement. I can’t help you understand if you are willfully blind. I am responsible for what I say but not how you understand what I said.

  3. TJ says:

    Since you would have us believe you are so well versed on consumer protection law…pls …pls show us where it says a creditor can not continue to try to enforce a debt as you say after the SOL. They can call they can write they can bang on your door…..they may not get anything but they can continue to try.

    How many people get intimidated to pay something years later….quite a few.
    Because they too do not know their rights.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      There are laws with respects to the rules of engagement on debt collection. You are mistaken if you think they can harass you forever. They can not legally do that. One thing you are right about though… people do not know their rights and that is why bill collectors and bottom feeding companies get away with the harassment. I will post some things on it eventually as the cases go forward. But make no mistake. If there is a dispute between a consumer and a company over a debt there are rules of engagement and a company can find them self in hot water if they mess with someone who knows their rights.

  4. D Murph says:

    Former Minister of Transportation ,Jim Bradley is not the Supreme Court Of Canada.
    Our Canadian Laws Must be upheld.
    The Supreme Court of Canada is in a much higher Authority position, than the Lower courts of Ontario.
    The MTO is not a registered collection Company to be used by any Private Corporation.
    Last time I looked I was still in Canada.

Leave a Reply

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