Fining the penniless
When I met Gerry Williams, he looked like he was only just then learning to stand upright. It had been a long time since he’d walked t all, and i t showed. But on Monday, Ontario Justice Katrina Mulligan gave him reason to stand tall by wiping out the $ 65,000 in fines he had amassed during his nine years living on the street — the aggregate penalty for 430 minor infractions, such as public intoxication, loitering and littering. Instead, he will serve two years’ probation and complete 156 hours of community service.
Although our organization, Fair Change, won this battle, we are far from winning the war. There are hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people in Toronto just like Williams: present and formerly homeless people who owe thousands of dollars in tickets. These unpaid tickets prevent them from getting drivers’ licences and tank their credit score, thus making it more difficult for them to get jobs and housing, in order to climb out of the gutter.
Williams’ case isn’t even the biggest we’ve seen — not even close: we recently come across a poor soul who owes close to $300,000.
This is a problem. Reasonable people can disagree about what the better alternative is, but everyone in the know agrees that monetary punishments are meaningless to people without money, until they have money ( by which time they are no longer panhandling, littering or otherwise offending). Street tickets don’t deter street people. Finding a solution to this problem is difficult, though urgently needed.
The other problem is the preposterous system of needlessly cumbersome courthouse filing processes that people like Williams must successfully navigate before getting in front of a j udge and begging f or mercy. It took 15 months, 15 people and well over 100 hours of work just to help Williams. It was the l argest case we had ever taken on. In fact, as far as anyone knows, it was the largest appeal of street tickets in Toronto’s history; so monstrous that when we tried to file the requisite paperwork — just shy of 1,500 pages ( three forms per offence, plus affidavits) — the Old City Hall appeals administration office refused the filing. It simply didn’t have the human resources to process an appeal as large as Williams’.
This prompted a l ong series of meetings between Fair Change founder Joanna Nefs and officials to develop a workable alternative filing option. These meetings led to Fair Change being allowed to file one set of paperwork for all 430 of Williams’ tickets, with an attached spreadsheet (a task we were able to complete in only a few hours). It was also suggested to us that this was not a one- time exception; that this would be the new process for all mass- ticket appeals moving forward.
Unfortunately, Old City Hall is resisting the change. It’s unclear whether this is due to miscommunication, misfeasance or simply a glacially slow pace of change (in which case the resistance will be temporary). What is clear, though, is that Williams’ appeal didn’t require three forms for each ticket and 100- plus hours of volunteer time. And therefore no one’s does. While everyone wrestles with how they feel about the law, we at Fair Change hope Old City Hall comes to its senses on implementing this procedure.
MONETARY PUNISHMENTS MEAN NOTHING TO PEOPLE WITHOUT MONEY.