Delayed Montreal Tire Ticket by Mail?

[o2bad455]

I'm going to court soon over an approx. $400 tire ticket received only by mail that wasn't even mailed until 7 days after ticket date (in 2024 Feb) and received 19 days after ticket date. I had no timely notice of the ticket the day or even the week that it was supposedly issued because there was zero interaction and it hadn't even been mailed yet! In fact, I had no in-person interactions with any law enforcement that entire season, although I had just paid a 119 in 100 automated photo camera ticket on the same QC-plated vehicle so maybe the computer already had my info flagged as a quick-paying chump.

I normally garaged the vehicle, but occasionally parked it on the street temporarily, and the ticket indicates a parkable street. I have mutliple sets of wheels/tires, and had three winter sets mounted/balanced at that time (studless, studded, and unstudded/tractionized, all "street legal" per my ice racing club's rules which I understand are at least generally stricter than QC as far as min tread depth, max stud length, % of tractionization, etc.). All three sets had the snowflake-on-mountain winter tire symbols, so although I could guess as to most likely error if I knew which set, without that missing bit of key info it's anyone's guess.

Questions:

1) Can I fight this purely on grounds of lack of timely notice (no direct interaction, not even mailed until a week after date on ticket)?

2) If not, how can I get whatever evidence they might have (presumably at least a description of actual defect or photo of purportedly offending tire or tires)? I've gone down to the court and asked, and even tracked down the prosecutor and asked, but so far no further info other than that they'll choose whether to present whatever the LEO eventually provides at trial. Is that really how it works here (trial by ambush)?

3) What are the actual specifics of the law? My French is poor and I've only found the below, but also read that the SAAQ "recommends" a 4.8mm tread depth that is significantly deeper than the actual 1.5mm or 1.6mm legal limit (need citation for QC?), and that neither necessarily corresponds to many tires' (e.g., 2/32", etc.) minimum tread depth wear bars.

4) On winter tires with snow platforms (e.g., Blizzaks with bars that connect or contact pavement at about 50% of new unshaved tread depth remaining, generally about 7mm-8mm in my experience), in addition to standard 2/32" wear bars, is it already settled in QC that the snow platform bars on many studless tires do NOT constitute minimum tread depth "wear bars" for compliance with any minimum tread depth regulations? Does anyone have a citation I could present in court?

--------------

Ticket:

Code de Securite Routiere
Codificationn P130
c. C-24.2
Art: 270
Code def: PR
Description de l'infraction:
etant le propriétaire d'un vehicule routier muni de pneus npn-conformes aux norms etablies per regalement

google translated: "being the owner of a road vehicle fitted with tires that do not comply with the standards established by law"

----------------

Cited Code:

chapter C-24.2, section 270:
"270. Every road vehicle must be fitted with tires that conform to the standards prescribed by regulation."

-----------------

But which regulation(s)???

 

[Lt_Crazy]

Wow loool giving tickets to parked cars for tires

That's a new low in QC. Vive les collecteur de taxe

 

[o2bad455]

Wow loool giving tickets to parked cars for tires

That's a new low in QC. Vive les collecteur de taxe

Sadly, I confirm! Officer G. Bernier ("Matricule: 503 Unite: 120 Agent de la paix") must have been off duty without ticket book too, since no ticket received except by mail. If it's really as strange as it seemed to me upon first opening the envelope, maybe we parked too close to his crib or something. Has anyone else in Montreal ever received an equipment ticket by mail?

 

[Ronin]

Yeah, its kinda rare to receive this only by mail.

You say your tires are "studded" and street legal as per your racing club. They don't make the law though.

I did a quick search and for exemple, adding studs to OE studdless winter tires not designed for studs is not be permitted for street driving. Also having studs only on the front axle is not permitted.

 

[o2bad455]

Yeah, its kinda rare to receive this only by mail.

You say your tires are "studded" and street legal as per your racing club. They don't make the law though.

I did a quick search and for exemple, adding studs to OE studdless winter tires not designed for studs is not be permitted for street driving. Also having studs only on the front axle is not permitted.

Thanks for confirming rare.

Yeah, I totally agree that the club's rules have no bearing on QC law, but as I said the club's are generally stricter. Just a point of reference since I don't know which tires were on when he supposedly saw grounds for ticket, but all 3 sets had recently passed tech.

Very good point re front vs rear axles for studs. I hadn't thought of that. Got a regulation cite? I suppose it's possible that I'd mismatched due to a flat or possibly trying to break-in a new pair of studded (or otherwise I normally wouldn't waste them on road driving).

Hopefully they'll disclose the evidence before the actual trial so I'll have a better idea what I'm up against. The lack of timely notice is my biggest headache here since it's hard enough for me to remember yesterday much less 3 weeks ago during a hectic season.

 

[Ronin]

I think its all in the CSR's section noted in your first post. It's not a big article, you'll find it also with Google.

 

[o2bad455]

The sentence I quoted is all there is in sec. 270. The only QC reference I've found for tire studs is in sec. 441 (see below). I'm honestly not sure what it means. That is, are street studs that don't "damage" the roadway allowed, and who determines which kinds "may damage" as opposed to normal wear and tear? But notably this only applies to "drive" rather than "own", and since it was parked without any driver I don't see how it's applicable to this mail-only ticket to the owner. Still looking, and I'll post if I find any other sections about tire studs.


441. No person may drive a road vehicle on which a tire is equipped with non-skid studs or with any other device that may damage the roadway.
The Minister of Transport may, by an order published in the Gazette officielle du Québec, authorize, under the conditions and for the period he determines, the use of certain types of non-skid devices for such road vehicles as he may designate.

1986, c. 91, s. 441.

The prohibition provided for in the first paragraph is hereby suspended from 15 November 2023 for a person who operates an off-highway vehicle or a maintenance vehicle referred to in the Act respecting off-highway vehicles (chapter V-1.3) on which a tire is equipped with studs, other than ice screws. See M.O. 2023-25, 2023-10-27, (2023) 155 G.O. 2, 2625A.

 

[o2bad455]

I just found the section 441 regulations (below) for the section 441 statute (above), if I understand this statute/regulation heirarchy correctly. So for studded tires, my read is: To drive with studded on front, must also have studded on rear. But to drive with studded on rear, unstudded are okay on front. I was most likely in compliance with this. But also, since the section 441 statute itself prohibits "drive" rather than "own", I still think it should not be applicable to unocupied parked vehicles. Thoughts?


Highway Safety Code
(chapter C-24.2, s. 441).

1. Studded tires may be used, from 15 October of a year to 1 May of the following year, on any commercial vehicle with a loaded mass not exceeding 3,000 kg, any passenger vehicle and taxi, provided that such a vehicle has studded tires on both ends of an axle and, where it has studded tires on the front axle, such tires are also installed on the rear axle.

M.O. 98-11-05, s. 1.

2. Chains may be used, from 15 October of a year to 1 May of the following year, on the tires of any emergency vehicle, any farm tractor or any other road vehicle used for snow removal and winter maintenance.

M.O. 98-11-05, s. 2; M.O. 2005-007, s. 1.

 

[Ronin]

The part about damaging the roadway, i guess, mostly targets custom installed studs on regular tires not originally equipped with studs. Those tires dont meet DOT regulations anymore basically.

You won't really know until you've contested the ticket and received the paperwork.

Btw, I kinda feel you since I got into issues this winter after Place Bell started enforcing no studs policy in their interior garage spaces. I was playing and losing agame of cat and mouse with them trying to park there for my hockey games.

 

[o2bad455]

LoL. The more I find on this, the more confused I get but at least I must be learning. Which is the statute and which is the regulation based on it? Is Code de Securite Routiere (CSR) the same thing as Highway Safety Code (HSC) except for French or English language, and therefore the same regulations? If so, much differs from Google Translate's interpretations.

Okay, lets get away from studs and back to rubber. As to tractionizing per the below HSC Article 621, I think regulations 120(4) and 159(4) would not be infringed as long as the tractionizing only goes as deep as the original grooves. Agree or disagree?

Moving along to minimum tread depth just because that's more relevant this time of year. I found this stuff. It's not in the previously cited CSR Art. 270, but rather in HSC Art. 621. And there seem to be two differently numbered regulations 120 and 159 saying almost but of course not exactly the same things about 1.6 mm min tread depth in "a major groove" (which is major and which is minor?) and wear indicators, but then there's regulation 170 requiring "2 adjacent grooves less than 0.8 mm in depth" to qualify as a major defect. There's also the bit about "no tire shall be so worn that a wear indicator touches the road". Color me confused!

So, for example, if someone has a car that wears out the inside edges (e.g., my old BMW 318i Sport model even with stock camber settings before we turned it into a track car), is it acceptable to flip the tire on the rim so the worn wear indicators are then on the outside edges and no longer touch the ground? I do that anyway for DOT-legal race tires, even though they have dimples rather than grooves (dimple-shaped grooves?) in many cases.

--------------------

chapter C-24.2, r. 32
Regulation respecting safety standards for road vehicles
Highway Safety Code
(chapter C-24.2, s. 621, pars. 1, 6 to 8, 11, 14, 24, 25, 28 to 32, 32.1 to 32.8, 37 to 40, 42 and 49 and s. 631).
CHAPTER I
GENERAL

...

§ 14. — Tires and wheels

120. Tires shall comply with the following standards:
(1) no tire shall be so worn that a wear indicator touches the road or that the depth of the tread measured in a main groove or tread design, elsewhere than at the wear indicator, is less than 3.2 mm on a front tire of a motor vehicle whose gross vehicle weight rating is 4,500 kg or more and 1.6 mm in all other cases;
(2) at no point shall a tire be worn, cut or damaged to expose the cord or steel belt. Furthermore, a crack in the sidewall of a tire may not be deeper than 3.2 mm;
(3) no tire shall be abnormally bulged or out of shape and no foreign material that could cause a puncture shall be stuck in the tread or in the sidewall;
(4) a tire shall not have been recut deeper than the original grooves, unless the model was specially designed for such recutting and that feature is indicated on the sidewall;
(5) no tire whose tread has been recapped shall be mounted on the front steering axle of an emergency vehicle, a minibus or a vehicle whose gross vehicle weight rating is 4,500 kg or more, unless the vehicle is equipped with 2 active steering axles;
(6) at no point shall the tread or rubber compound of the sidewall be separated from the carcass of the tire, unless the tire was recapped and the separation does not exceed 6 mm in width;
(7) tires differing in size, construction type or series shall not be installed on a same axle or a combination of axles, unless they are recognized by the manufacturer as equivalent;
(8) it is prohibited to mount radial tires on the font and bias-ply tires on the rear, unless the vehicle has dual rear wheels;
(9) the front wheels of a passenger vehicle shall not be of a smaller series or have a tread wider than the rear tires;
(10) tires in a dual tire set shall not be in contact with one another or differ from other in diameter by more than 13 mm;
(11) a tire shall not be of a size smaller than the minimum dimension indicated by the vehicle manufacturer, unless it is recognized as equivalent by the tire manufacturer; it may however be of a size greater than that indicated by the vehicle manufacturer provided that the tire does not touch the body or another component of the vehicle in every position of the suspension or steering;
(12) a tire shall have been repaired in accordance with the tire manufacturer’s standards;
(13) the air pressure in the tires of a same axle shall not differ by more than 10% and the pressure shall not exceed the pressure printed on the sidewall or be lower than the value determined by the manufacturer of the vehicle or of the tire;
(14) no tire valve shall be worn down, damaged, scraped or gashed and the exposed portion of each valve shall be of sufficient length and accessible to allow for the easy inflation of the tire and pressure reading;
(15) no tire shall bear marks or wording to indicate that it is for restricted use and unsuited for use on public roads, unless it is mounted on a truck specially adapted for farming purposes or on a farm trailer; and
(16) tires shall be mounted on the wheel in accordance with their manufacturer’s standards.

O.C. 1483-98, s. 120; O.C. 1049-2010, s. 10; O.C. 370-2016, s. 67.

...

§ 11. — Tires and wheels

159. Tires shall comply with the following standards:
(1) no tire shall be so worn that a wear indicator touches the roadway or that the depth of the tread measured in a main groove or tread design, elsewhere than at the wear indicator, is less than 1.6 mm;
(2) at no point, a tire shall be so worn, cracked, cut or torn as to expose the cord;
(3) no tire shall be abnormally bulged or out of shape and no foreign material that could cause a puncture shall be embedded in the tread or sidewall;
(4) a tire shall not have been re-cut deeper than the original grooves;
(5) at no point the tread or rubber compound of the sidewall shall be separated from the carcass of the tire;
(6) a tire shall not be a size smaller than the minimum size indicated by the vehicle manufacturer; it may however be of a size greater than that indicated by the vehicle manufacturer provided that the tire does not touch any component of the road vehicle in every movement of the suspension;
(7) at tire shall have been repaired in accordance with the standards of its manufacturer;
(8) the air pressure in a tire shall not exceed the pressure written on the sidewall or be less than the value determined by the manufacturer of the vehicle or tire;
(9) no tire valve shall be worn down, damaged, scraped or cut and the exposed portion of each valve shall be of sufficient length to allow for the easy inflation of the tire or taking of tire pressure;
(10) no tire shall bear marks or wording to indicate that it is for restricted use and unsuited for use on public roads; and
(11) unidirectional tires shall be installed according to the tire manufacture’s standards.

O.C. 1483-98, s. 159.

...

§ 7. — Major defects: tires and wheels

170. The following are major defects:
(1) a single tire or dual tires in the same wheel assembly that are cut, worn or have any other damage exposing the cord, steel belt or tires designed for off-road driving and mounted on a road vehicle other than a truck specially adapted for farming purposes or a farm trailer;
(2) a single tire or dual tires in the same wheel assembly having 2 adjacent grooves less than 0.8 mm in depth or 1.6 mm for a tire mounted on the active steering axle of a motor vehicle whose gross vehicle weight rating is 4,500 kg or more;
(3) a tire that has a bulge due to a defect in the carcass, is leaking air, is flat, is inflated only to 50% or less of the maximum pressure indicated on the sidewall, or a single tire or dual tires in the same wheel assembly on a road vehicle having foreign material embedded in the tread or sidewall that could cause a puncture;
(4) a tire touching a fixed part of the vehicle;
(5) a fastening ring for a multipiece wheel that is warped, cracked, poorly adjusted, bent, broken, not securely mounted, welded or not fit for the rim on which it is mounted;
(6) a wheel fastener that is missing, cracked, broken or not securely mounted;
(7) a wheel that shows signs of repair by welding or that has a crack, a breach or an elongated bolt hole;
(8) the oil of the wheel bearing is absent or, where there is a sight glass, there is no oil showing.

O.C. 1483-98, s. 170; O.C. 1049-2010, s. 12; O.C. 370-2016, s. 86; O.C. 883-2024, s. 21.

 

[srt_mod]

Physical contact in not necessary ...but yes it is normal they have one year to emit the ticket

Saaq from what remember is recommandation not law ... from what i remember it's 2/32 for summer and 4/32 for winter or equal to the limit indicator ..just don't know who as prevalence

i havent't check very much ... but since you where park i suspect you could throw the ticket out .... you need to be conform to circulate not 100% sure just to be park on the road

but i have seem cops give ticket on car show to car pulling out on towing to trying to evade the ticket ...just don't know if it stick if you fight it

if i have a spare tire or a flat tire and i'm on the side of the road is this illegal ..... yes i have seen cops giving ticket to a guy with a spare tire turning in the tire shop lol ...don't know what happened to that ticket

 

[Scooter]

@o2bad455 what happened finally ?​

August 10th 2025, I get stopped by an agent and she tells me I didn't do my stop. I'm like " no, I did it, I know very well ". While asking for driver's license , insurance, she tells me " I will mail you the ticket by mail within 30 days " .
Yesterday January 9th 2026 , I get the ticket !

August 10th 2025 ! lol.
I have 30 days to contest it .
I guess they are aware of Canada Posts delays, etc...but still...5 months later ? This was Ste-Adele.

 

[Rat^3]

speaking of tire tickets, there should be a class action lawsuit against this city for how bad the roads are lol

I know we get pot holes

But this year its been beyond neglect

 

[Lt_Crazy]

^^^^ lool yeah good luck with that!

 

[o2bad455]

@o2bad455 what happened finally ?​

August 10th 2025, I get stopped by an agent and she tells me I didn't do my stop. I'm like " no, I did it, I know very well ". While asking for driver's license , insurance, she tells me " I will mail you the ticket by mail within 30 days " .
Yesterday January 9th 2026 , I get the ticket !

August 10th 2025 ! lol.
I have 30 days to contest it .
I guess they are aware of Canada Posts delays, etc...but still...5 months later ? This was Ste-Adele.

What a farce! The lack of timely notice didn't seem to be a contestable issue to the court. Our ticket turned out to supposedly be for "worn off" wear-bars on the outer shoulder of Pirelli Scorpion Winter tires (original version, not version 2), which actually only have the wear-bars in the two main center grooves. The cop's digital photographs as emailed to me by an earlier prosecutor showed an unmistakably shiny glare from an ice coating that covered the outer shoulder tread, presumably from either freezing rain and/or snow melt re-freezing. But the replacement prosecutor surprised me by only submitting dull photocopies (or low-resolution print-outs on photocopy paper) obscuring the glare, which made it look like the outer 1/4-1/3 was more significantly worn.

I objected citing the Best Evidence Rule in an attempt to force the replacement prosecutor to show the digital version instead, but the judge said the paper version had already been entered (without even addressing me). Is that really how evidence is entered here? I learned that although prosecutors are allowed to present digital evidence directly even though this replacement prosecutor chose not to, the accused must put it on a USB stick and DONATE that to the court (no return of USB stick, not sure if preserved in the file or what) for it to be presented at all. I didn't have a virgin USB stick to donate and the judge refused to look at my screen to see the PDF file with shiny digital images that the first prosecutor had sent me by email, so I questioned the cop on whether he wore polarized glasses (which could have obscured the glare), but the cop just shrugged and the judge said my question was "irrelevant" and didn't make him answer verbally. So I asked if he still had the photos on his mobile phone, but the judge shook his head and didn't make the cop answer that either (although I'm still not sure why). Through a translator, the cop did testify that all tires have triangle markers on the sidewalls to indicate wear-bars, but those were missing since "worn off".

The judge didn't allow me any time to fact check the cop, so I testified that the particular model of tire in the cop's photos never had wear-bars other than in the two main center grooves, which were still clearly visible in the cop's photos. The judge kept interrupting by saying "Anything else?" while I tired to think around the cluster-fook, so I lost my train of thought. The judge found that the tires were worn so I lost the case.

It turns out that the wear-bar locators (not actually wear-bars, but only to help locate the actual wear-bars) on the Pirelli Scorpion Winter (original version) are not triangles on the sidewall at all, but rather the abbreviation "TWI" (which stands for Tread-Wear Indicator in English) printed vertically into the edge of the tread (and which were clearly not worn off in the cop's own photos). Since the cop didn't speak English, perhaps I can't fault him for not recognizing the abbreviation in English, but it means his testimony was misleading (since his testimony gave the judge grounds to beleive the supposedlly missing traingle locators were actually missing wear indicators) and/or false (since he said "worn off"), even if unintentionally so. I'm seriously considering an appeal just to see what it takes for the rule of law to prevail around here, but it's only time and money down the drain so far (no points).

(Edited for typos)

(Corrected for "TWI")