它始于一次负责任的决定。一个在蒙特利尔市中心上班的司机需要在清晨五点就到工作地点。

他没有在被称为蒙特利尔交通基础设施的道路上燃油爬行——仅A-25入口的年延误时间就已达25万小时——而是做了城市声称鼓励的那种选择：把车停了下来，搭乘地铁。

他正是每一次公共交通宣传、每一项绿色城市倡议以及瓦莱丽·普朗特办公室多年发布的“减少拥堵”新闻稿所一直在告诉司机的做法：把车停在商业区——一个大型的商业区。

超过500个车位。划有标线。没有任何限制标志。

没有拖车警告。没有张贴时间限制。一个功能齐全、开放、可供使用的停车场，规模堪比小型机场。

他在下午四点回来时，车窗上已经贴着一张罚单。

罚单上的理由

违规内容写着：ayant stationné dans un stationnement privé。即在私人停车场停车。但这里的问题是，罚单本身无法解释这一点。

这张罚单并非由物业所有者开具，也不是由物业雇佣的私人保安公司开具，更不是停车管理公司的民事通知。

它是一张市政停车罚单，由市政停车执法官员开具，来自Agence de mobilité durable——同一机构负责管理蒙特利尔的付费停车网络并执行全市的市政条例。

于是，城市对私人财产的停车行为开出了罚单，理由正是“私人财产”。

慢慢读这句话。城市进入了它自己标记为私人财产的地方，代表不存在的所有者开具市政罚款，收取的费用进入市库——而罚单上写的法律依据正是城市本不该介入的原因。

没有人愿意讨论的法律问题

在魁北克的一般规则中，警察不会在私人停车场开具罚单。警官在私人商业停车场开具交通罚单既不常见，也可能不合法。（JustAnswer）这不是观点，而是魁北克法律框架所承认的现实。

城市执法停车条例的权力来源于对公共基础设施的市政管辖。当停车执法官员走进私人拥有的商业物业并开具市政罚单时，充其量是在法律的灰色地带——最坏情况下则是超出其管辖范围。Agence de mobilité durable的停车员负责监督停车规则的执行并开具罚单。（Service de police de la Ville de Montréal）他们的职责是城市的公共道路网络和计时停车位——而不是那些自行缴纳财产税、维护自有停车场的企业的私人商业停车设施。

该商业物业拥有超过500个车位，服务于企业、顾客和员工。它不是市政财产。

它不由市政资金维护。该空间没有市政计时器。也没有市政标志管理。

唯一的市政介入就是那位出现、写下罚单并离开的执法官员——留下了一张需向市政府缴纳的罚款单，而违规行为发生在市政府既不拥有也不监管的土地上。

罚单本身的矛盾

正是这点让此案在表面上无法辩护。违规理由写的是stationnement privé——私人停车。城市在官方罚单上明确承认，这里是私人财产。

然而开具罚单的却是城市本身，收取罚款的也是城市。司机若支付违规声明，即自动认罪。（Ville de Montréal）到底认罪了什么？

在私人财产上停车——根据一名本不该出现在该私人财产上的城市官员的说法？这里的循环逻辑并不微妙。如果该停车场是私人所有，城市就没有管辖权在此开具市政停车罚单。

如果城市因为该停车场在某种程度上受市政条例约束而拥有管辖权，那么它就不是票据所暗示的纯私人场所，司机实际上是停在一个合法对外开放、没有张贴限制的商业空间。要么罚单在法律上错误，因为城市不能在私人财产上执行停车条例；要么罚单在事实层面错误，因为该空间并非真正意义上的私人，公众在凌晨五点完全可以停放车辆。

城市不可能两头兼顾。但在2026年的蒙特利尔，似乎可以。因为大多数人选择直接付钱。

这套机制是如何运作的

蒙特利尔的停车监控与执法由Section de l’application de la réglementation du stationnement的停车官员负责。他们的工作是依据《高速公路安全法》以及当地条例执行。（Insurdinary）关键在于“条例”。蒙特利尔的市政条例多年来已大幅扩展其适用范围，Agence de mobilité durable在全市的运作方式并不总是清晰地区分公共与私人空间的界限。

What this creates, in practice, is a system where a parking officer can enter a commercial lot, issue a ticket citing private property as the violation, and the burden then falls entirely on the driver to contest it — within 30 days, in French, through a process that most people either do not know how to navigate or do not feel is worth the time and stress for a $65 or $90 fine. You can contest the ticket within 30 days by entering a not-guilty plea, after which you receive a notice of hearing by mail. (Ville de Montréal) What that process does not tell you is that most people, especially those working early morning shifts and taking the metro to save money, do not have the time, the legal knowledge, or the confidence in a French-language municipal court system to fight a ticket that probably costs less than a day of lost wages to just pay and forget. And the city knows this.

The entire enforcement model depends on it.

Is This Hidden Corruption? Or Just a Broken System? The honest answer is: it does not need to be one or the other.

A system does not need a conspiracy at its center to produce corrupt outcomes. It just needs the right incentives and no accountability. The incentive here is revenue.

Two speed cameras near the Lafontaine Tunnel alone generated $13.57 million in fines in 2025. (MTL Blog) Montreal’s parking enforcement apparatus operates on a similar logic — tickets generate revenue, contested tickets cost the city court time, so the default behavior of the system is to issue questionable tickets knowing that the vast majority will be paid without challenge. A commercial lot with 500 spaces near a metro station is a perfect target. Dozens of cars.

No obvious restrictions posted. Drivers who parked early, went to work, and will come home to a ticket they did not expect and do not understand. The property owner did not request enforcement.

The city officer was not protecting anyone’s private parking rights. The lot was not full. No business was harmed.

But the city collected money. From a worker who took the metro to avoid contributing to the exact traffic congestion the city spends millions complaining about and billions pretending to address.

What This Driver Should Do

Contest the ticket within 30 days. Enter a not-guilty plea. Bring documentation — photos of the lot, the absence of restriction signs, the time of arrival if possible, and the ticket itself with its stated reason of stationnement privé. (Ville de Montréal) The argument is straightforward: if the lot is private, the city had no jurisdiction to issue a municipal ticket there.

If the city had jurisdiction, the lot is not private, and there were no posted restrictions preventing parking. The city’s own ticket contains the contradiction. Make them explain it to a judge.

Most people will not do this. They will pay the fine, absorb the injustice, and move on. And the system will continue working exactly as it was designed to — not to protect anyone’s property rights or ensure public safety, but to extract money from people who are too busy, too tired, or too uncertain to fight back.

That is not a parking enforcement system. That is a tax on people who cannot afford lawyers. And in a city that cannot finish a tunnel in six years, cannot maintain roads that last a decade, and charges 40,000 speeding tickets on a highway it refuses to complete — adding questionable parking tickets on private commercial property to the list is, at this point, almost expected.

Almost.

SIIIOCULI — Intelligence. Sovereignty. Awareness. siiioculi.lilxbrxaker.com