G Larson

The defendant was charged with speeding (120 km/h in a 100 km/h zone) contrary to section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

Following an early resolution meeting with a prosecutor, the defendant entered a guilty plea to the amended charge of Disobey Sign contrary to section 182(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The parties jointly submitted that the set fine of $85.00 was appropriate.

The court rejected the joint submission and imposed a fine of $100 plus court costs and victim surcharge, finding that set fines are statutorily reserved for cases that do not proceed to trial and that imposing a set fine after trial would be contrary to the public interest and legislative intent.

The defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle while operating a handheld communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The prosecution relied solely on the testimony of Police Constable Norman Deneault, who observed the defendant holding a black device to his ear while driving and appearing to talk into it.

The court classified the offence as one of strict liability and determined that the prosecution must prove all elements of the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that based on circumstantial evidence—the defendant holding a black device to his ear, appearing to talk, with an electrical cord visible, and being the sole occupant of the vehicle—the only rational inference was that the device was a cell phone.

The court took judicial notice that a cell phone is a hand-held wireless communication device and found that the prosecution need not prove the device was capable of receiving or transmitting communications.

The defendant was found guilty.