J. DeFalco

The appellant sought to set aside his de facto guilty plea for using a hand-held wireless communication device while driving, arguing he was unaware of the resulting 3-day driver's licence suspension.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the licence suspension is a direct consequence of the Highway Traffic Act offence, not a "legally relevant collateral consequence" as defined in criminal law (R. v. Wong).

The court emphasized that licensed drivers are expected to ascertain the direct penalties for provincial offences and that the information was readily available.

The accused was charged with failing to use a crosswalk contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.

Prior to entering a plea, the accused brought a motion under sections 11(b) and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings based on delay.

The Crown opposed the motion.

The court found that the accused's right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed and granted the motion, staying the proceedings.