CITATION: R. v. Iurea, 2026 ONCJ 506
Date: June 25, 2026
Information Number: 13023537 Offence Number: 893999-80201-6Z-0011
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
PROVINCIAL OFFENCES COURT
CITY OF TORONTO
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
and
CEZAR T. IUREA
Presiding Justice: Justice of the Peace William Luke Prosecutor: Heather A. Ferrari, City Prosecutor Defendant: Cezar T. Iurea, Self-Represented
Charge: Drive Motor Vehicle While Holding or Using a Hand-Held Wireless Communication Device, contrary to s. 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act Statute: Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 Date of Alleged Offence: April 1, 2025 Courtroom: W3
Date: June 25, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
INTRODUCTION
[1] The defendant, Cezar T. Iurea, is charged that on April 1, 2025, at approximately 8:45 a.m., at 844 Caledonia Road, Toronto, Ontario, while driving a motor vehicle on a highway, he did drive a motor vehicle while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device, contrary to s. 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8.
[2] The defendant entered a plea of not guilty.
[3] The prosecution bears the burden of proving each essential element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
[4] This is a strict liability offence.
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
[5] The prosecution must prove:
(a) the identity of the defendant;
(b) the date of the offence;
(c) jurisdiction and location;
(d) that the defendant was driving;
(e) a motor vehicle;
(f) on a highway;
(g) while holding or using;
(h) a hand-held wireless communication device.
FACTUAL CONTEXT
[6] On April 1, 2025, at approximately 8:45 a.m., Police Constable Dhami, badge number 12332, was conducting traffic enforcement while parked on the west side of Caledonia Road in Toronto.
[7] The officer testified that the temperature was 0 degrees Celsius, the weather was sunny, traffic was light, and visibility was unobstructed.
[8] The officer observed a white cargo van travelling southbound. From approximately four to five metres away, over a period of approximately three to four seconds, the officer observed through the passenger-side window the defendant holding a black rectangular cellular phone in his right hand while looking down at it.
[9] The officer testified that the vehicle was continuously moving during the observation.
[10] The officer initiated a traffic stop immediately thereafter.
[11] The defendant produced his driver's licence, and the officer identified him as Cezar T. Iurea.
[12] Exhibit 1 was entered into evidence, consisting of body-worn camera footage recorded from approximately 8:46 a.m. to 8:50 a.m.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
[13] The defendant testified that this was a normal driving day and that traffic was light.
[14] He testified that he observed the marked police vehicle and continued driving.
[15] The defendant denied using his cellular phone while driving.
[16] He testified that he uses Siri and hands-free technology while driving and that it was unnecessary for him to physically use the phone.
[17] He further testified that his hands remained on the steering wheel at all material times.
[18] The defendant also testified that he requires reading glasses and submitted that this made it unlikely that he was actively looking at or using the phone.
[19] Finally, the defendant suggested that there may have been misunderstandings during the interaction with police due to language difficulties.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
[20] The issues for determination are:
(a) Has the prosecution proven the offence beyond a reasonable doubt?
(b) Does the defendant's evidence raise a reasonable doubt?
(c) What weight should be given to the defendant's statement during the traffic stop?
ANALYSIS
[21] This is a case in which credibility is engaged. I apply the principles in R. v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742:
(a) If I believe the defendant, I must acquit.
(b) If I do not believe the defendant but his evidence leaves me with a reasonable doubt, I must acquit.
(c) Even if the defendant's evidence does not leave me with a reasonable doubt, I must still determine whether, on the evidence I accept, the prosecution has proven the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
[22] I found the evidence of Officer Dhami to be clear, candid, and internally consistent.
[23] His observations were made in daylight, from a relatively close distance of approximately four to five metres, over a period of three to four seconds, with an unobstructed line of sight through the passenger-side window.
[24] I accept the officer's evidence that he observed the defendant holding a black cellular phone in his right hand while driving and looking down at it.
[25] In reaching that conclusion, I note that the officer described the object as black and rectangular and observed it at close range in the defendant's hand. As confirmed in York (Regional Municipality) v. Romualdi, 2025 ONCJ 311, relying on R. v. Pizzurro, 2013 ONCA 584, 117 O.R. (3d) 155, and R. v. Graat, 1982 CanLII 33 (SCC), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 819, the prosecution is not required to prove the technical capabilities of the device, and it is open to the trier of fact to infer from ordinary observation that the object observed was a cellular phone.
[26] The defendant testified that he uses Siri and hands-free technology while driving. Even accepting that evidence, it does not answer the charge. Section 78.1(1) prohibits driving while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device. The fact that a device is capable of hands-free operation does not answer evidence that the defendant was physically holding it while driving. The central issue remains whether the defendant was holding the phone at the material time.
[27] I also place significant weight on the defendant's statement during the traffic stop, as captured on the body-worn camera.
[28] The defendant stated:
"Yes, I was holding it."
[29] I find that statement constitutes a clear admission.
[30] That admission materially corroborates the officer's evidence.
[31] At trial, the defendant denied that he was holding anything other than the steering wheel. I do not accept that evidence. It is inconsistent with his earlier admission and inconsistent with the officer's observations.
[32] I am not persuaded that any language misunderstanding explains the admission.
[33] I do not accept the defendant's evidence, nor does it leave me with a reasonable doubt. Having considered the evidence as a whole, including the defendant's evidence, I am nevertheless satisfied that the prosecution has proven the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION
[34] Having considered the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proven each essential element of the offence.
[35] Accordingly, I find the defendant, Cezar T. Iurea, guilty of driving a motor vehicle while holding a hand-held wireless communication device, contrary to s. 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.
PENALTY
[36] For a first offence, s. 78.1(6.1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act provides for a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000.
[37] Accordingly, I impose a fine of $500, together with the applicable victim fine surcharge and court costs.
[38] Mr. Iurea will have 30 days to pay the total amount owing.
[39] Those are the reasons of the court.