R. Burd

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to unreasonable delay, arguing the 18-month Jordan ceiling for Provincial Offences Act matters was exceeded.

The total delay from the filing of the Certificate of Offence to the trial date was 31 months and 11 days.

The court considered the COVID-19 pandemic as a discrete exceptional event and deducted 22 months and 6 days (from May 29, 2020, to April 4, 2022) from the total delay, resulting in a net delay of 9 months and 7 days.

As this net delay was below the presumptive ceiling, the onus shifted to the applicant to demonstrate meaningful efforts to expedite the proceedings and that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

Finding no evidence of such efforts by the defence, the court dismissed the application for a stay.

The appellant, David Kazdan, appealed a conviction for driving while using a handheld communication device, contrary to s. 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

He argued that as an emergency room physician responding to a page, his actions fell under the emergency services exceptions in s. 78.1(4) and (5).

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial justice's finding that the appellant was not responding to an actual emergency, was not driving an emergency vehicle, and ER physicians are not enumerated in the exempted classes.

The court emphasized a narrow interpretation of the exemptions, consistent with the legislative intent of promoting road safety by restricting cellphone use while driving.

The defendant was charged with two Highway Traffic Act offences: (1) driving with a hand-held communication device contrary to s. 78.1(1), and (2) failing to surrender a completed daily inspection report contrary to s. 107(7).

The defendant was observed by an MTO officer holding and typing on a cellphone while stopped at a red traffic light.

The defendant argued that being stopped at a red light does not constitute "driving" and that providing access to an electronic logbook satisfied the surrender requirement.

The court found that being stopped at a red light, when the vehicle is not in park mode, constitutes driving within the meaning of the statute.

The court also found that providing access to an electronic logbook without a completed inspection report containing all statutorily required information does not satisfy the surrender obligation.

The defendant was convicted on both counts.

The appellant was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while holding a handheld wireless communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

A police officer testified that while driving on the highway, he observed the defendant holding a cell phone in his left hand and appearing to manipulate the buttons.

The officer made this observation for a few moments before stopping the vehicle.

The appellant appealed on two grounds: misapprehension of the evidence and unreasonableness of the verdict.

The Justice of the Peace had stated the observation was made for "a few minutes" rather than "a few moments." The appeal was dismissed.