Roger Rodrigues

The defendant was charged under subsection 142(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for an unsafe right turn, resulting in a collision with a cyclist.

The prosecution proved the actus reus of the offence.

The defendant raised the defence of due diligence and reasonable belief in a mistaken set of facts, arguing that factors such as the cyclist's dark clothing, lack of e-bike headlight, insufficient lighting, and the e-bike's speed contributed to his inability to see the cyclist.

The court found that the defendant failed to prove his due diligence or that his belief in a mistaken set of facts was objectively reasonable, emphasizing the heavy onus on drivers to ensure turns are made safely.

A conviction was registered.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging an infringement of their right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The total delay from the charge date to the anticipated trial conclusion was 27 months and 12 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed the delay, attributing 16 months and 18 days to the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional discrete event.

After deducting this period, the remaining delay was approximately 11 months, falling below the presumptive ceiling.

The court found no evidence that the applicant took meaningful steps to expedite proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it should have, concluding that the delay was primarily due to the unprecedented system-wide impact of the pandemic.

Consequently, the applicant's motion for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with driving while holding or using a hand-held communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The prosecution's sole evidence came from a police officer who observed the defendant's vehicle drifting and, upon drawing alongside, claimed to observe the defendant holding a cell phone in his right hand at face level.

The officer testified his observations were made from a distance of 150 to 200 metres while both vehicles were in motion at approximately 40 km/h in darkness with artificial street lighting.

Upon stopping the vehicle, the officer observed what appeared to be the same device attached to a holding device on the left side of the steering wheel.

The defendant did not testify.

The court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was holding a cell phone, as the officer's initial observation from such a vast distance lacked reliability, and the officer's subsequent certainty was based primarily on the defendant's utterance, which the court declined to hear as rebuttal evidence.

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.

A police officer observed the defendant holding a white iPhone in his left hand while stopped at a red light and tapping the device with his right thumb.

The defendant did not testify.

The court found the officer's testimony credible and reliable, and determined that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the device was a cell phone.

The defendant was convicted.