R. v. Pastega
The application to set aside the plea/acknowledgement was denied because applicable legislation and case law show that using a phone on the lap while driving falls within the prohibited conduct, so the appellant's position had no real prospect of success.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2020 BCSC 1824
- Parties
- Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Dean Christopher Pastega
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 5 August 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Traffic Application Arising From Ticket for Use of Electronic Device While Driving / Application to Set Aside Plea/acknowledgement (oral Reasons in Chambers)
- Outcome
- Application denied
- Legal Topics
- Use of Handheld Electronic Device While Driving, Setting Aside Pleas/acknowledgements, Statutory Interpretation
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Respondent
Dean Christopher Pastega
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Traffic Application Arising From Ticket for Use of Electronic Device While Driving / Application to Set Aside Plea/acknowledgement (oral Reasons in Chambers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether using a phone on the lap while speaking constitutes use of a handheld electronic device prohibited by legislation
- 2 Whether the appellant's plea/acknowledgement should be set aside where the legal position has no real prospect of success
Ratio Decidendi
The application to set aside the plea/acknowledgement was denied because applicable legislation and case law show that using a phone on the lap while driving falls within the prohibited conduct, so the appellant's position had no real prospect of success.
Court Disposition
Application denied
Orders
- Application to set aside plea/acknowledgement dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
2020 BCSC 1824 R. v. Pastega IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Pastega, 2020 BCSC 1824 Date: 20200805 Docket: 30132-1 Registry: Vancouver Between: Regina Respondent And Dean Christopher Pastega Appellant Before: The Honourable Associate Chief Justice H. Holmes Oral Reasons for Judgment In Chambers Counsel for the Respondent: K. Gagnon The Appellant appearing on his own behalf: Dean Pastega Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. August 5, 2020 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. August 5, 2020 [1] THE COURT: Mr. Pastega, it is evident that you, and probably many other people, have been misled by a news report about the law. I am not blaming anyone for that, but the reality is that news is reported in a certain way for a certain purpose, and the analysis of the law is not always as complete as it needs to be. [2] I accept what you have told me about the situation, but the bottom line is that the police officer was correct in telling you that it did not matter that your phone was not in your hand. [3] As you explained, you had the phone on your lap, and you were using it to speak with your wife. According to the case authorities to which Ms. Gagnon, Crown counsel, referred this morning, your actions clearly fell within the scope of the conduct prohibited by the legislation. [4] For that reason, I am unable to grant your application to have your plea or acknowledgement (through not disputing the ticket) set aside. To put it simply, there is no chance of your position succeeding if you were to be permitted to pursue it further. [5] THE APPELLANT: Okay. [6] THE COURT: So your application is denied. The legislation is complex and difficult to understand, and it is also quite far-reaching. You are certainly not the only one who does not understand its full reach. [7] The application is denied. [8] THE APPELLANT: Okay. [9] MS. GAGNON: Thank you, My Lady "Associate Chief Justice H. Holmes"