Canada Case Law

R. v. Sandhu

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The trial judge acted within her discretion in refusing to replay the video during cross-examination as part of case management; she applied W.(D.) principles and made credibility findings supported by officer testimony and the video evidence; no palpable and overriding error or miscarriage of justice was shown and the conviction is reasonable, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Appeal
• Trial management
• Credibility assessment
• W.(d.) instruction
• Miscarriage of justice
• Electronic device prohibition s.214.2(1) mva

Read case analysis

R. v. Thachuk

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

British Columbia Supreme Court ordered a new trial in a speeding appeal, holding the judicial justice erred in excluding a device manual and misapplied the law on laser-readings.

• Admissibility of evidence
• Judicial notice
• Offence act s.15.1
• Hearsay
• Laser speed measurement
• Margin of error

Read case analysis

R. v. Sharma

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed Mr. Sharma’s appeal from a speeding conviction, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial finding.

• Speeding
• Standard of review
• Palpable and overriding error
• Findings of fact
• Radar/laser evidence
• Standard-of-review

Read case analysis

R. v. Tschampa

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

An appeal from a speeding conviction was dismissed. The court held the radar evidence had a sufficient foundation and did not require verbatim recitation of the manual.

• Radar evidence
• Admissibility
• Appellate review (palpable and overriding error)
• Standard of foundation for scientific/technical evidence
• Radar-evidence
• Evidence-admissibility

Read case analysis

R. v. Wang

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed Han Wang’s appeal from his excessive speeding conviction, finding the trial evidence supported the finding that his Porsche was speeding.

• Speeding
• Absolute liability
• Standard of review
• Palpable and overriding error
• Evidentiary sufficiency
• Appeal

Read case analysis

R. v. Shelford

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

An appeal from a traffic conviction was allowed because the court found the appellant’s device was not a prescribed “hand microphone” under the regulation.

• Use of electronic devices while driving
• Regulatory exemptions
• Definition and interpretation of prescribed devices
• Appellate remedy
• Electronic-device-while-driving
• Statutory-interpretation

Read case analysis

R. v. Young

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed Mr. Young’s appeal from a traffic conviction, finding the evidence supported that he was holding and tapping a cellular phone while driving.

• Use of electronic device while driving
• Definition of electronic device
• Presumptive reliability of witness evidence
• Credibility assessment
• Standard of review
• Use-of-electronic-device-while-driving

Read case analysis

R. v. Parmar

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Supreme Court of British Columbia held that necessity was available as a defence to speeding and allowed the appeal, quashing the conviction and entering an acquittal.

• Necessity defence
• Strict/absolute liability
• Procedural fairness
• Burden of proof
• Necessity-defence
• Speeding

Read case analysis

R. v. Hweld

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The adjudicator erred as a matter of law by treating the s.106F statutory exception (that a vehicle could not move safely into the other lane) as an essential element the Crown must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt; instead s.106F is a strict liability offence where the Crown need only prove the essential elements and the accused bears the burden on a balance of probabilities to prove the exception; the legal error materially affected the outcome and requires the verdict be set aside and the matter remitted for retrial.

Source excerpt

• Strict liability
• Burden of proof
• Statutory interpretation
• Exceptions and defences
• Retrial

Read case analysis

R. v. Catling

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a stated-case appeal as premature, holding that the provincial court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing was interlocutory.

• Charter s.7
• Charter s.11(d)
• Section 63.1 offence act
• Stated case (s.115 offence act)
• Interlocutory appeal
• Vukelich hearing

Read case analysis