CASE LAW - R v Rajani
- Read more about CASE LAW - R v Rajani
- Log in to post comments
On March 15, 2019 Zahir Rajani was issued a violation ticket for using an electronic device while driving. He had been observed by police to be looking down while driving his vehicle. When stopped, it was discovered that Mr. Rajani had a cell phone in his lap, facing up, connected by cord. The constable could not say if the screen was lit or not. Mr. Rajani disputed the ticket.

A new vehicle sold today is equipped with a backup camera to help insure that the driver has as complete a view to the rear as possible to insure safety while backing up. An IIHS study compared the crash rates of cars with and cars without backup cameras. Overall, cars with cameras were 17% less likely to be involved in a police-reported backup crash. Why was the reduction so small?
Have you ever stopped to consider the risk involved in handing your keys over to someone else? As the owner of a vehicle, you have significant responsibility for it when someone else is using it. Even if you were not present, something nasty can still come back and bite you.
This case involves determining the liability for a collision at the intersection of 86 Avenue and 160 Street in Surrey. Joshua Donato had stopped for the stop sign westbound on 86 Avenue turning right onto 160 Street. Lai Quach was driving southbound on 160 Street turning left onto 86 Avenue. They collided in the intersection.
Despite the fact that it is older technology, radar is still frequently used by police to measure vehicle speeds today. When used properly, it is an accurate method of determining how fast a vehicle is traveling. The courts also accept qualified radar evidence of speed during a trial as commonplace.