Driving related decisions by the courts.
This decision of the B.C. Supreme Court examines the situation where two opposing vehicles approach an uncontrolled intersection. One is turning left (Swartz) and the other is proceeding straight through (Najdychor).
This is a case of failing to stop for a red light with evidence produced from a red light camera. Mr. Eged, a lawyer, attempts to have the charge quashed.
Wendy Dubbin was charged for failing to wear her seatbelt while using Highway 5 near Kamloops. She challenged the ticket under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms saying that seatbelts are dangerous because she might be injured or killed in an incident that she might survive if she was not wearing one.
This is a Small Claims Court case where Mr. Lee is attempting to recover damages from Mr. Cheuck following a minor motor vehicle collision where ICBC found both parties partially at fault. Both parties were proceeding in the same direction some distance apart. Both intended to turn right at the intersection ahead. Mr.
In this case Mr. Gotsutsov's vehicle was destroyed by fire. ICBC found nothing in its investigations to substantiate Mr. Gotsutsov’s involvement in the loss of the vehicle by fire. ICBC however maintains that insurance coverage under the policy is forfeited because Mr. Gotsutsov allegedly made a willfully false statement in respect of the claim.
This is still another example of a Charter argument for unreasonable delay with regard to a dispute hearing for a traffic ticket. In this case, the delay amounted to 13 months and 3 weeks and Mr. Podger was successful in showing that the delay caused a prejudice to his ability to conduct his defence. A judicial stay of proceedings was entered on the charge.
This is another case of a Charter argument over delay in proceeding to trial. The speeding ticket dispute took 17 1/2 months from offence to trial date and Mr. Pearson testified that this was too long, causing him serious prejudice. Rather than letting the judge infer the prejudice from the time period alone, Mr.
This case discusses care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired. The woman, seat belted in the driver's position, was the only occupant of an idling vehicle parked at the curb. Investigation by ambulance paramedics and police revealed that the woman did not have a medical problem and was impaired by alcohol.
What do the words driving without due care and attention actually mean? Section 144 MVA says that a person must not drive a motor vehicle on a highway without due care and attention but does not go on to explain what it is. This trial involving a collision that killed a motorcycle rider is one example.
The case of R v Drummond examines a Charter of Rights argument that a delay of 17 months from the offence date to the trial date for a traffic violation ticket is unreasonable. Grant Drummond was served with a traffic ticket for excessive speed, tinted windows and failing to wear a seatbelt on August 1, 2007. He filed a dispute of all counts within the 30 day time period.