Case Law

We often see serious collisions reported in the news where the offending driver was only issued a traffic ticket for the violation that caused it. Public sentiment often conveys the wish that the driver should have been charged criminally for what they have done. One yardstick for considering a criminal charge instead of a traffic ticket is whether the offending driver showed "a marked departure from the standard of care which a reasonable person would have exercised in the same circumstances."

Judicial Justice Burgess examines the definition of "use" as it applies to the use of electronic devices while driving.

This is a case that dates back to November 1, 1962 in the British Columbia Supreme Court. It is the origin of what is known among police officers as the Schryvers Test and is used to assist in properly identifying the driver in traffic court as the accused.

Jewel Taylor was issued a 3 count violation ticket in North Vancouver and in February of 2016 paid the fines shown on the ticket. She subsequently received a bill from ICBC for the point penalties involved totalling $640. Shortly after that she applied for an extension of time to appeal her conviction. She was 18 months late in doing so according to the Criminal Rules of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

In the case of R v Griffith we find ourselves in the Supreme Court at an appeal of a conviction for speeding. Edward Scherbey was driving out of a 30 km/h school zone travelling at 54 km/h. Constable Sabulsky made both a visual estimate of his vehicle's speed and measured it with a Stalker Dual DSR radar device before issuing the speeding ticket. At the conclusion of the trial in Provincial Court, a conviction was entered.

Mr. Scherbey had requested a copy of the radar manual as part of Crown's disclosure. This was refused as the manual is copyrighted material and Mr. Scherbey had been directed to the manufacturer to obtain the manual.