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 by showing (a) The Certificate of Vehicle Ownership -- Exhibit 2, admitted into the evidence, does not meet requirements of s.82.1 of the Act; (b) the “Enforcement Officer’s Certificate” -- Exhibit 1, does not meet requirements set out in s. 83.1 of the Act, and that the illegibility of the licence plate cannot be saved by an Enforcement Officer’s certification; and, (c) the licence plate photographed is silent with respect to jurisdiction.
In this case Wendy Dubbin admits to not wearing a seatbelt and then attempts to have the charge dismissed. She argues that the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act which creates the offence of failing to wear a seatbelt violates her rights under section 2 and section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
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.
0">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.
In this civil case the driver sued a cyclist for damages caused when the cyclist collided with his parked vehicle. The driver's reasoning was that his door had been open for some time and that the cyclist should have seen and avoided colliding with it. The judge did not agree.
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.
Do the police ever charge a fellow officer with a traffic offence? I suspect that members of the public more often than not would respond "no" to that assertion and would be skeptical of protests to the contrary. In R v Wlodarczak, we see that this happens, even when the accused is driving an unmarked police vehicle at the time of the offence.
This is an examination of the application of Driving Without Due Care and Attention under section 144(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act. In this instance the driver of a van pulled across the path of an oncoming motorcycle because the driver, Goldade, felt that he had sufficient time to clear the motorcycle's lane before it arrived. The misjudgment precipitated a collision in which the driver of the motorcycle died.
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 by showing (a) The Certificate of Vehicle Ownership -- Exhibit 2, admitted into the evidence, does not meet requirements of s.82.1 of the Act; (b) the “Enforcement Officer’s Certificate” -- Exhibit 1, does not meet requirements set out in s. 83.1 of the Act, and that the illegibility of the licence plate cannot be saved by an Enforcement Officer’s certification; and, (c) the licence plate photographed is silent with respect to jurisdiction. 