Regulatory Motor Vehicle Offences: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "'''([a-zA-Z]+ [a-zA-Z]+ [a-zA-Z]+ [a-zA-Z]+ [a-zA-Z]+)'''<Br>" to "; $1" |
m Text replacement - "\{\{fr\|([^\}\}]+)\}\}" to "fr:$1" |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[fr:Infractions_réglementaires_relatives_aux_véhicules_à_moteur]] | |||
{{HeaderCrimLaw}} | {{HeaderCrimLaw}} | ||
| Line 4: | Line 5: | ||
All provinces have some form of motor vehicle offence relating to careless driving.<ref> | All provinces have some form of motor vehicle offence relating to careless driving.<ref> | ||
ON: s. 130 (careless driving) Highway Traffic Act<Br> | ON: s. 130 (careless driving) Highway Traffic Act<Br> | ||
</ref> | |||
Summary offence hearings are supposed to be "simple, inexpensive and balanced."<ref> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Cooper|1k90j|2005 BCCA 256 (CanLII)|197 CCC (3d) 391}}{{perBCCA|Saunders JA}}{{atL|1k90j|27}} | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
; Onus and Standard of Proof | ; Onus and Standard of Proof | ||
The standard of proof is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" | The standard of proof is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Beauchamp|g1jf8|1952 CanLII 60 (ON CA)|[1953] OR 422 (ONCA)}}{{perONCA|MacKay JA}}<Br> | |||
</ref> | |||
; Radar Readings | |||
Device reading are not presumed to be accurate.<Ref> | |||
R v Khadikin, [1999] B.C.J. No 2575 at para 14 | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
The requirements to admit radar speed evidence consists of:<ref> | |||
# the | R v Geraghty (B.C. Co. Ct.), [1980] B.C.J. No 2433 at p. 10{{Fix}}<br> | ||
## the | {{CanLIIRx|Drewcock|jcbv3|2020 BCSC 2054 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC|Tindale J}}{{AtL|jcbv3|30}} | ||
</reF> | |||
# That the particular equipment used was properly operated by a qualified person; | |||
# That the equipment function and accuracy were tested with whatever tests were required or suggested for it; | |||
# That the tests or procedures indicated the equipment was operating properly; and | |||
# That those tests indicated that the equipment was capable of accurately registering the speed of an alleged offending vehicle. | |||
An assertion of qualification coupled with a description of the tests undertaken will usually be sufficient to make out the requirements.<ref> | |||
{{supra1|Khadikin}} | |||
</ref> | |||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
Latest revision as of 14:39, 14 July 2024
Careless Driving
All provinces have some form of motor vehicle offence relating to careless driving.[1]
Summary offence hearings are supposed to be "simple, inexpensive and balanced."[2]
- Onus and Standard of Proof
The standard of proof is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."[3]
- Radar Readings
Device reading are not presumed to be accurate.[4]
The requirements to admit radar speed evidence consists of:[5]
- That the particular equipment used was properly operated by a qualified person;
- That the equipment function and accuracy were tested with whatever tests were required or suggested for it;
- That the tests or procedures indicated the equipment was operating properly; and
- That those tests indicated that the equipment was capable of accurately registering the speed of an alleged offending vehicle.
An assertion of qualification coupled with a description of the tests undertaken will usually be sufficient to make out the requirements.[6]
- ↑
ON: s. 130 (careless driving) Highway Traffic Act
- ↑ R v Cooper, 2005 BCCA 256 (CanLII), 197 CCC (3d) 391, per Saunders JA, at para 27
- ↑
R v Beauchamp, 1952 CanLII 60 (ON CA), [1953] OR 422 (ONCA), per MacKay JA
- ↑ R v Khadikin, [1999] B.C.J. No 2575 at para 14
- ↑
R v Geraghty (B.C. Co. Ct.), [1980] B.C.J. No 2433 at p. 10(complete citation pending)
R v Drewcock, 2020 BCSC 2054 (CanLII), per Tindale J, at para 30 - ↑ Khadikin, supra