Regulatory Motor Vehicle Offences: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
No edit summary
m Text replacement - "\{\{fr\|([^\}\}]+)\}\}" to "fr:$1"
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[fr:Infractions_réglementaires_relatives_aux_véhicules_à_moteur]]
{{HeaderCrimLaw}}
{{HeaderCrimLaw}}


Line 6: Line 7:
</ref>
</ref>


Summary offence hearings are supposed to be "simple, inexpensive and balanced".<ref>
Summary offence hearings are supposed to be "simple, inexpensive and balanced."<ref>
R v Cooper 2005 BCCA 256 at para. 27{{fix}}
{{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".<ref>
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>
{{CanLIIRP|Beauchamp|g1jf8|1952 CanLII 60 (ON CA)|[1953] OR 422 (ONCA)}}{{perONCA|MacKay JA}}<Br>
</ref>
</ref>
; Careless Driving
Proving careless driving will usually require:
# the accused drove in a manner prohibited by the section
## the accused drove without "due care and attention"


; Radar Readings
; Radar Readings

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]

  1. That the particular equipment used was properly operated by a qualified person;
  2. That the equipment function and accuracy were tested with whatever tests were required or suggested for it;
  3. That the tests or procedures indicated the equipment was operating properly; and
  4. 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]

  1. ON: s. 130 (careless driving) Highway Traffic Act
  2. R v Cooper, 2005 BCCA 256 (CanLII), 197 CCC (3d) 391, per Saunders JA, at para 27
  3. R v Beauchamp, 1952 CanLII 60 (ON CA), [1953] OR 422 (ONCA), per MacKay JA
  4. R v Khadikin, [1999] B.C.J. No 2575 at para 14
  5. 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
  6. Khadikin, supra

See Also