Court of Appeals clarifies distracted driving law

[GreyGhost]

Two cases decided today. Touching a cellphone is now sufficient for a conviction, before some JP's drew the line at touching and using.

from thestar.com


By: Valerie Hauch News reporter, Published on Fri Sep 27 2013

Court rulings released Friday have affirmed that holding a cellphone or any other wireless communication device — even briefly — while driving is illegal under the Highway Traffic Act.
The two rulings released Friday by the Court of Appeal for Ontario on separate, unrelated cases, make it plain that there are no exceptions to the law.
The Highway Traffic Act 78.1 (1) prohibits anyone from driving a motor vehicle while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device, such as a cellphone.
Two Ontario cases had recently brought the law into focus.
Khojasteh Kazemi, of Oshawa, was charged and convicted in 2010 of holding her cellphone after she’d picked it up while stopped at a red light. A provincial court judge later overturned that conviction, but the Crown appealed.
More Video
FBI Releases Video, Images of Navy Yard Shooter
France Approves Ban on Children's Beauty Contests
In its judgment ruling, the Court of Appeal for Ontario stated that “road safety is best ensured by a complete prohibition on having a cellphone in one’s hand at all while driving. A complete prohibition also best focuses a driver’s undivided attention on driving.”
The court disagreed with the provincial court judge’s ruling that to be charged for holding the phone required “sustained physical holding.”
In the other case, the court restored the conviction of Hugo Pizzurro, who had been charged under the Highway Traffic Act with driving on Highway 11 with a cellphone in his hand. He was originally convicted in 2011 but appealed in 2012 and won.
The appeal judge had said that the prosecutor had failed to show that the cellphone was capable of receiving or transmitting communications.
But the Court of Appeal for Ontario stated in its judgment that the Crown does not have to prove whether a hand-held wireless communication device is working or not to get a conviction under the HTA.
That would be “unreasonable both for enforcement and for prosecution. The legislature could not have intended that result,’’ the decision stated.
Both of Friday’s decisions by the Court of Appeal for Ontario were unanimous rulings by Justices John Laskin, David Watt and S.T. Goudge.

 

[Flywheel]

The cat's so far out of the bag now it's in another country. Just this week I witnessed a texting pedestrian nearly get hit TWICE crossing the road. The first near hit was by a driver, on his cellphone, the second by a bicyclist, on his cellphone.

It's going to take the equivalent of an anti-smoking campaign to change usage patterns.

 

[iFly55]

the #1 problem is that most drivers have never read the highway traffic act, they do not know the wording of the law against cellphone use or many other rules of the road

i attribute the problem solely to word-of-mouth misinformation; MTO should have a campaign educating drivers that even touching your phone is against the law

interestingly though! the law does allows you to touch your phone, while it is mounted to the car (ie: air vent)... people can avoid tickets by using their phones this way

 

[promac]

The way the law is promoted, you'd think it was limited to texting.

 

[spray____]

I don't know why there aren't more stings for this downtown. On days when I've been waiting for the streetcar, I've often entertained myself by looking into passing/stopped cars to see how many people are on their phone.

It's usually about 30-50%. It would be the easiest way to hand out tickets, and take in money. There could be a friggin bike cop standing there handing out hundreds of tickets every hour.

 

[Roomie]

I love how it's distracted driving to us little people but yet you cruise down the gardiner or the 404 and metro's finest are yapping away with a phone in their face. This law is a joke and not enforced anywhere near enough.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

The way that this is hitting the media should finally convince the idiots who drive while talking on their hands free phones, that they're holding in their hands, that what they're doing is actually illegal. It's something that I see on a daily basis and that is clearly against the spirit of the law.

I love how it's distracted driving to us little people but yet you cruise down the gardiner or the 404 and metro's finest are yapping away with a phone in their face. This law is a joke and not enforced anywhere near enough.

Emergency services are exempt from this law. There needs to be a clarification made, to the law, that specifies that this is for operational purposes, only, so that personal communications are also barred. It then needs to be enforced.

 

[Bermuda]

Emergency services are exempt from this law. There needs to be a clarification made, to the law, that specifies that this is for operational purposes, only, so that personal communications are also barred. It then needs to be enforced.

They should not be exempt from the law. They should never be exempt, especially if the presumption is that some force is going to enforce the enforcers.

Their vehicles should all be fitted with hands free systems, so as to abide by the law.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

They should not be exempt from the law. They should never be exempt, especially if the presumption is that some force is going to enforce the enforcers.

Their vehicles should all be fitted with hands free systems, so as to abide by the law.

If it's reasonable for regular citizens to call 911 on their cells, when the situation warrants it, then it's also reasonable for emergency services members to do the same.

 

[Emefef]

"But the Court of Appeal for Ontario stated in its judgment that the Crown does not have to prove whether a hand-held wireless communication device is working or not to get a conviction under the HTA.
That would be “unreasonable both for enforcement and for prosecution. The legislature could not have intended that result,’’ the decision stated."
I find this interesting. It may be unreasonable to have to prove it, but it's the "legislature could not have intended that result" that is most interesting. If, for example, a driver truly was holding a cellphone that was turned off, it would be no different that holding a sandwich, banana or cup of coffee. I would like to believe that the ban on hand-held electronic devices was aimed at banning "the use of" such devices.
Again, I understand that it would make the law almost unenforceable, but I think it was what the legislature intended.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

"But the Court of Appeal for Ontario stated in its judgment that the Crown does not have to prove whether a hand-held wireless communication device is working or not to get a conviction under the HTA.
That would be “unreasonable both for enforcement and for prosecution. The legislature could not have intended that result,’’ the decision stated."
I find this interesting. It may be unreasonable to have to prove it, but it's the "legislature could not have intended that result" that is most interesting. If, for example, a driver truly was holding a cellphone that was turned off, it would be no different that holding a sandwich, banana or cup of coffee. I would like to believe that the ban on hand-held electronic devices was aimed at banning "the use of" such devices.
Again, I understand that it would make the law almost unenforceable, but I think it was what the legislature intended.

It is, in fact, that The Legislative Assembly meant for the ban to be of the use of such devices. This judgment was necessary in order to remove the obvious defense that the device was in hand, but not in use, which would make the law unenforceable as you stated. How many people do you think have run the, "I was just scratching my head with my phone in my hand", or, "it was in my hand but I was using hands-free" ploy?

 

[Salos Dafee]

Ontario's law against use of hand-held phones could use some publicity.

Drivers entering Ontario are warned that radar detectors are illegal,
but I do not recollect seeing warnings about the use of cell phones.

Ironic twist to this. I was riding south on Yonge Street, near Eglinton Avenue, in the left lane, on my Florida-licensed 250. I watch for Florida plates, and saw one on a pickup truck in the right lane. As I drew even with the driver, I saw he was talking into his hand-held phone, so I tried to tell him he was asking for a ticket. His response was to take his other hand off the wheel and use it to point to his phone. The message couldn't have been clearer:

"Shut up, you pest, can't you see I am talking on my phone?"

I carried on, leaving him to his fate. Welcome to Ontario.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

A goodly number of Florida registered vehicles in Ontario are owned by Canadians, at any rate, as your own vehicle demonstrates. They are fully aware that the use of a cell phone or other electronic device, while driving, is illegal. It's also a Secondary Offense, in Florida.

 

[Salos Dafee]

A goodly number of Florida registered vehicles in Ontario are owned by Canadians, at any rate, as your own vehicle demonstrates. They are fully aware that the use of a cell phone or other electronic device, while driving, is illegal. It's also a Secondary Offense, in Florida.

INCORRECT. Here in Florida, as of October 1 2013, it is illegal to use your phone for TEXTING while driving. Talk all you want. ("Secondary Offence" means the cop cannot stop you for texting while driving unless you are also breaking another law.) Based on my observations here in Florida, I do not think you should credit our drivers with very much intelligence. Most of them can operate the lid of a beer can, but safety pins and shoelaces are totally beyond most of them.

 

[Blooton]

is a electric razor a handheld device?
i see a market for disguised phones

 

[Salos Dafee]

is a electric razor a handheld device?
i see a market for disguised phones

I reckon it is, and so are lots of other things that are not telephones.

I heard the time on my car radio, and noticed that my watch was not accurate,
so I thought I would set it while driving. Then I thought again. Such an action
would surely distract me, and why should setting a watch not be a violation?

Heck, even a french fried potato can be a distraction, especially if you want to dip
it in ketchup, then glance at it to see if you need to rotate it to prevent ketchup
from dripping on you, etc. etc.

Stick to donuts, as the cops do, and I am sure you will be OK.
Please do not take this as advice to disguise your phone as a donut ...

 

[nobbie48]

is a electric razor a handheld device?
i see a market for disguised phones

If a cop sees you with your hand near your ear and after stopping you sees a cell phone on the car seat he could charge you in error. You could submit your phone records as evidence showing you weren't making any calls at the time of the alleged offense but it wouldn't mean squat.