screeech wrote:

You can only play the motion of non suit card after the Crown has tendered all of their witnesses. Once the Crown has concluded their case you can make the motion. I am still having a very hard time with the whole sidewalk not being a part of the highway thing. Even ditches are considered highways if between the property lines, why wouldn't a side walk?

Ive been querying that in my head too. I wonder if it's fenceline to fenceline in the country and curb to curb in the towns ??

I wouldn't think so, there is no distiction in the definition.

We were taught that in a rural are its fence line to fence line and it a city it's "store front" to "store front". Most cities own a portion of the property up a residential front lawn for the purposes of installing infrastructure etc.

I wouldnt be hinging this whole thing on that one lower court decision. I've looked at a few more that decide just the opposite.

And that is the problem in lots of cases. People find one case law that supports their argument and ignore the dozen case laws that are contrary.

I think it's fair to say the case law argument, especially being non-binding, is pretty weak. I figure our main defence will be cross-examining the officer and pointing to reasonable doubt, assuming his testimony gives us the opportunity.

I checked out the street she was stopped on and it's actually very well lit by street lights -- do you think this could be construed as "sufficient" light or cast doubt on the insufficiency the officer alleges, especially if there is no evidence introduced as to when exactly sunset was?

Well the section says between sunset and sunrise so sufficient light is irrelevent IMO.