New Case Law: Lawful to momentarily hold a cell phone

Moderators: Radar Identified, Reflections, admin, hwybear, Decatur, bend

Stanton
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 2111
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:49 pm
Location: Ontario

New Case Law: Lawful to momentarily hold a cell phone

by: Stanton on
Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:57 am

Some very recent case law regarding cell phones.

The short synopsis is that briefly holding your cell phone is lawful. The accused in this matter was observed with her phone in her hand at a red light. She claimed to have simply just picked it up off the floor.

From the decision:
Given the objective is to promote road safety by banning resort to and the use of such devices while operating a motor vehicle, it is not necessary to prohibit a driver from merely touching a cell phone, for example, just to hand it to a passenger or to move it within the car. The short mental distraction and physical interference with the ability to drive caused by such acts are not intended to be caught by the provision. There must be some sustained physical holding of the device in order to meet the definition.
The case is R v. KAZEMI - Link: http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight. ... cj383.html

I do have issue with the fact that the officer observed the accused staring down at an open flip phone, which to me indicates use versus simply picking it up off the floor, but the ruling sill applies regardless.






User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Toronto

Moderator

by: Radar Identified on
Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:01 am

This one is binding throughout the province. It was heard by a Superior Court Justice. The next step would be the Ontario Court of Appeal... although I think the province would be hard-pressed to prove that "briefly holding" a phone is an inherently dangerous activity. Texting, maknig a call, etc., would certainly count as dangerous but "briefly holding" probably wouldn't go anywhere.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
Decatur
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 702
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:31 am

Posting Awards

Moderator

by: Decatur on
Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:30 am

This is where i'm confused. Certain media outlets have said that this is binding in the province but the case was not heard by a Superior Court Justice. It was heard by The Honourable Justice Shaun S. Nakatsuru of the Ontario Court of Justice.


User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Toronto

Moderator

by: Radar Identified on
Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:31 pm

Heard through another source that it was Superior Court... but that's obviously incorrect.

Looks like you were right: If it was the Ontario Court of Justice then the decision is NOT binding.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
Simon Borys
VIP
VIP
Posts: 1065
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:20 am
Contact:

by: Simon Borys on
Wed Jul 18, 2012 10:03 pm

This is an OCJ case, however it is an appellate level case - being an appear of the decision of a Justice of the Peace. This case should be binding on Justices of the Peace who operate in traffic court's in the entire province. It is only persuasive on other courts of the same level - those being judge's of the OCJ hearing other POA appeals on this issue.
http://www.boryslaw.ca
NOTHING I SAY ON HERE IS LEGAL ADVICE.


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “General Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests