Here's the National Post article:
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/a-c ... ed-driving
Here's some highlights:
Despite the Apple watch being smaller than a cellular phone, on the evidence it is a communication device capable of receiving and transmitting electronic date (sp?). While attached to the defendantâ€™s wrist it is no less a source of distraction than a cell phone taped to someoneâ€™s wrist...
It is submitted on behalf of the defendant that the Apple watch is akin to a Bluetooth headset. I find that there are marked differences between these devices. One is worn on the head or clothing in accordance with the Regulations, while the other is wrist worn and has a screen upon which information is displayed where others do not...
I reject the submissions of the defence that mounting the watch to oneâ€™s wrist satisfies the requirements of the exemptions in Section 14 of Ontario Regulation 366/09. That Regulation contemplates devices that are (quote) â€œplaced securely in or mounted to the motor vehicle so that it does not move while the vehicle is in motion and the driver can see it at a quick glance and easily reach it without adjusting his or her driving positionâ€ (unquote).
As I have already noted the decision in R. v. Whalen interprets the wording as (quote), â€œprovided that the device is securely mounted to the motor vehicleâ€ (unquote)...
- Similar Topics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests