Just wanted to bring to everyone's attention a recent Guelph decision where the JP convicted a woman for using her Apple Watch while driving.

Here's the National Post article:

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/a-cellphone-taped-to-someones-wrist-woman-looking-at-apple-iwatch-found-guilty-of-distracted-driving

Interesting read. Here's the CanLii link.

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 defendant's wrist it is no less a source of distraction than a cell phone taped to someone'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 one's wrist satisfies the requirements of the exemptions in Section 14 of Ontario Regulation 366/09. That Regulation contemplates devices that are (quote) "placed 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 position" (unquote).

As I have already noted the decision in R. v. Whalen interprets the wording as (quote), "provided that the device is securely mounted to the motor vehicle" (unquote)...