Provincial Driving Offences (13:VI) - Revision history

LSLAP at 19:25, 13 October 2025

2025-10-13T19:25:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, 13 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~August 14, 2024~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= 30 July 2025}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}

LSLAP: /* 4. Use of Electronic Devices */

2025-09-28T23:53:07Z

4. Use of Electronic Devices

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:53, 28 September 2025
Line 78:		Line 78:
	electronic device as use of an electronic device.		electronic device as use of an electronic device.

	In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2018/2018bcpc101/2018bcpc101.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20bainbridge&autocompletePos=3 ''R v Bainbridge'' 2018, BCPC 101] the accused was found guilty of the offence for simply holding the device in his hand while driving. The court held that any number of functions of the accused’s phone '''could''' have been used in the position in which he held his phone. . In R. v. Virda, 2024 BCSC 2410, the accused was found guilty of the offence for tapping his cellphone twice while he was stopped at a light to accept an Uber Eats delivery offer. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc745/2017bcsc745.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20jahani&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Jahani'', 2017 BCSC 745], the accused was found guilty of the offence for plugging his phone into the cord to charge the phone.		In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2018/2018bcpc101/2018bcpc101.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20bainbridge&autocompletePos=3 R v Bainbridge]'', 2018 BCPC 101 the accused was found guilty of the offence for simply holding the device in his hand while driving. The court held that any number of functions of the accused’s phone '''could''' have been used in the position in which he held his phone. . In R. v. Virda, 2024 BCSC 2410, the accused was found guilty of the offence for tapping his cellphone twice while he was stopped at a light to accept an Uber Eats delivery offer. In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc745/2017bcsc745.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20jahani&autocompletePos=1 R v Jahani]'', 2017 BCSC 745, the accused was found guilty of the offence for plugging his phone into the cord to charge the phone.

	In R . v. Antonio, 2024 BCSC 2300, the accused, a Class 7 licence holder, was charged with the offence because the ticketing officer observed that the accused’s cellphone was in a bag on the passenger seat and attached by a USB cable to his car. However, he was acquitted because simply driving with his cellphone plugged into his car did not constitute “use” as defined in s.214.2(1). Citing R. v. Sangret, 2019 BCSC 2131 at paras 14-18, having an electronic device mounted to or installed on the dashboard, without any holding, touching or other use of it, did not constitute “use” as defined in the Act.		In ''R . v. Antonio'', 2024 BCSC 2300, the accused, a Class 7 licence holder, was charged with the offence because the ticketing officer observed that the accused’s cellphone was in a bag on the passenger seat and attached by a USB cable to his car. However, he was acquitted because simply driving with his cellphone plugged into his car did not constitute “use” as defined in s.214.2(1). Citing ''R. v. Sangret'', 2019 BCSC 2131 at paras 14-18, having an electronic device mounted to or installed on the dashboard, without any holding, touching or other use of it, did not constitute “use” as defined in the Act.

	In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc360/2019bcsc360.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20partridge%202019%20BCS&autocompletePos=1 ''R v. Partridge'', 2019 BCSC 360], the accused was observed by a police officer looking downwards whilst driving and when stopped, a cell phone was found wedged between the folds of the passenger seat such that the screen was facing the driver. Accused was convicted. However, the accused was acquitted on appeal because the mere presence of a cell phone within sight of a driver is not enough to secure a conviction, leaving aside a situation where, for example, the screen is illuminated and so the driver may then be utilizing the cell phone in some fashion.		In ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc360/2019bcsc360.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20partridge%202019%20BCS&autocompletePos=1 R v. Partridge]'', 2019 BCSC 360, the accused was observed by a police officer looking downwards whilst driving and when stopped, a cell phone was found wedged between the folds of the passenger seat such that the screen was facing the driver. Accused was convicted. However, the accused was acquitted on appeal because the mere presence of a cell phone within sight of a driver is not enough to secure a conviction, leaving aside a situation where, for example, the screen is illuminated and so the driver may then be utilizing the cell phone in some fashion.

	In R. v. Mirza, 2023 BCSC 881, the accused was charged with the offence after the ticketing officer observed that his cellphone lying flat on his thigh, the screen upwards and unlit, while stopped at a traffic light. The accused argued that he was not “using” his cellphone, which was leaning on his leg. He contended that both his hands were on his steering wheel, he was not looking down at his device, and he was not “using” any of the functions of his device. The BCSC upheld the finding that the accused had violated s.214.2(1) because “if [the cellphone] is being held on the lap or on the thigh, it is still holding within the meaning of the statute” [para 19-20].		In ''R. v. Mirza'', 2023 BCSC 881, the accused was charged with the offence after the ticketing officer observed that his cellphone lying flat on his thigh, the screen upwards and unlit, while stopped at a traffic light. The accused argued that he was not “using” his cellphone, which was leaning on his leg. He contended that both his hands were on his steering wheel, he was not looking down at his device, and he was not “using” any of the functions of his device. The BCSC upheld the finding that the accused had violated s.214.2(1) because “if [the cellphone] is being held on the lap or on the thigh, it is still holding within the meaning of the statute” [para 19-20].

	In [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/00/2021BCSC0013.htm ''R v. Bleau'', 2021 BCSC 13], the accused received a ticket while listening to a podcast through his vehicle’s sound system. Bleau’s phone was connected by Bluetooth and loosely placed in the cup holder of the centre compartment. The phone was not securely affixed to the vehicle, but Bleau did not touch or otherwise interact with the device. In this decision, the Court acquitted Bleau of his conviction. It was decided that passively listening to a podcast on an unmounted device, did not constitute “use” per section 214.1.		In ''[https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/00/2021BCSC0013.htm R v. Bleau]'', 2021 BCSC 13, the accused received a ticket while listening to a podcast through his vehicle’s sound system. Bleau’s phone was connected by Bluetooth and loosely placed in the cup holder of the centre compartment. The phone was not securely affixed to the vehicle, but Bleau did not touch or otherwise interact with the device. In this decision, the Court acquitted Bleau of his conviction. It was decided that passively listening to a podcast on an unmounted device, did not constitute “use” per section 214.1.

	In a recent unreported BC Provincial Court decision, it was found that smartwatches do not fall under the definition of an “electronic device” for the purpose of MVA. The reasoning behind this is that a smartwatch is not a handheld device since it is worn on the body.		In a recent unreported BC Provincial Court decision, it was found that smartwatches do not fall under the definition of an “electronic device” for the purpose of MVA. The reasoning behind this is that a smartwatch is not a handheld device since it is worn on the body.

LSLAP: /* A. Common Offences */

2025-09-28T23:50:44Z

A. Common Offences

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:50, 28 September 2025
Line 10:		Line 10:
	Per section 146.1 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'', some vehicles, including but not limited to heavy commercial vehicles, the driver’s obedience of speed limits is insufficient, and the vehicle must be equipped with a speed limiter. A speed limiter means a system that prevents a motor vehicle from accelerating to or maintaining a certain speed. Section 146.2 allows police officers to stop and inspect vehicles without warrant in order to ensure speed limiters are installed.		Per section 146.1 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'', some vehicles, including but not limited to heavy commercial vehicles, the driver’s obedience of speed limits is insufficient, and the vehicle must be equipped with a speed limiter. A speed limiter means a system that prevents a motor vehicle from accelerating to or maintaining a certain speed. Section 146.2 allows police officers to stop and inspect vehicles without warrant in order to ensure speed limiters are installed.

	In R. v. Thachuk, 2024 BCSC 2393, the Court clarified that a ticketing officer’s visual estimates of speed are not required to support a laser speed reading. It also clarified that a discrepancy or broad margin of error in the visual estimate of speed does not override the validity of an otherwise accurate laser reading. Rather, the BCSC determined that a visual estimate primarily serves as a triggering mechanism for an officer to use their laser device. While a visual estimate can corroborate a laser reading, it is not necessary for conviction.		In ''R. v. Thachuk'', 2024 BCSC 2393, the Court clarified that a ticketing officer’s visual estimates of speed are not required to support a laser speed reading. It also clarified that a discrepancy or broad margin of error in the visual estimate of speed does not override the validity of an otherwise accurate laser reading. Rather, the BCSC determined that a visual estimate primarily serves as a triggering mechanism for an officer to use their laser device. While a visual estimate can corroborate a laser reading, it is not necessary for conviction.


Line 88:		Line 88:
	In [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/00/2021BCSC0013.htm ''R v. Bleau'', 2021 BCSC 13], the accused received a ticket while listening to a podcast through his vehicle’s sound system. Bleau’s phone was connected by Bluetooth and loosely placed in the cup holder of the centre compartment. The phone was not securely affixed to the vehicle, but Bleau did not touch or otherwise interact with the device. In this decision, the Court acquitted Bleau of his conviction. It was decided that passively listening to a podcast on an unmounted device, did not constitute “use” per section 214.1.		In [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/00/2021BCSC0013.htm ''R v. Bleau'', 2021 BCSC 13], the accused received a ticket while listening to a podcast through his vehicle’s sound system. Bleau’s phone was connected by Bluetooth and loosely placed in the cup holder of the centre compartment. The phone was not securely affixed to the vehicle, but Bleau did not touch or otherwise interact with the device. In this decision, the Court acquitted Bleau of his conviction. It was decided that passively listening to a podcast on an unmounted device, did not constitute “use” per section 214.1.

	In a recent unreported BC Provincial Court decision, it was found that smartwatches do not fall under the definition of an “electronic device” for the purpose of MVA. The reasoning behind this is that a smartwatch is not a handheld device since it is worn on the body.		In a recent unreported BC Provincial Court decision, it was found that smartwatches do not fall under the definition of an “electronic device” for the purpose of MVA. The reasoning behind this is that a smartwatch is not a handheld device since it is worn on the body.

	== B. Penalty Points ==		== B. Penalty Points ==

LSLAP: /* 2. Careless Driving */

2025-09-22T06:59:05Z

2. Careless Driving

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:59, 22 September 2025
Line 23:		Line 23:
	:c) At a speed that is excessive given the road, traffic, visibility, or weather conditions.		:c) At a speed that is excessive given the road, traffic, visibility, or weather conditions.

	A person who commits an offence under (a) or (b) is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $100 (s 144(2)) and six points added to their driving record. Subject to the minimum fine, s 4 of the ''Offence Act'' states that a fine must be less than $2,000. A person who commits an offence under (c) is liable on conviction to a fine of $173 and three penalty points as per the VTAFR and ''Motor Vehicle Act Regulations''.		A person who commits an offence under (a) or (b) is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $100 (s 144(2)) and six points added to their driving record. Subject to the minimum fine, s 4 of the ''Offence Act'' states that a fine must be less than $2,000. A person who commits an offence under (c) is liable on conviction to a fine of $173 and three penalty points as per the VTAFR and ''Motor Vehicle Act Regulations''. Section 144(3) states that in imposing a sentence for a s 144(1) offence, if the offence caused death or bodily injury to a vulnerable road user, that fact is to be considered an aggravating factor.

	To convict a driver of any of these offences, the Crown must only prove inadvertent negligence: a lack of proper care or absence of thought. The standard of care is determined in relation to the circumstances and carelessness must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: ''R v Beauchamp'', [1952] OJ No 495, (1953)106 CCC 6 (Ont CA).		To convict a driver of any of these offences, the Crown must only prove inadvertent negligence: a lack of proper care or absence of thought. The standard of care is determined in relation to the circumstances and carelessness must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: ''R v Beauchamp'', [1952] OJ No 495, (1953)106 CCC 6 (Ont CA).

LSLAP at 02:16, 19 September 2025

2025-09-19T02:16:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:16, 19 September 2025
Line 78:		Line 78:
	electronic device as use of an electronic device.		electronic device as use of an electronic device.

	In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2018/2018bcpc101/2018bcpc101.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20bainbridge&autocompletePos=3 ''R v Bainbridge'' 2018, BCPC 101] the accused was found guilty of the offence for simply holding the device in his hand while driving. The court held that any number of functions of the accused’s phone '''could''' have been used in the position in which he held his phone. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc745/2017bcsc745.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20jahani&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Jahani'', 2017 BCSC 745], the accused was found guilty of the offence for plugging his phone into the cord to charge the phone.		In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2018/2018bcpc101/2018bcpc101.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20bainbridge&autocompletePos=3 ''R v Bainbridge'' 2018, BCPC 101] the accused was found guilty of the offence for simply holding the device in his hand while driving. The court held that any number of functions of the accused’s phone '''could''' have been used in the position in which he held his phone. . In R. v. Virda, 2024 BCSC 2410, the accused was found guilty of the offence for tapping his cellphone twice while he was stopped at a light to accept an Uber Eats delivery offer. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc745/2017bcsc745.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20jahani&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Jahani'', 2017 BCSC 745], the accused was found guilty of the offence for plugging his phone into the cord to charge the phone.

	In ~~[https://www~~.~~canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2018/2018bcpc183/2018bcpc183~~.~~html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20tannhaus&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Tannhauser''~~, ~~2018 BCPC 183]~~, the accused was ~~acquitted of~~ the offence because ~~his cell~~ was ~~programmed with~~ a ~~software that immobilized~~ the ~~phone when a vehicle that is in motion. **This case was appealed~~ and ~~BCCA ordered~~ a ~~new trial~~. ~~The judge in the BCCA trial said that even though the cell phone could not immediately be used due to the software~~, it was ~~still an electronic device held~~ in ~~a position in which it may be used, which is illegal [http://canlii~~.~~ca/t/j7zgh ''~~R. v. ~~Tannhauser''~~, ~~2020 BCCA 155]~~.		In R . v. Antonio, 2024 BCSC 2300, the accused, a Class 7 licence holder, was charged with the offence because the ticketing officer observed that the accused’s cellphone was in a bag on the passenger seat and attached by a USB cable to his car. However, he was acquitted because simply driving with his cellphone plugged into his car did not constitute “use” as defined in s.214.2(1). Citing R. v. Sangret, 2019 BCSC 2131 at paras 14-18, having an electronic device mounted to or installed on the dashboard, without any holding, touching or other use of it, did not constitute “use” as defined in the Act.

	In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc360/2019bcsc360.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20partridge%202019%20BCS&autocompletePos=1 ''R v. Partridge'', 2019 BCSC 360], the accused was observed by a police officer looking downwards whilst driving and when stopped, a cell phone was found wedged between the folds of the passenger seat such that the screen was facing the driver. Accused was convicted. However, the accused was acquitted on appeal because the mere presence of a cell phone within sight of a driver is not enough to secure a conviction, leaving aside a situation where, for example, the screen is illuminated and so the driver may then be utilizing the cell phone in some fashion.		In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc360/2019bcsc360.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20partridge%202019%20BCS&autocompletePos=1 ''R v. Partridge'', 2019 BCSC 360], the accused was observed by a police officer looking downwards whilst driving and when stopped, a cell phone was found wedged between the folds of the passenger seat such that the screen was facing the driver. Accused was convicted. However, the accused was acquitted on appeal because the mere presence of a cell phone within sight of a driver is not enough to secure a conviction, leaving aside a situation where, for example, the screen is illuminated and so the driver may then be utilizing the cell phone in some fashion.

			In R. v. Mirza, 2023 BCSC 881, the accused was charged with the offence after the ticketing officer observed that his cellphone lying flat on his thigh, the screen upwards and unlit, while stopped at a traffic light. The accused argued that he was not “using” his cellphone, which was leaning on his leg. He contended that both his hands were on his steering wheel, he was not looking down at his device, and he was not “using” any of the functions of his device. The BCSC upheld the finding that the accused had violated s.214.2(1) because “if [the cellphone] is being held on the lap or on the thigh, it is still holding within the meaning of the statute” [para 19-20].

	In [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/00/2021BCSC0013.htm ''R v. Bleau'', 2021 BCSC 13], the accused received a ticket while listening to a podcast through his vehicle’s sound system. Bleau’s phone was connected by Bluetooth and loosely placed in the cup holder of the centre compartment. The phone was not securely affixed to the vehicle, but Bleau did not touch or otherwise interact with the device. In this decision, the Court acquitted Bleau of his conviction. It was decided that passively listening to a podcast on an unmounted device, did not constitute “use” per section 214.1.		In [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/00/2021BCSC0013.htm ''R v. Bleau'', 2021 BCSC 13], the accused received a ticket while listening to a podcast through his vehicle’s sound system. Bleau’s phone was connected by Bluetooth and loosely placed in the cup holder of the centre compartment. The phone was not securely affixed to the vehicle, but Bleau did not touch or otherwise interact with the device. In this decision, the Court acquitted Bleau of his conviction. It was decided that passively listening to a podcast on an unmounted device, did not constitute “use” per section 214.1.

LSLAP at 02:14, 19 September 2025

2025-09-19T02:14:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:14, 19 September 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:

	Per section 146.1 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'', some vehicles, including but not limited to heavy commercial vehicles, the driver’s obedience of speed limits is insufficient, and the vehicle must be equipped with a speed limiter. A speed limiter means a system that prevents a motor vehicle from accelerating to or maintaining a certain speed. Section 146.2 allows police officers to stop and inspect vehicles without warrant in order to ensure speed limiters are installed.		Per section 146.1 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'', some vehicles, including but not limited to heavy commercial vehicles, the driver’s obedience of speed limits is insufficient, and the vehicle must be equipped with a speed limiter. A speed limiter means a system that prevents a motor vehicle from accelerating to or maintaining a certain speed. Section 146.2 allows police officers to stop and inspect vehicles without warrant in order to ensure speed limiters are installed.

			In R. v. Thachuk, 2024 BCSC 2393, the Court clarified that a ticketing officer’s visual estimates of speed are not required to support a laser speed reading. It also clarified that a discrepancy or broad margin of error in the visual estimate of speed does not override the validity of an otherwise accurate laser reading. Rather, the BCSC determined that a visual estimate primarily serves as a triggering mechanism for an officer to use their laser device. While a visual estimate can corroborate a laser reading, it is not necessary for conviction.


	=== 2. Careless Driving ===		=== 2. Careless Driving ===

LSLAP at 21:02, 21 August 2024

2024-08-21T21:02:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:02, 21 August 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~July 1~~, ~~2023~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= August 14, 2024}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}

LSLAP at 23:02, 5 August 2024

2024-08-05T23:02:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:02, 5 August 2024
Line 6:		Line 6:
	=== 1. Speeding ===		=== 1. Speeding ===

	The most common provincial offence committed in BC is speeding in violation of section 146 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act''. Generally, drivers must not exceed 50km/h in a municipality or on treaty lands, 80km/h on other highways, and must not operate a motor vehicle at a rate of speed higher than that posted on a sign. S 148.2 of the Motor Vehicle Act lists a defence to speeding: if the sign stating the speed limit was obscured or impossible to read, the accused cannot be convicted. This is an affirmative defence and the burden is on the accused to prove that the sign was obscured or impossible to read.		The most common provincial offence committed in BC is speeding in violation of section 146 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act''. Generally, drivers must not exceed 50km/h in a municipality or on treaty lands, 80km/h on other highways, and must not operate a motor vehicle at a rate of speed higher than that posted on a sign. S 148.2 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' lists a defence to speeding: if the sign stating the speed limit was obscured or impossible to read, the accused cannot be convicted. This is an affirmative defence and the burden is on the accused to prove that the sign was obscured or impossible to read.

			Per section 146.1 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'', some vehicles, including but not limited to heavy commercial vehicles, the driver’s obedience of speed limits is insufficient, and the vehicle must be equipped with a speed limiter. A speed limiter means a system that prevents a motor vehicle from accelerating to or maintaining a certain speed. Section 146.2 allows police officers to stop and inspect vehicles without warrant in order to ensure speed limiters are installed.

	=== 2. Careless Driving ===		=== 2. Careless Driving ===

LSLAP at 18:29, 8 August 2023

2023-08-08T18:29:45Z

Clicklaw Editor: /* C. Vicarious Liability for Provincial Motor Vehicle Offences */

2022-09-15T22:32:36Z

C. Vicarious Liability for Provincial Motor Vehicle Offences

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:32, 15 September 2022
Line 95:		Line 95:
	== C. Vicarious Liability for Provincial Motor Vehicle Offences ==		== C. Vicarious Liability for Provincial Motor Vehicle Offences ==

	Pursuant to ''Motor Vehicle Act'' ss 83 and 88, the owner of a motor vehicle is liable for any violation of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' or ''Motor Vehicle Act Regulations'' unless they prove that:		Pursuant to ''Motor Vehicle Act'' ss 83 and 88, the owner of a motor vehicle is liable for any violation of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' or ''Motor Vehicle Act Regulations'' unless they can prove that:

	:a) they did not entrust the motor vehicle to the person in possession or exercised reasonable care and diligence when doing so (''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 83(3));		:a) they did not entrust the motor vehicle to the person in possession or exercised reasonable care and diligence when doing so (''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 83(3));

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:29, 8 August 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= July 4, ~~2022~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= July 1, 2023}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = motor}}

Line 12:		Line 12:
	Under s 144(1) of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'', it is an offence to drive:		Under s 144(1) of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'', it is an offence to drive:

	:a) ~~without~~ due care and attention;		:a) Without due care and attention;

	:b) ~~without~~ reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway; or		:b) Without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway; or

	:c) at a speed that is excessive given the road, traffic, visibility, or weather conditions.		:c) At a speed that is excessive given the road, traffic, visibility, or weather conditions.

	A person who commits an offence under (a) or (b) is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $100 (s 144(2)) and six points added to their driving record. Subject to the minimum fine, s 4 of the ''Offence Act'' states that a fine must be less than $2,000. A person who commits an offence under (c) is liable on conviction to a fine of $173 and three penalty points as per the VTAFR and ''Motor Vehicle Act Regulations''.		A person who commits an offence under (a) or (b) is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $100 (s 144(2)) and six points added to their driving record. Subject to the minimum fine, s 4 of the ''Offence Act'' states that a fine must be less than $2,000. A person who commits an offence under (c) is liable on conviction to a fine of $173 and three penalty points as per the VTAFR and ''Motor Vehicle Act Regulations''.
Line 26:		Line 26:
	Part 9 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' includes street racing provisions. Street racing has become a major public issue and authorities treat it very seriously. Per ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 250, “Race” includes circumstances in which, taking into account the condition of the road, traffic, visibility, and weather, the operator of a motor vehicle is operating the motor vehicle without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may cause harm to an individual, by doing any of the following:		Part 9 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' includes street racing provisions. Street racing has become a major public issue and authorities treat it very seriously. Per ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 250, “Race” includes circumstances in which, taking into account the condition of the road, traffic, visibility, and weather, the operator of a motor vehicle is operating the motor vehicle without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may cause harm to an individual, by doing any of the following:

	:a) ~~outdistancing~~ or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles;		:a) Outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles;

	:b) ~~preventing~~ or attempting to prevent one or more other motor vehicles from passing; or		:b) Preventing or attempting to prevent one or more other motor vehicles from passing; or

	:c) ~~driving~~ at excessive speed in order to arrive at or attempt to arrive at a given destination ahead of one or more other motor vehicles.		:c) Driving at excessive speed in order to arrive at or attempt to arrive at a given destination ahead of one or more other motor vehicles.

	According to ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 251(1)(e), a peace officer may cause a motor vehicle to be		According to ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 251(1)(e), a peace officer may cause a motor vehicle to be
Line 40:		Line 40:
	days.		days.

	=== 4. Use of Electronic ~~devices~~ ===		=== 4. Use of Electronic Devices ===

	Part 3.1 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' outlines offences related to the use of electronic devices while driving. Section 214.2 defines an “electronic device” as (a) a hand-held cellular phone, (b) a hand-held device capable of receiving email or text messages, or (c) any prescribed class or type of electronic device. Prescribed electronic devices are further defined in s 3 of the ''Use of Electronic Devices While Driving Regulation'', BC Reg 308/2009 [EDWDR] as any of the following:		Part 3.1 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' outlines offences related to the use of electronic devices while driving. Section 214.2 defines an “electronic device” as (a) a hand-held cellular phone, (b) a hand-held device capable of receiving email or text messages, or (c) any prescribed class or type of electronic device. Prescribed electronic devices are further defined in s 3 of the ''Use of Electronic Devices While Driving Regulation'', BC Reg 308/2009 [EDWDR] as any of the following:
Line 62:		Line 62:
	“Use” of an electronic device is defined broadly. Per ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 214.1 use means:		“Use” of an electronic device is defined broadly. Per ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 214.1 use means:

	:(a) ''~~holding~~ the device in a position in which it may be used;''		:(a) ''Holding the device in a position in which it may be used;''

	:(b) ''~~operating~~ one or more of the device's functions;''		:(b) ''Operating one or more of the device's functions;''

	:(c) ''~~communicating~~ orally by means of the device with another person or another device;''		:(c) ''Communicating orally by means of the device with another person or another device; or''

	:(d) ''~~taking~~ another action that is set out in the regulations by means of, with or in relation to an electronic device.''		:(d) ''Taking another action that is set out in the regulations by means of, with or in relation to an electronic device.''

	Additionally, ''EDWDR'' s 2 adds watching the screen of an		Additionally, ''EDWDR'' s 2 adds watching the screen of an
Line 80:		Line 80:

	In [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/00/2021BCSC0013.htm ''R v. Bleau'', 2021 BCSC 13], the accused received a ticket while listening to a podcast through his vehicle’s sound system. Bleau’s phone was connected by Bluetooth and loosely placed in the cup holder of the centre compartment. The phone was not securely affixed to the vehicle, but Bleau did not touch or otherwise interact with the device. In this decision, the Court acquitted Bleau of his conviction. It was decided that passively listening to a podcast on an unmounted device, did not constitute “use” per section 214.1.		In [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/00/2021BCSC0013.htm ''R v. Bleau'', 2021 BCSC 13], the accused received a ticket while listening to a podcast through his vehicle’s sound system. Bleau’s phone was connected by Bluetooth and loosely placed in the cup holder of the centre compartment. The phone was not securely affixed to the vehicle, but Bleau did not touch or otherwise interact with the device. In this decision, the Court acquitted Bleau of his conviction. It was decided that passively listening to a podcast on an unmounted device, did not constitute “use” per section 214.1.

			In a recent unreported BC Provincial Court decision, it was found that smartwatches do not fall under the definition of an “electronic device” for the purpose of MVA. The reasoning behind this is that a smartwatch is not a handheld device since it is worn on the body.

	== B. Penalty Points ==		== B. Penalty Points ==
Line 87:		Line 89:
	The number of penalty points will be taken into account under ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 93 when the Superintendent suspends a license. '''The Superintendent may suspend the license of a class 5 driver who accumulates 15 or more points in any two year period.''' For a class 7 driver, or novice driver, the Superintendent may suspend the licence for receiving single a 3 point Violation Ticket. [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/driving-and-transportation/driving/roadsafetybc/high-risk/street-racing/driver-improvement-policies-guidelines.pdf More information can be obtained from the Driver Improvement Program Policies and Guidelines].		The number of penalty points will be taken into account under ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 93 when the Superintendent suspends a license. '''The Superintendent may suspend the license of a class 5 driver who accumulates 15 or more points in any two year period.''' For a class 7 driver, or novice driver, the Superintendent may suspend the licence for receiving single a 3 point Violation Ticket. [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/driving-and-transportation/driving/roadsafetybc/high-risk/street-racing/driver-improvement-policies-guidelines.pdf More information can be obtained from the Driver Improvement Program Policies and Guidelines].

	As of December 2017, a class 5 driver who incurs two high-risk offences (Use of Electronic Device; Excessive Speed; and/or Drive Without Due Care or Attention) in a one year period risks losing their driver’s licence for up to 5 months.		As of December 2017, class 5 driver who incurs two high-risk offences (Use of Electronic Device; Excessive Speed; and/or Drive Without Due Care or Attention) in a one year period risks losing their driver’s licence for up to 5 months.

	=== 1. ICBC Effects of Penalty Points ===		=== 1. ICBC Effects of Penalty Points ===
Line 97:		Line 99:
	Pursuant to ''Motor Vehicle Act'' ss 83 and 88, the owner of a motor vehicle is liable for any violation of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' or ''Motor Vehicle Act Regulations'' unless they can prove that:		Pursuant to ''Motor Vehicle Act'' ss 83 and 88, the owner of a motor vehicle is liable for any violation of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' or ''Motor Vehicle Act Regulations'' unless they can prove that:

	:a) ~~they~~ did not entrust the motor vehicle to the person in possession or exercised reasonable care and diligence when doing so (''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 83(3));		:a) They did not entrust the motor vehicle to the person in possession or exercised reasonable care and diligence when doing so (''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 83(3));

	:b) ~~although~~ the registered owner, they are not the actual owner (''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 83(5)(b)); or		:b) Although the registered owner, they are not the actual owner (''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 83(5)(b)); or

	:c) ~~the~~ person committing the offence was not the registered owner’s employee, servant, agent or worker (''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 88(3)).		:c) The person committing the offence was not the registered owner’s employee, servant, agent or worker (''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 88(3)).

	Under ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 83(4), if an owner is liable for an offence committed by the driver, a fine of not more than $2,000 may be imposed in place of the fine or term of imprisonment specified in the enactment.		Under ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 83(4), if an owner is liable for an offence committed by the driver, a fine of not more than $2,000 may be imposed in place of the fine or term of imprisonment specified in the enactment.
Line 107:		Line 109:
	Under s 83(7), no owner is liable if the driver was convicted under the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' for:		Under s 83(7), no owner is liable if the driver was convicted under the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' for:

	:a) ~~driving~~ without a license or without the appropriate class of license (s 24(1));		:a) Driving without a license or without the appropriate class of license (s 24(1));

	:b) ~~driving~~ while prohibited by order of peace officer or Superintendent (s 95);		:b) Driving while prohibited by order of peace officer or Superintendent (s 95);

	:c) ~~driving~~ while prohibited by operation of law (s 102);		:c) Driving while prohibited by operation of law (s 102);

	:d) ~~impaired~~ driving (s 224); or [REPEALED]		:d) Impaired driving (s 224); or [REPEALED]

	:e) ~~refusing~~ to give a blood sample (s 226(1)). [REPEALED]		:e) Refusing to give a blood sample (s 226(1)). [REPEALED]

	Generally, where the driver of a motor vehicle has been convicted of an offence, financial liability rests on them and further relief cannot be sought against the owner of the vehicle.		Generally, where the driver of a motor vehicle has been convicted of an offence, financial liability rests on them and further relief cannot be sought against the owner of the vehicle.