Summaries Sunday: Maritime Law Book

Summaries of selected recent cases are provided each week to Slaw by Maritime Law Book. Every Sunday we present a precis of the latest summaries, a fuller version of which can be found on MLB-Slaw Selected Case Summaries at cases.slaw.ca.

This week’s summaries concern:
Civil Rights – Motor Vehicles – Trials – Constitutional Law – Police – Statutes

R. v. Michaud (G.) 2015 ONCA 585
Civil Rights – Motor Vehicles – Trials
Summary: The accused, a commercial truck driver, was required by law to equip his truck with a functional speed limiter set to a maximum speed of 105 km/h. The speed limiter on the accused’s truck was functional, but was set to 109.4 km/h. He was charged by way of a ticket with contravening s. 68.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) and s. 14(1) of the Equipment Regulation, which together imposed the speed limiter requirement. The justice of the peace at first instance acquitted the accused on the basis that the legislation infringed his right to security of the person and thereby violated s. 7 of the Charter. …

Sivia v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) et al. 2015 SCC 46
Civil Rights – Constitutional Law – Motor Vehicles – Police
Summary: Six motorists, who had received 90-day roadside driving prohibitions under ss. 215.41 to 215.51 of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), challenged the constitutional validity of the legislation (referred to as the automatic roadside prohibition regime (ARP)) by way of petitions to the British Columbia Supreme Court. The motorists had each been given driving prohibitions by peace officers after they had either refused to supply a sample of breath, or having supplied a sample, registered a “fail” on an “approved screening device” (ASD) as described in the Criminal Code and the Motor Vehicle Act. …

Wilson v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) 2015 SCC 47
Motor Vehicles – Statutes
Summary: An adjudicator upheld a three-day driving prohibition issued to a driver by a police officer at a roadside check. The driver had blown a “Warn” on an approved screening device. The adjudicator held that the “Warn” reading alone was enough to justify the prohibition under s. 215.41(3.1) of the Motor Vehicle Act. The driver applied for judicial review, arguing that s. 215.41(3.1) required more before a driving prohibition could be issued. …