Due
to various factors including the oddball effect, our perception
of time is sometimes different than clock-based time; for example,
some viewers say one of these 12-second clips seems shorter than
the others.
CLIP
> 12 seconds from 01:00 to 01:12
CLIP
> 12 seconds from 11:12 to 11:24
CLIP
> 12 seconds from 00:22 to 00:34
CLIP
> 12 seconds from 01:08 to 01:20
CLIP
> 12 seconds from 04:51 to 05:03
Unit 102
The
exercise at the bottom of this page will be easy for some, difficult
for others, and impossible for the man in this video.
CLIP
> 15 seconds from 00:08 to 00:23
Unit 103
R. v. Morris
(1994): A driver charged with speeding was in the left lane when
a speeding vehicle approached from behind. She used the "Defense
of Necessity" to justify why she exceeded the speed limit to
pass the vehicles on her right so she could change lanes and get
out of the way of the vehicle behind her.
To use the
"Defense of Necessity", you must prove three things:
1) There
was an imminent peril or danger.
2) There
was no reasonable legal alternative to the illegal course of action
you took.
3) The harm
(if any) you inflicted was proportional to the harm you avoided.
Unit 104
R. v. Sangha
(2020): The driver was seen holding a cell phone in his hand on
his thigh after picking it up from the floor after a sudden stop.
The driver said he had to pick it up due to safety concerns; however,
the "Defence of Necessity" does not apply in this case.
Unit 105
R.
v. Partridge (2019): Police saw Partridge looking down while driving,
stopped the vehicle, and saw a phone wedged between the folds of
the passenger seat with the screen (which was not illuminated) facing
the driver.
The
judge convicted Partridge based on the phone’s position and
said it was not ‘securely fixed’ to the vehicle as required
for hands-free use.
The
BC Supreme Court overturned the conviction and said the judge had
incorrectly focused on the hands-free exception without considering
the crucial element of ‘use’. As the officer did not observe
Partridge touching the device, there was no evidence of a ‘further
accompanying act’ needed to establish ‘use’.
This
case clarifies that a mobile phone within a driver’s sight
is insufficient for a conviction without evidence of ‘use’.
The court emphasized the necessity of an action beyond simply having
the phone in view.
Unit 106
R.
v. Sangret (2018): Police saw Sangret (Class 7 novice driver) with
an electronic device mounted on his dashboard, and he was ticketed
for using an electronic device while driving.
Justice
Watchuk allowed Sangret’s appeal and overturned the conviction.
The court found that merely having a device mounted on the dashboard
did not constitute use, and it is not an offence to install a device
in a manner that facilitates its use.
The
court also noted the distinction between Class 7 and other drivers
who are permitted to use devices in hands-free mode provided the
device is installed in the stipulated manner. Class 7 (novice drivers)
may not use a hands-free communication or electronic device (except
for a 911 call to report an emergency), but they can listen to music
through a vehicle's sound system from a portable player if it's
not hand-held or operated.
Unit 107
A fundamental
legal principle in most of the world is expressed as follows in
Section 19 of the Criminal Code of Canada: "Ignorance
of the law by a person who commits an offence is not an excuse for
committing that offence."
