We all hate traffic cameras. They catch us in moments of inattention, slap us with fines we didn’t ask for, and do it all without a human touch. It feels like an invasion of privacy—an automated system designed more to squeeze out cash than to make us safer. But while most of us grumble and pay the fine, some people take their frustration to the next level.
This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays, we look at those who have taken their hatred for traffic cameras a little too far.
The recent decision in R. v. Corporation Gardaworld Services Transport de Valeurs Canada (2024 BCSC 1754) represents a significant shift in the use of photographic evidence in traffic violation cases in British Columbia, particularly those involving speed cameras and red light cameras.
The ruling by the BC Supreme Court redirects the approach lower courts have recently taken, which has often been skeptical of relying solely on photographic evidence when key details, such as the jurisdiction of a license plate, are unclear.
Breath-alcohol testing is a cornerstone of impaired driving enforcement, widely used in Canada to determine whether drivers are over the legal blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) limit. However, new scientific findings shed light on a significant problem with this method of testing: the variability of the blood/breath ratio (BBR), which directly impacts the accuracy of breath-alcohol test results. This variability raises important questions about how reliable breathalyzer readings truly are, and has serious implications for those facing impaired driving charges.
At the heart of the issue is the BBR, the proportionality factor used to convert a breath-alcohol concentration (BrAC) into an estimated BAC. The standard BBR, used in all breath-alcohol testing devices in Canada, is assumed to be 2100:1. This means that 2100 mL of breath is considered equivalent to the alcohol content of 1 mL of blood. However, as discussed in a recent article by Dominick A. Labianca, The Variability of the Blood/Breath Ratio and Its Impact on the Results of Breath-Alcohol Analyses (2023), this ratio is far from fixed and can vary significantly between individuals.
Acumen Law Corporation lawyer Kyla Lee gives her take on a made-in-Canada court case each week and discusses why these cases should have been heard by Canada’s highest court: the Supreme Court of Canada.
As we rely more on home delivery, it’s important to consider what can happen between the moment a package leaves the sender and when it arrives in your hands. This week’s Weird and Wacky brings you stories that highlight how some individuals take advantage of this vulnerable journey.
Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”
In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation dives into the case of Jordan Peterson, a controversial figure who was disciplined by the College of Psychologists of Ontario for making scientifically inaccurate and offensive statements. Peterson’s appeal was rejected by the courts, and his application for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied.
On this episode Kyla and Paul look at disturbing data about Alco-Sensor results between the new and old models. They also point out the problems with the Ohio Stop.
Welcome to this week’s Weird and Wacky Wednesday, where we explore some of the most baffling ways people try to outwit the system. These stories go from high tech to low places. It just goes to show just how far some will go to break the rules.
In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation explores a civil forfeiture case involving Mr. Liu, which raised critical issues about judicial efficiency, Charter rights, and the use of taxpayer resources in the justice system.
Key Points Discussed:
Civil Forfeiture and Charter Rights: Mr. Liu challenged the evidence in his civil forfeiture proceedings, arguing that it was obtained in violation of his Charter rights. He sought to have his Charter application heard before being subjected to examination, arguing that this would save time and resources if the evidence were excluded.
Judicial Efficiency: The case raised significant concerns about the efficient use of judicial resources, as continuing with lengthy civil proceedings before addressing Charter breaches could result in wasted time and taxpayer money.
Court’s Discretion: The BC Supreme Court and Court of Appeal denied Mr. Liu’s application to bifurcate the proceedings, stating that it was a matter of judicial discretion. The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately denied leave to appeal, leaving unresolved issues about how best to manage judicial resources in complex cases.
Why This Case Matters:
This case touches on the intersection of civil forfeiture law, Charter rights, and the efficient functioning of the justice system. Kyla Lee discusses how bifurcating proceedings and addressing Charter applications first could prevent unnecessary delays and conserve court resources. Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court of Canada chose not to weigh in, missing an opportunity to clarify how judicial resources should be managed in cases like this.
On this long distance episode Kyla and Paul talk all about Ontario. They look at 2 Ontario Court of Appeal decisions and how they overturned favourable decisions.
