This issue to some extent arose in the recent British Columbia Supreme Court case of Rex v. Andre Paul Chauvin, which involved an appeal against a conviction for using an electronic device while driving contrary to the Motor Vehicle Act. The appeal centred on whether the original trial judge, Judicial Justice Blackstone, had misunderstood key evidence presented by Mr. Chauvin, who represented himself.
The initial charge against Mr. Chauvin arose from an incident on June 18, 2023, when Constable Weirenga pulled him over for allegedly holding a black cell phone in his right hand while driving. At trial, Mr. Chauvin argued that he was not using his cell phone but rather the built-in console display (“tablet”) of his new Dodge Ram truck, which he used for various functions like climate control, music, calls, and texts, all hands-free. He claimed Constable Weirenga had mistaken him touching the truck’s display for using a handheld device. Despite his explanation, Judicial Justice Blackstone convicted Mr. Chauvin and fined him $368.
Mr. Chauvin subsequently appealed this conviction. The main ground of his appeal was that Judicial Justice Blackstone had misunderstood his reference to the truck’s built-in display, believing it to be a handheld tablet. He sought a new trial to present his case with what he considered “correct terminology and evidence”. He also attempted to introduce new evidence on appeal, including photographs of his dashboard and testimony about his two husky dogs potentially obstructing Constable Weirenga’s view.
However, Justice Walkem dismissed the appeal . In his reasons for judgment, he addressed Mr. Chauvin’s arguments and the evidence presented at the original trial. Justice Walkem noted that the Judicial Justice had explicitly read out the definition of an “electronic device” at the start of the trial, demonstrating an understanding of the nature of the charge. Furthermore, Constable Weirenga provided clear testimony that he observed Mr. Chauvin “holding a black cellphone in his right hand just below face level” with an unobstructed view. Constable Weirenga found the cell phone lying in the centre console after stopping the vehicle.
Justice Walkem found that the Judicial Justice did consider Mr. Chauvin’s evidence regarding his habitual use of the truck’s built-in display. However, the Judicial Justice found this “practice evidence” lacked specific details about the day in question and therefore had “very little evidentiary value”. Conversely, she accepted Constable Weirenga’s specific and detailed account of witnessing Mr. Chauvin holding a cell phone. Justice Walkem concluded that the transcript did not support Mr. Chauvin’s claim that the Judicial Justice failed to appreciate the distinction between the cell phone and the built-in display.
Several legal issues contributed to Mr. Chauvin’s unsuccessful appeal.
Firstly, his failure to provide specific evidence about his actions on June 18, 2023, proved critical. While evidence of habitual practice can be considered circumstantial evidence, the trier of fact must assess it in the totality of the evidence. In this case, the general evidence of his usual practice did not outweigh the direct observation of Constable Weirenga . Secondly, the court rejected his attempt to introduce new evidence on appeal because he failed to demonstrate that he could not have adduced this evidence at trial with due diligence.
This is a key principle established in R. v. Palmer. Mr. Chauvin ultimately weakened his own testimony by conducting only a brief cross-examination of Constable Weirenga and by not challenging the constable’s observation that he held the cell phone at face level. He also failed to question whether the constable could have mistaken the cell phone for the top of the truck’s display.
Ultimately, Justice Walkem concluded that the evidence supported the Judicial Justice’s decision and found it reasonable. There was no indication that the Judicial Justice misapprehended the evidence or that a miscarriage of justice had occurred . This case highlights the importance of presenting specific and detailed evidence at trial and diligently challenging the Crown’s evidence. It also underscores the strict criteria for admitting new evidence on appeal.
This case strongly underscores why seeking legal advice and representation in traffic court is advisable and why representing oneself can be a significant disadvantage. Mr. Chauvin, appearing self-represented, struggled to present his defence effectively at trial. He offered “practice evidence” about his usual habits rather than specific details about the day of the alleged offence, which Judicial Justice Blackstone found to have “very little evidentiary value”.
Furthermore, his cross-examination of Constable Weirenga was “very brief,” and he failed to question the constable on crucial points, such as whether he could have mistaken the truck’s built-in display for a handheld phone. This failure to “put that point of evidence to the witness” as directed by the Judicial Justice hampered his ability to challenge the Crown’s case.
On appeal, Mr. Chauvin attempted to introduce new evidence (photographs and testimony about his dogs), but this was rejected because “it could have been adduced at trial, but was not”. This highlights a lack of understanding of legal procedures and the importance of presenting all relevant evidence at the initial trial. The appeal judge, Justice Walkem, ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding the original decision to be “supported by the evidence” , indicating that Mr. Chauvin’s self-representation did not allow him to effectively counter the evidence presented by the Crown.
These issues collectively illustrate that a lack of legal expertise can lead to procedural missteps, ineffective presentation of evidence, and ultimately, an unsuccessful defence. That is why it is always important to have a lawyer from the beginning of your traffic ticket case.
