VANCOUVER 鈥� The offence of distracted driving is not limited to a driver holding a cellphone in their hands while behind the wheel, sa国际传媒鈥檚 highest court has ruled.
The court made the finding after rejecting the appeal of a man who had been issued a ticket under the Motor Vehicle Act for using an electronic device while driving.
The ticket was issued on March 15, 2019, while Zahir Rajani was stopped at a red light at West 70th and Granville in Vancouver.
A police officer who was conducting what he referred to as a 鈥渃ellphone set-up鈥� at that location observed Rajani looking down in his vehicle.
When the officer approached the vehicle, he said he saw a cellphone connected to a cord face-up in Rajani鈥檚 lap.
Rajani, who disputed the ticket in traffic court, agreed that he had been looking down when the officer first saw him, but testified that the phone was wedged between his right thigh and the car seat, facing up.
On Sept. 10, 2019, the judicial justice hearing the case upheld the ticket and handed Rajani a $300 fine.
The ruling said the phone鈥檚 precise location made no difference because it was a potential distraction and was in use because it was being charged.
Rajani appealed the case to the sa国际传媒 Supreme Court, arguing the ticket was invalid because he hadn鈥檛 been holding the cellphone in his hands.
The court found that there were several legal errors made, including that the mere presence of an electronic device in a vehicle constituted a distraction.
But it upheld the ticket after concluding that Rajani鈥檚 phone was being supported in a way that permitted its use.
A driver did not need to be holding the phone in their hands to be in violation of the law. Drivers operating their vehicles with electronic devices in their laps, between their thighs, tucked under their arms or chins, or supported by other parts of their bodies could also run afoul of the law.
Rajani appealed the sa国际传媒 Supreme Court ruling, arguing that the law does not apply to a cellphone wedged between a driver鈥檚 leg and the seat when the screen is not illuminated, but in a ruling released Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the sa国际传媒 Court of Appeal rejected that argument.
The court found that the case against Rajani was 鈥渙verwhelming鈥� and his conviction was inevitable based on either his or the officer鈥檚 account of the facts.
In a statement, Farouk Jiwa, Rajani鈥檚 lawyer, said his client was 鈥渄isappointed鈥� in the ruling, but glad that there is now clarity from the Court of Appeal on the issue given inconsistent decisions by judges in the past. He said Rajani has no plans to appeal.
