PART 1 (12 Units): Each time you find an unknown fact that seems useful, tap any surface except your screen.   Unit 101 Here is a fundamental legal principle as expressed 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."     Unit 102 Some police forces use high resolution cameras with low light capabilities and ultra-long range lenses to catch distracted drivers from more than 1 km away. These cameras can be operated by remote control.     Unit 103 R. v. Tannhauser (2020): Police observed Tannhauser driving with his cell phone on the steering wheel and ticketed him for using an electronic device while driving. Tannhauser said his phone was equipped with software that disabled its functions while the vehicle was in motion, so use of it would have been impossible. Justice Bauman allowed the appeal. The court determined that a cell phone with no immediate functionality is still an electronic device, and holding it in a position where it may be used is an offence. The court also confirmed that the functionality of the device is irrelevant because the presence of the phone itself is the issue.     Unit 104 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 105 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" and due diligence do not apply in this case. R. v. Skull (2013): Judge ruled that the crown doesn't need to prove that a hand-held cell phone is capable of transmitting or receiving.     Unit 106 R. v. Jahani (2017): Police saw Jahani holding his phone while stopped at a red light. Jahani explained he was plugging in the phone to charge it. The court upheld Jahani’s conviction and said charging a phone is ‘using’ one of its functions because even momentarily engaging with a device’s functions while driving can be considered ‘use’ under Section 214.2(1) of the BC Motor Vehicle Act.     Unit 107 GLP drivers (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 108 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.     Unit 109 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 110 Grzelak v. BC (2019): The driver had earbuds in his ears and a dead phone in the dashboard's cubbyhole; therefore, the driver was holding part of an electronic device (the earbuds) in a position (in his ears) in which it could be used and it's irrelevant that the battery was dead. There was a $368 fine, 4 penalty points, and an ICBC penalty fee of $210 for using an electronic device while driving.     Unit 111 R. v. Bleau (2021): Bleau was listening to a podcast on his phone located in a cupholder and connected to the car via Bluetooth. The police said they saw Bleau holding his phone to his ear while driving. Bleau denied this, providing phone records and dashcam footage as evidence. The Justice found the officer’s evidence unreliable, but convicted Bleau of using an electronic device while driving because the phone was not ‘firmly affixed’ to the vehicle. The BC Supreme Court overturned Bleau’s conviction and said that passively listening to a podcast from a mobile phone did not constitute ‘use’ as defined by the Motor Vehicle Act and Use of Electronic Devices While Driving Regulation. They emphasized that ‘use’ requires a driver to engage in a prohibited ‘action’, such as holding, operating, or watching the screen of an electronic device.     Unit 112 R. v. Rajani (2021): Police saw Rajani with a phone connected to a cord in his lap, but Rajani said he had the phone wedged between his thigh and the seat. Court held that in either scenario, Rajani was holding the phone by supporting it with a part of his body in a position in which it could be used, and a person must not use an electronic device while driving or operating a motor vehicle on a highway. The word “use” in the MVA includes holding the device in a position in which it may be used. The Court looked to common dictionary definitions of “holding” and concluded that physically grasping, carrying, or supporting a device with any part of one’s body in a position which the device may be used, are all considered holding.