TEST 7





Test 7 (25 Units below) Tests 1–9 (200 Units)



Unit 701
Driving with a window at least slightly open on both sides of the vehicle helps you hear noises from your vehicle, trains, emergency vehicles, and vehicles in your blind spots.
If a window is only partially opened, ensure the window's top edge is at a height that won't injure vehicle occupants during a crash if their neck was to be thrown against the glass edge.




Unit 702
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.
First time offenders receive a $368 ticket and 4 penalty points for a total fine of $543.




Unit 703
GLP 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 704
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 705
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 706
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.




Unit 707
R. v. Cheung (2023): Police saw Cheung stopped at a red light looking at her Apple Watch and scrolling with her fingers. Cheung said she looked at a text message and touched the screen twice to dismiss it, but did not read it. Her watch did not have a cell phone function.
The judge determined drivers are not committing an offence if they check their wristwatch; therefore, the word “hand-held” must have been added to the definition of “electronic device” for a reason, and a watch on the wrist would not normally be considered “hand-held”.




Unit 708
R. v. Dagelman (2018): A driver who is stopped at a stop sign with the vehicle in "P" and a cell phone in their hand is "driving on a highway".




Unit 709
R. v. Mirza (2023): At a red light, police saw a cell phone laying on Mirza’s right thigh, screen upwards, but not illuminated. Mirza testified it was his usual practice to leave his phone in the pocket between the driver and passenger seat, but the phone may have been touching his leg.
Justice Fitzpatrick upheld decision of Justice Maddock to convict Mirza of using an electronic device while driving. Mirza’s argument that he was not using his phone because it was locked, his hands were on the steering wheel, and he was not actively using any of the functions, was rejected.




Unit 710
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 711
R. v. Tannhauser (2020): Police observe 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 712
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 713
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 714
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 715
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.




Unit 716
Impaired driving is the leading cause of criminal death and injury in Canada.
Since April 2017, police can take a breathalyzer sample from any driver they stop. Before that date, the police needed reasonable suspicion of alcohol impairment.
A person who is unable to trigger a breathalyzer (due to Bell's palsy, bronchitis, etc.) can be penalized as if they were impaired.




Unit 717
One drink (12 oz of beer or cooler, 5 oz of wine, or 1.5 oz of 80 proof spirits) will result in a 0.02 to 0.05 BAC (blood alcohol concentration) that will return to a 0 BAC in 1.5 to 3 hours (subject to health, body type, gender, fatigue, food eaten, age, type of alcohol).
Only the passage of time will reduce a person's BAC. A cold shower, exercise, coffee, or food will not reduce a person's BAC.




Unit 718
If a host/hostess serves alcohol to a guest, the host/hostess may be liable if the guest drives and crashes.
Here are some physiological effects of alcohol: increased reaction time, eyes blinded by glare, loss of depth perception and peripheral vision.




Unit 719
A drug or alcohol impaired person (perhaps waiting for a taxi) sitting in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle with the engine running to keep the car warm or cool commits the offence of having care or control of a vehicle while impaired.




Unit 720
Soto v. Peel (2013): A vehicle's owner normally shared his car with his roommate and the keys were left on a hook. One day the owner learned his roommate was drinking, but the owner didn't remove the keys from the hook; therefore, the vehicle's owner didn't revoke his consent for his roommate to use the vehicle. The owner is liable for his roommate's crash.




Unit 721
Raj v. British Columbia (2019): When a peace officer requests the driver's licence of someone who is being accused of driving while impaired and the accused presents the wrong card to the peace officer, this error may be used as circumstantial evidence of the driver's impairment and the weight of this evidence will depend on the circumstances.




Unit 722
If the police believe a driver has taken drugs, they can require physical coordination testing at the roadside.
If the driver fails the roadside testing, the police can require a drug recognition evaluation at the police station where blood, urine, and/or saliva samples can be collected.
A refusal to comply with a drug recognition evaluation is a criminal offence.




Unit 723
Roadside drug testing can detect opiates, amphetamines, methamphetamines (ecstasy, MDMA), cocaine, benzodiazepines, ketamine, and cannabis.
THC (found in cannabis) collects in the body's fatty tissues over time and someone who isn't impaired may test positive for THC.
There's up to a $1,000 fine and 10 years in jail if there are 5 ng of THC per ml of blood and alcohol is also detected.




Unit 724
Because the US doesn't recognize cannabis as a legal industry, anyone who is even tangentially involved with cannabis can be charged with "living off the avails of crime". This is a violation of federal law and can result in a lifetime ban from entering the US.
Even admitting to using cannabis can lead to a lifetime ban.
Online cannabis purchases with credit cards leave a data trail.




Unit 725
Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless and colorless gas. It's a result of combustion and it's found in car exhaust.
CO poisoning can resemble fatigue and it is sometimes accompanied by dizziness, nausea, breathlessness, headache, and a cherry red color of the mucous tissues.
Victims of CO poisoning need immediate access to fresh air.