Wendy Dubbin was charged for failing to wear her seatbelt while using Highway 5 near Kamloops. She challenged the ticket under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms saying that seatbelts are dangerous because she might be injured or killed in an incident that she might survive if she was not wearing one.
Her attack was on two grounds. She argues that the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act which creates the offence of failing to wear a seat belt violates her rights under section 2 and section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[4] In raising her constitutional argument, Ms. Dubbin relies on the provisions of subsections 2 (a) and (b) of the Charter, which respectively guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression; and section 7 which guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Seatbelt Laws do Infringe on Charter Rights
Judge Harrison found that there was an infringement, but it was insubstantial:
[35] I am satisfied that the infringement alleged by Ms. Dubbin under s. 2 of the Charter is insubstantial and does not amount to the breach of those rights. I would also adopt the reasoning of Judge Brown in the Locke decision. The freedoms of conscience, thought and expression protected by s. 2 (a) and (b) of the Charter do not extend to protect Ms. Dubbin’s asserted right to drive or be driven in a motor vehicle without wearing a seatbelt.
[36] I conclude that the issues raised by Ms. Dubbin have already been conclusively determined by our Court of Appeal in Kennedy and Thompson. If I am wrong in that view, I would find that the requirement to wear a seatbelt imposed by s. 220(4) does not violate Ms. Dubbin’s Charter rights under either s. 2 or s. 7. No assessment under s. 1 of the Charter is necessary to determine whether s. 220( 4) is a reasonable limit that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Infringement is Insubstantial
Ms. Dubbin was found guilty.
Learn More
Share This Article
Too bad she can't just admit fault, pay the penalty and quit wasting the courts time with trivial cases like this. The anti seat belt people seem to have all heard of someone somewhere on the planet that drown while wearing a seatbelt and use this as their excuse to go beltless. Factual information that seatbelts save thousands of lives every year doesn't seem to register in an illogical mind.
- Log in to post comments
What about my rights, do I as a taxpayer have the right to refuse her hospital and medical bills?
Maybe Wendy feels confined while wearing A SEATBELT, if she does she should see how confining a wheelchair is, or lying under the lid of a coffin.
- Log in to post comments
Alought of valuable court time spent,for what seems to be a waste.
If she feel that strong about not wearing a seatbelt,then simply give up your PRIVILAGE of Driving,,and don,t be a passenger in a motor vehical,I am sure you have 2 legs and a heartbeat,,,,,WALK,,,Problem Solved,,Now you will not feel your rights are violated,by having to wear a seatbelt.
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
Seatbelts - yea or nay