CASE LAW - R v Eged

This is a case of failing to stop for a red light with evidence produced from a red light camera. Mr. Eged, a lawyer, attempts to have the charge quashed by showing (a) The Certificate of Vehicle Ownership -- Exhibit 2, admitted into the evidence, does not meet requirements of s.82.1 of the Act; (b) the “Enforcement Officer’s Certificate” -- Exhibit 1, does not meet requirements set out in s. 83.1 of the Act, and that the illegibility of the licence plate cannot be saved by an Enforcement Officer’s certification; and, (c) the licence plate photographed is silent with respect to jurisdiction.

He was not successful and was convicted as the registered owner of the vehicle.

Link:

R v Eged - Reasons for Judgment

Log in to post comments

Visitor Survey

DriveSmartBC displays a small number of advertisements to help cover the cost of operating the site. I would like to know what you think of the current advertising.

How do you find the advertising on DriveSmartBC?

I don’t really notice it.

It is reasonable and does not interfere with my reading.

I would prefer somewhat less advertising.

I find the advertising distracting.

I find the advertising intrusive.

Do you have any comments about the advertising?

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.