CASE LAW - R v Shymanski

Mr. Victor Shymanski was charged with disobeying a traffic control device after he drove his commercial vehicle past a regulatory sign requiring him to stop and check his brakes. He was convicted at trial. Subsequent to that he applied for Charter relief, claiming that his rights under section 7 had been violated because a ticket for a violation of the Traffic Control Device Regulation under section 125 of the Motor Vehicle Act is vague and unenforceable. This case is the resolution of the requested relief.

The Honourable Judge Frame found that disobeying the sign is a strict liability offence. This means that on prosecution, the crown does not need to prove that the accused formed the mental intent to disobey the sign and that the accused may raise the defence of having taken all reasonable care to comply to escape liability.

Because Shymanski did not stop, the case did not have to consider what, if anything, he might have had to do to check his brakes. Failing to stop in itself was enough to remove the defence of due diligence and there was no need to determine if the regulation that required checking the brakes was vague and unenforceable. It is interesting that the judge refers to signs posted at BC brake checks telling drivers what to check are advisory rather than regulatory. Further, there are no criteria as to what the minimum requirements are for a brake check set out in the signs, posted at the brake checks or otherwise provided for in the Act or Regulations.

Link:

• Read the Reasons for Judgment - R v Shymanski