Jarod Eide was ticketed for using an electronic device while driving on December 13, 2017. He did not enter his dispute of the allegation within the required 30 days of having received the ticket. Subsequently, he applied for an extension of time to dispute on May 11, 2018 and it was denied by Judicial Justice Adair.
Madam Justice Ross was asked to review this decision. She found that the Judicial Justice concluded that Mr. Eide did not have an arguable defence because the facts that he described constituted “use” under the legislation and that the decision fell within the range of reasonable interpretations.
The application to set aside the conviction was dismissed.
Link:
Law defines "use" of the electronic device in such a way that if a cellphone store defined it the same, it could sell old clay bricks and pretend that they can be used as cellphones. The "legal" landscape is full of "code-words" that masquerade as everyday vocabulary and plays off the misunderstanding by the general layman public. When the word "use" no longer means what 100% of people use their phones for, the person who lost their appeal in this case is morally right.
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
Black is white, war is peace, truth are lies.