BROADCASTS.com

b'

The Motor Vehicle Act distracted driving provisions are in need of an update in order to both provide clarity, and to address technological changes that have taken place over the past ten years.

As a result of the outdated, and confusing, legislative scheme even police officers who are charged with enforcing the scheme are having difficulty interpreting the provisions.\\xa0

Recent advice, offered by a senior police officer, concerning when and how electronic devices can be used was, unfortunately, misleading.

The Use of Electronic Devices While Driving Regulations permit someone, who is not a new driver with a class 7 or 7L licence, to use the hands-free telephone function of an electronic device, which is properly secured to a motor vehicle, within easy reach of the driver\\u2019s seat, or worn securely on the person\\u2019s body, by touching it once in order to start or end a phone call.\\xa0

This \\u201cone-touch\\u201d exception to the general rule prohibiting the use of electronic devices, only applies to hands-free phone calls. It does not permit the use of a device for some other purpose by touching it once.\\xa0

There is a separate provision that permits a \\u201cHand-held audio player\\u201d to be used, as long as it\\u2019s not held in a person\\u2019s hand, and is \\u201csecurely fixed\\u201d to the vehicle or \\u201cworn securely\\u201d\\xa0 in a way that does not obstruct vision or interfere with the safety or operating equipment of the vehicle and as long as the sound \\u201cis emitted through the speakers of the sound system of the motor vehicle\\u201d.

While the \\u201cHand-held audio player\\u201d exception makes no reference to the device only being touched once, "Hand-held audio player" is not defined. It seems to be a relic from the days of stand-alone iPods. This has the real possibility of creating uncertainty and confusion when a modern, multi-use, a smartphone is being used to play music in a car.

Also discussed on this week\\u2019s episode of Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan, are the Montreal and Warsaw Conventions, which limit the liability of airlines for the death or injury of passengers on international flights.\\xa0

The Montreal Convention has been implemented in Canada by the Carriage by Air Act. This limits the liability of airlines to approximately $175,000 in the event of a passenger being killed on an international flight. In some cases, this may not be enough money to support surviving family members.

The final case discussed was from Port Alberni and involved an evangelical Christian mother claiming that a public elementary school interfered with the religious freedoms of herself and her children by demonstrating the indigenous practice of smudging and having her children see an indigenous dance performance, in the midst of which the dancer said a prayer.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the mother had not established that the Nuu-chah-nulth smudging in her children\\u2019s classrooms or the prayer said by the hoop dancer at the school assembly, interfered with her or her children\\u2019s ability to act in accordance with their religious beliefs.\\xa0

By way of context, until 1989, the School Act required that public school days be opened by the reading of a passage of Scripture followed by the recitation of the Lord\\u2019s Prayer.

A transcript of the show, and links to the cases discussed, can be found here.

Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan is live on CFAX 1070 every Thursday at 10:30 am.