R. v. Cavallaro, (1989) 96 A.R. 315 (ProvCt)

JudgeMarshall, P.C.J.
CourtProvincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateFebruary 16, 1989
Citations(1989), 96 A.R. 315 (ProvCt)

R. v. Cavallaro (1989), 96 A.R. 315 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen v. Laurie Teresa Cavallaro

Indexed As: R. v. Cavallaro

Alberta Provincial Court

Judicial District of Edmonton

Marshall, P.C.J.

February 16, 1989.

Summary:

A motorist was charged under an Edmonton bylaw with making a left turn contrary to a traffic sign prohibiting such turns between 15:30 and 18:00. The motorist claimed the city lacked authority under the Highway Traffic Act to erect traffic signs using the 24 hour clock system (military time).

The Alberta Provincial Court held that the city was not precluded from using military time. The court found the motorist guilty.

Evidence - Topic 2275

Judicial notice - Time - A motorist was charged under an Edmonton bylaw with making a left turn contrary to a traffic sign prohibiting such turns between 15:30 and 18:00 - The motorist claimed the city lacked authority under the Highway Traffic Act to erect traffic signs using the 24 hour clock system (military time) - The Highway Traffic Act was silent on which time system could or could not be used - The Alberta Provincial Court held that no specific authority was needed for the city to use military time - Military time was so well known that judicial notice could be taken of it.

Motor Vehicles - Topic 3104

Regulation of vehicles and traffic - Observance of signs and traffic control signals - Authorized signs - [See Evidence - Topic 2275 above].

Time - Topic 401

Divisions and standards - Military time - [See Evidence - Topic 2275 above].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kotun (1979), 4 Sask.R. 251, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Bernier (1977), 31 N.B.R.(2d) 476; 75 A.P.R. 476, appld. [para. 43].

R. v. Aitkenhead (1980), 8 Man.R.(2d) 393, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Sweetapple (1985), 53 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 141; 156 A.P.R. 141, refd to. [para. 46].

Statutes Noticed:

Highway Traffic Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. H-7, sect. 15 [para. 5]; sect. 16 [para. 6]; sect. 66(2) [para. 2]; sect. 72(2) [para. 8].

Interpretation Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. I-7 [para. 40].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 25(b) [para. 39].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (5th Ed.), p. 1270 [para. 17].

Counsel:

Ken Leathem, for the Crown;

Nick Mosychuk, for the accused.

This case was heard before Marshall, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on February 16, 1989.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT