R. v. Locke (J.)

• Jurisdiction: Alberta
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Judge: Brown, P.C.J.
• Citation: 2004 ABPC 152,(2004), 375 A.R. 49 (PC)
• Date: 03 August 2004

R. v. Locke (J.) (2004), 375 A.R. 49 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. NO.030

Her Majesty the Queen v. Jack Locke

(05860260K; 2004 ABPC 152)

Indexed As: R. v. Locke (J.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Brown, P.C.J.

October 20, 2004.

Summary:

Locke received a ticket for driving a vehicle without wearing a seat belt. Locke challenged the constitutionality of the seat belt legislation arguing that: (1) the province of Alberta did not have the legislative au­thority to regulate and apply criminal sanc­tions to individual conduct; (2) the legisla­tion offended s. 2 of the Charter; (3) the specified penalty of $115 for failing to wear a seat belt amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, contrary to s. 12 of the Charter; and (4) the seat belt law was one of uneven application, discriminating against him and offending s. 15 of the Charter and s. 1(b) of the Alberta Bill of Rights.

The Alberta Provincial Court rejected Locke's arguments. Section 78(2) of the Vehicle Equipment Regulation under the Traffic Safety Act was constitutionally valid legislation, it was intra vires the province and it did not violate the Charter or the Alberta Bill of Rights.

Civil Rights - Topic 303

Freedom of conscience and religion - Scope of right - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2062 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 2062

Freedom of thought, belief or opinion - Denial of - What constitutes - Locke received a ticket for driving a vehicle without wearing a seat belt - Locke argued that the seat belt legislation offended rights guaranteed by s. 2(a) (freedom of con­science and religion) and s. 2(b) (freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression) of the Charter - The Alberta Provincial Court rejected the argument - Locke's belief that wearing a seat belt might cause him more harm than good was not of the same order as the comprehensive value system protected by s. 2(a) - It fit more properly under the s. 2(b) protection, which could be characterized as a guaran­tee that an individual was entitled to his own opinion and to think his own thoughts - However, the s. 2(b) protection did not extend to allowing an individual to act on all his own beliefs or thoughts - The de­marcation of the s. 2(b) protection was between belief and conduct - Locke was free to hold whatever views he liked about seat belts, but his acting on those views by not wearing his seat belt did not render the legislation unconstitutional - See para­graphs 22 to 27.

Civil Rights - Topic 3830

Cruel and unusual treatment or punish­ment - What constitutes cruel and unusual treat­ment or punishment - Circumstances not constituting - Locke received a ticket for driving a vehicle without wearing a seat belt - Locke argued that the spec­ified penalty of $115 amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, contrary to s. 12 of the Charter - The Alberta Provincial Court rejected the argu­ment - When the court considered the amount of the fine in the context of the entire legislative scheme of penalties for traffic related offences, it was satisfied that the specified penalty was proportional to the seriousness of the offence and, there­fore, constitutionally valid - See para­graphs 28 to 30.

Civil Rights - Topic 5544

Equality and protection of the law - Denial of - What constitutes - Unequal administra­tion of law - Locke received a ticket for driving a vehicle without wearing a seat belt - His passenger, who was also not wearing a seat belt, was not issued a ticket - Locke argued that the seat belt law was one of uneven application, discriminat­ing against him and offending s. 15 of the Charter and s. 1(b) of the Alberta Bill of Rights - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the seat belt law did not offend s. 15 of the Charter or s. 1(b) of the Alberta Bill of Rights - To succeed on a s. 15 chal­lenge, Locke would have to show that the law itself discriminated against him on the basis of such criteria as race, ethnicity, etc. - That was not the case here - Locke's complaint was with the police officer's exercise of his discretion to charge Locke and not his passenger - See paragraphs 31 to 33.

Civil Rights - Topic 8007

Canadian or provincial bill of rights - Principles of operation and interpretation - Equality before the law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5544 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7082

Provincial jurisdiction (S. 92) - Local works and undertakings - Highway or street traffic regulation - [See Constitu­tional Law - Topic 7515 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7295

Provincial jurisdiction - (S. 92) - Property and civil rights - Regulatory statutes - Streets and traffic - [See Constitutional Law - Topic 7515 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 7515

Provincial jurisdiction - (S. 92) - Matters of local or private nature - Street or high­way regulation - Locke received a ticket for driving a vehicle without wearing a seat belt - Locke argued that the province of Alberta did not have the legislative authority to regulate and apply criminal sanctions to individual conduct - The Alberta Provincial Court rejected the argu­ment - Section 78(2) of the Vehicle Equip­ment Regulation under the Traffic Safety Act was intra vires the province - The provincial authority to legislate in the area of provincial highways had long been recognized and supported by the courts, usually under the authority of s. 92(13) of the Constitution Act (property and civil rights in the province) or s. 92(16) (matters of a merely local or private nature in the province) - Section 92(10) (local works and undertakings) and s. 92(7) (hospitals, etc.) also supported the provincial legisla­tive authority over highway and traffic matters - See paragraphs 14 to 21.

Motor Vehicles - Topic 7442

Licensing and regulation of drivers - Of­fences - Failure to wear seat belt or hel­met - [See Civil Rights - Topic 2062 , Civil Rights - Topic 5544 and Constitu­tional Law - Topic 7515 ].

Cases Noticed:

Paquin v. Montreal (1981), 12 M.V.R. 123 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Montreal (Ville) v. Léger (1985), 39 M.V.R. 60 (Que. S.C.), affd. (1987), 3 Q.A.C. 241; 41 M.V.R. 85 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Provincial Secretary (P.E.I.) v. Eagan, [1941] S.C.R. 396, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Maier (1989), 101 A.R. 126; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 419 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Feener v. Nova Scotia (1987), 78 N.S.R.(2d) 22; 193 A.P.R. 22 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Gonzalez v. Driver Control Board (Alta.) et al., [2003] 11 W.W.R. 631; 327 A.R. 308; 296 W.A.C. 308; 2003 ABCA 112, refd to. [para. 19].

Thomson v. Alberta (Transportation and Safety Board) - see Gonzalez v. Driver Control Board (Alta.).

R. v. Doucette (1987), 77 N.S.R.(2d) 279; 191 A.P.R. 279; 48 M.V.R. 110 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571; 314 N.R. 1; 191 B.C.A.C. 1; 314 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 22].

Edwards Books and Art Ltd. v. R. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

Trinity Western University et al. v. Col­lege of Teachers (B.C.) et al., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 772; 269 N.R. 1; 151 B.C.A.C. 161; 249 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 22].

Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; 195 N.R. 81; 171 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 437 A.P.R. 321; 133 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 22].

Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 - see Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al.

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1; 9 R.F.L.(4th) 157; 122 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 22].

R.B. v. Children's Aid Society of Metro­politan Toronto - see Sheena B., Re.

D.P. v. C.S., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 141; 159 N.R. 241; 58 Q.A.C. 1; 108 D.L.R.(4th) 287; 18 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 49 R.F.L.(3d) 317, refd to. [para. 22].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur gén­éral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2; 58 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 25 C.P.R.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 40 D.L.R.(4th) 435; [1987] 5 W.W.R. 1; 58 C.R.(3d) 193; 15 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 31 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 28].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Im­migration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Powless, [1997] N.W.T.R. 20 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Traffic Safety Act Regulations (Alta.), Vehicle Equipment Regulation, Reg. 322/2002, sect. 78(2) [para. 1].

Vehicle Equipment Regulation - see Traf­fic Act Regulations (Alta.).

Counsel:

N. Parker, for the Crown;

Accused self represented.

This matter was heard on August 3, 2004, before Brown, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provin­cial Court, who delivered the following decision on October 20, 2004.