R. v. Yasinchuk (T.D.), (1999) 187 Sask.R. 146 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Bekolay, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: September 20, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1999), 187 Sask.R. 146 (ProvCt)

R. v. Yasinchuk (T.D.) (1999), 187 Sask.R. 146 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Sask.R. TBEd. OC.027

In The Matter Of SOTI Ticket No.  4782192

Her Majesty The Queen v.  Tim D. Yasinchuk

Indexed As: R. v. Yasinchuk (T.D.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Judicial Centre of Prince Albert

Bekolay, P.C.J.

September 20, 1999.

Summary:

Yasinchuk was charged under s. 174(3) of the Vehicle Equipment Regulations made under the Vehicle Administration Act with operating a vehicle with GVWR of more than 2,800 kilograms without proper brakes. The unit operated by Yasinchuk was an agricultural implement. The Act specifically excluded agricultural implement from the definition of "trailer" or "semi-trailer" while the Regulations did not.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the definition of semi-trailer and trailer in the Regulations conflicted with the parent legislation and was invalid and the definition in the Act was to be followed. Therefore, an agricultural implement was excluded from the operation of Part VI of the Regulations and Yasinchuk was found not guilty.

Motor Vehicles - Topic 5

Validity of motor vehicle legislation - [See Statutes - Topic 5364 ].

Motor Vehicles - Topic 3161

Regulation of vehicles and traffic - Equip­ment - General - [See Statutes - Topic 5364 ].

Statutes - Topic 5364

Operation and effect - Delegated legisla­tion - Regulations - Validity of - Conflict with statute authorizing the regulation - Yasinchuk was charged under s. 174(3) of the Vehicle Equipment Regulations made under the Vehicle Administration Act with operating a vehicle with GVWR of more than 2,800 kilograms without proper brakes - The unit operated by Yasinchuk was an agricultural implement - The Act specifi­cally excluded agricultural imple­ment from the definition of "trailer" or "semi-trailer" while the Regulations did not - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the definition of semi-trailer and trailer in the Regulations conflicted with the parent legislation and was invalid and the defini­tion in the Act was to be fol­lowed - There­fore, an agricul­tural imple­ment was excluded from the operation of Part VI of the Regulations and Yasinchuk was found not guilty.

Cases Noticed:

British Columbia Civil Liberties Associ­ation v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 4 W.W.R. 100 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Vehicle Administration Act, S.S. 1986, c. V-2.1, sect. 2(1)(aa), sect. 2(1)(ff) [para. 6].

Vehicle Administration Act Regulations (Sask.), Vehicle Equipment Regulations, 1978, sect. 2(1)(jj); sect. 2(1)(mm) [para. 5].

Vehicle Equipment Regulations - see Vehicle Administration Act Regulations (Sask.).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Encyclopedic Digest (Western) (3rd Ed.) vol. 32, title 137, para. 350 [para. 13].

Counsel:

J. Morral, for the Crown;

L.W. Zuk (Mills-Wilcox-Zuk Law Office) for the defence.

This matter was heard before Bekolay, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, Judicial Centre of Prince Albert, who delivered the following decision on Septem­ber 20, 1999.