R v Johnstone

R. v. Glen Johnstone

Ontario Court Provincial Division
Judge P.H. Reinhardt | June 29, 1995

Background

Glen Johnstone was driving his taxi cab westbound on Kingston Road in Scarborough when a police officer standing roadside observed that he wasn't wearing his upper torso restraint (shoulder belt). The officer signaled the vehicle to stop and charged Johnstone under the Highway Traffic Act for failing to wear a complete seat belt assembly.

Johnstone's defence was straightforward: as a taxi cab driver, he was exempt from wearing seat belts under Ontario Regulation 613. He testified that when he first saw the officer on the side of the road, he didn't know it was a police officer — he thought it was a potential fare and actually put on his seat belt at that point before being pulled over.

Issues

1. Are taxi cab drivers exempt from wearing seat belts under Ontario Regulation 613?
2. Does section 7(2) of Regulation 613 conflict with section 106(3) of the Highway Traffic Act regarding taxi driver exemptions?

The Taxi Driver Exemption Controversy

The defence cited section 7(2) of Regulation 613, which exempts taxi cabs from requirements for upper torso restraints and seat belt assemblies. Defence counsel argued this meant taxi drivers could remove seat belts entirely, just like police cars. They also referenced a January 1995 decision by Judge Graham in a similar case (R. v. Hardy Hundell) that found in favour of the defendant.

The Crown argued that section 7(2) only dealt with the taxi cab's equipment requirements — not the driver's obligation to wear available seat belts. They pointed to section 106(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, which provides a specific exemption for taxi drivers only "while transporting for hire a passenger." The Crown emphasized that Johnstone wasn't transporting a passenger when stopped.

Judge Reinhardt agreed with the Crown's interpretation. He found that section 7(2) of Regulation 613 speaks to what equipment taxi cabs must have installed, while section 106(3) provides the only driver exemption — and only while actually transporting passengers for hire. The judge distinguished the case from Judge Graham's decision and dismissed the appeal.

Key Takeaway

Taxi drivers must wear seat belts when not actively transporting passengers — equipment exemptions don't create driver exemptions.

This case clarifies that regulatory exemptions for vehicle equipment requirements are separate from driver obligations. Just because a taxi doesn't have to have certain safety equipment doesn't mean the driver is exempt from using whatever equipment is available.