R v Tauriello

Her Majesty The Queen v. Tammaso Tauriello

[No formal citation available]
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice D. Cole | November 12, 1998, Toronto

Background

Tammaso Tauriello was charged with driving under suspension under section 53 of the Highway Traffic Act and passing off roadway under section 150(2) of the HTA. During the trial, the police officer testified that he observed a red Plymouth Voyager with licence plate 093 ZXO. However, throughout his testimony, the officer consistently referred to what he saw as a "vehicle" rather than a "motor vehicle."

The defence appealed the conviction, relying on a recent decision by Justice Zimmerman in a case called Hansen, where a similar issue had arisen with a speeding charge under section 128 of the HTA.

Issues

1. Whether testimony referring to a "vehicle" is sufficient to prove the "motor vehicle" element required by sections 53 and 150(2) of the Highway Traffic Act
2. Whether the court can take judicial notice that a Plymouth Voyager with licence plates is necessarily a motor vehicle

The Critical Distinction Between "Vehicle" and "Motor Vehicle"

The prosecution argued that the court should take judicial notice that a red Plymouth Voyager with licence plates is obviously a motor vehicle, calling the defence position "nitpicking." However, Justice Cole was persuaded by the precedent set in Hansen, where Justice Zimmerman ruled that a police officer's reference to a "vehicle" was insufficient to establish the motor vehicle element required for Highway Traffic Act offences.

Under the Highway Traffic Act definitions, while a motor vehicle is a vehicle, a vehicle is not necessarily a motor vehicle. The distinction matters because sections 53 (drive under suspension) and 150(2) (pass off roadway) specifically require that the offence involve a "motor vehicle." Without evidence establishing this essential element, the prosecution cannot make out its case.

Justice Cole noted that the Court of Appeal had recently taken "a very, very technical" approach to wording in impaired driving cases, requiring police to "get it absolutely right." Following this trend toward precision in legal language, he allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal.

Key Takeaway

Precise legal language matters — even seemingly obvious details must be proven if they're essential elements of the offence.

This case shows that self-represented defendants should carefully examine whether the prosecution has proven every single element required by the specific section they're charged under, no matter how obvious those elements might seem.