“Failing To Drive In A Marked Lane - Case Law”

Did a quick search and couldn't find this decision on the forums. The case is R. v. Capobianco, a somewhat recent Court of Appeal decision.

The Courts have ruled that for the offence of failing to drive in a marked lane, the Crown must show:

1) The accused failed to drive in the marked lane AND

2) The manoeuvre was not made in safety

It used to be sufficient to simply show that you weren't driving in the marked lane. The requirement to show the action was unsafe adds a further burden to the Crown.

Case law link: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/20 ... ca589.html

IMO = terrible decision if you read that case.

So in other words everyone can drive anywhere, blastin down ramps (passing many motorists in the normal lanes) then wait until very last minute of the ramp and then swing across the "bull-nose" and back into line.

hwybear wrote:So in other words everyone can drive anywhere, blastin down ramps (passing many motorists in the normal lanes) then wait until very last minute of the ramp and then swing across the "bull-nose" and back into line.

Looks like it.

Garden-variety Toronto driving.

You still have passing off roadway, HTA 150 (2). The definition of "roadway" specifically excludes the shoulder.

Squishy wrote:You still have passing off roadway, HTA 150 (2). The definition of "roadway" specifically excludes the shoulder.

Yes and no. The two sections really cover different types of offences. And 150(3) goes on to state that 150(2) doesn't apply to paved shoulders, where most of the idiotic passing takes place.

That exception only applies where the vehicle being passed is intending to turn left. On a divided highway, the only time that would really apply is when a vehicle is merging left with the tail end sticking out. Then you could take the shoulder to pass that vehicle and proceed farther up the merge lane.

Can't use the shoulder to pass vehicles that aren't turning left.