Section 249 of the Criminal Code
Law Presi 2
Dangerous operation of motor vehicles, vessels and aircraft
1 every one commits an offence who operates a) A motorized vehicle while disregarding the surroundings, including time, traffic (both present and expected at a time and place), and nature. In a manner dangerous to the public.
Wallbridge v. HMTQ – 2012 NWTSC 23
Wallbridge was driving along the road, a car was illegally stopped in a moving lane, Wallbridge called the by-law office, and continually honked his horn at the other car. The other car then went 4-5 blocks, Wallbridge followed it to where it stopped. The driver of the other car got out and went to Wallbridge’s window, Wallbridge who was in the process of contacting the bylaw office rolled down his window. Other driver took Wallbridge’s phone, and later returned it when asked. As the other driver was walking back to his car Wallbridge slowly drove his vehicle slowly forward and nudged or bumped the other driver once or twice. While not injuring the other driver he then went to park close besides the driver’s side of the other car to prevent the other driver from getting back into his vehicle.
The trial Judge determined the appellant intentionally nudged or bumped his vehicle into another person in means to intimidate the other person, and believed in doing so Wallbridge did so in a manner dangerous to the public.
The case was an appeal focusing on whether the factual findings could have been made by the trial judge. The appeal was allowed because not all of the circumstances of section 249 were identified or met, and not all circumstances on the altercation were taken into consideration by the judge.
Dangerous operation of motor vehicles, vessels and aircraft
1 every one commits an offence who operates a) A motorized vehicle while disregarding the surroundings, including time, traffic (both present and expected at a time and place), and nature. In a manner dangerous to the public.
Wallbridge v. HMTQ – 2012 NWTSC 23
Wallbridge was driving along the road, a car was illegally stopped in a moving lane, Wallbridge called the by-law office, and continually honked his horn at the other car. The other car then went 4-5 blocks, Wallbridge followed it to where it stopped. The driver of the other car got out and went to Wallbridge’s window, Wallbridge who was in the process of contacting the bylaw office rolled down his window. Other driver took Wallbridge’s phone, and later returned it when asked. As the other driver was walking back to his car Wallbridge slowly drove his vehicle slowly forward and nudged or bumped the other driver once or twice. While not injuring the other driver he then went to park close besides the driver’s side of the other car to prevent the other driver from getting back into his vehicle.
The trial Judge determined the appellant intentionally nudged or bumped his vehicle into another person in means to intimidate the other person, and believed in doing so Wallbridge did so in a manner dangerous to the public.
The case was an appeal focusing on whether the factual findings could have been made by the trial judge. The appeal was allowed because not all of the circumstances of section 249 were identified or met, and not all circumstances on the altercation were taken into consideration by the judge.