A B.C. Uber Eats driver must pay for his distracted driving ticket after the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Vasu Virda had been charged on July 31, 2024, with using an electronic device while driving contrary to 214.2(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
A police officer previously testified that he saw Virda tap the screen of his phone twice while he was stopped at a light, while Virda said he only tapped it once.
Virda said he was working for Uber Eats and had been sent a delivery offer so he tapped the screen once to receive the offer.
In a ruling posted online, Madam Justice W.A. Baker said she found Virda to be a very credible party. “I accept that he was doing his job and operating as safely as he could within the parameters of his job,” she wrote.
“However, I am required to uphold the law as it is written. Mr. Virda makes a number of submissions that the law is not fair to people like Uber Eats drivers and taxi drivers who require their devices as part of their jobs. However, I am not here to rewrite the legislation to include them. I am not able to do that, so I must apply the law as it is written.”
Baker said there is no dispute that Virda was using the app and was touching the screen to respond.
Previous to this ruling, Virda had appealed the ticket in court and won with the judge in that case ruling that legislation permitted a person operating a handheld electronic device to touch the device once while they are operating a vehicle.
However, the police officer argued that the legislation only permitted one touch in answering a telephone call and not in operating an app.
Crown appealed that ruling, arguing that “legislation and regulation only permits a person to use their device in certain circumstances, none of which is consistent with the use of an Uber app” and the judge erred in the exercise of his jurisdiction.
Citing Section 7 of the Use of Electronic Devices While Driving Regulation, Baker stated that she agreed with the Crown that it permits a “user to touch the screen once, only when initiating, accepting, or ending a telephone call. It does not permit a user to touch the device once when using any other function.
“I agree with the Crown that the permitted one touch in the operation of a telephone call is a naturally limiting use. It does not permit a user to type in a phone number or scroll their contacts, or do anything other than use one touch to initiate, accept, or end a telephone call. In contrast, it is difficult to understand how a one‑touch permitted use would operate in the context of typical apps on a personal smartphone.”
Baker stated that the previous judge did not hear submissions from either party before rendering his decision and should have done so.
Baker said she is now satisfied that the evidence shows a conviction should be upheld and she must apply the law as it is written.
Virda must now pay $295 in fines within the next six months. Baker said that while the fine for using an electronic device is $320, Virda would have been able to pay the lesser fine of $295 if he paid the original ticket within 30 days.
Critics said the law needs to change.
“The law says you’re allowed one touch for the purposes of ending, accepting or initiating a phone call on your device, but you are not allowed one touch for any other purpose including accepting an Uber Eats order, or Uber Eats pickup or delivery,” Kyla Lee with Acumen Law said.
“The problem with that is that these two actions are no more distracting than each other, but the government has seen fit to prohibit one of them without prohibiting the other and has provided no explanation why this should be the case.”
In a statement to Global News, Uber said it could not comment directly on litigation it was not party to.
“Uber’s Community Guidelines require all users of its apps to follow the law,” the company said. “This includes traffic laws if the user is a driver or courier. Uber’s app can be used in one-touch handsfree mode, via Apple CarPlay or via Android Auto.
“The events at issue occurred before B.C.’s new gig-worker laws came into force. Bill 48 recognizes that drivers and delivery people receive and accept requests while using motor vehicles, and requires specific information to be provided in the offer. We assume B.C.’s traffic laws will be interpreted consistent with these new regulations.”
Global News reached out to the Ministry of Public Safety for comment.