R v Rogowski, 2023 ABCJ 88

In the Alberta Court of Justice Citation: R v Rogowski, 2023 ABCJ 88 Date: 20230405 Docket: A04062951J Registry: Calgary Between: His Majesty the King Crown - and - Miranda Rogowski Accused Decision of Worship Justice of the Peace S. L. Bagg Facts [ 1 ] On August 24, 2021, Calgary Police Officer Brad Hyde issued a ticket to Miranda Rogowski for disobeying a traffic control device. She was represented at trial by Mr. Roberto Santillana . [ 2 ] On the date at issue Officer Hyde was parked at the intersection of 130 th Avenue and 46 th Street S.E., Calgary, Alberta.

From that location Office Hyde could see vehicles exiting southbound Deerfoot Trail at 130 th Avenue. This is where he first caught sight of Ms. Rogowski’s vehicle. [ 3 ] Officer Hyde testified at trial that he saw Ms. Rogowski leave the Deerfoot off ramp and then abruptly cross the two lanes of traffic of 130 th Avenue, in order to access the left turning lane onto 46 th Street S.E.. To make it into that lane in time, Ms. Rogowski crossed two sets of solid white lines that were painted on the roadway in V shapes. Each was delineating a boundary around a concrete curb.

One of these V shapes followed the curb at the end of the Deerfoot Trail off ramp. The other V was in advance of a curb separating the left turning lane on 130 th Avenue from the two forward-moving lanes of traffic on that roadway. [ 4 ] As a result of Ms. Rogowski crossing these solid white lines as she moved across 130 th Avenue, Officer Hyde stopped her and issued a ticket for disobeying a traffic control device, contrary to

section 57 of the Use of the Highway and Rules of the Road Regulation (“ Regulation ”), which reads:

a person driving a vehicle shall obey the instructions set out on or by any applicable traffic control device. [ 5 ] These facts are the evidence of Officer Hyde and they are not in dispute. Ms. Rogowski did not testify. Argument [ 6 ] At trial Mr. Santillana raised a legal defence based on statutory

interpretation. Mr. Santillana argued that the term “traffic control device” does not include the solid white lines which Ms. Rogowski crossed. The Definition of a Traffic Control Device [ 7 ] In everyday conversation a painted line may not be considered a device as we typically understand that term, however in this case there is a legal definition to contend with.

The definition of a “traffic control device” appears in section 1(1)(ss) of the Traffic Safety Act as: any sign, signal, marking or device placed, marked or erected under the authority of this Act for the purpose of regulating, warning or guiding traffic. [ 8 ] As such, Ms. Rogowski’s guilt or innocence depends on whether the solid white lines she crossed fit within this legal definition. Past judicial decisions made by the Supreme Court of Canada set out the rules of

interpretation which answer this question. [ 9 ] According to the Supreme Court, particular sections of a piece of legislation must be understood in the context of that legislation. The individual parts of the law should be read in harmony with the whole.

Further, we must understand the meaning of a law in a way that aligns with the reason for why we have that law in the first place. [1] [ 10 ] In this case, the words of the definition of a “traffic control device” should be read in the context in which they are used throughout the Traffic Safety Act and its Regulations. [ 11 ] In terms of the context or object of Alberta’s traffic safety laws, it is uncontroversial to find that they are in place to ensure we drive in a way that is predictable to other drivers, preventing chaos and ensuring safety. [ 12 ] As above, the phrase “traffic control device” in the Traffic Safety Act is extremely broadly defined.

The definition captures any “sign, signal, marking or device” that is “placed, marked or erected” in order to “regulate, warn, or guide traffic”. [ 13 ] The painted lines on the road that Ms. Rogowski crossed would not qualify as a sign, signal, or device. They were not placed or erected. The question is, then, whether the lines qualify as a “marking” under the definition. [ 14 ] In the Traffic Safety Act the root word ‘mark’ and variations of that word appear nine times outside of the definition.

None of these references are helpful as they refer to markings on tires, documents, or on vehicles. [ 15 ] In the Regulation , the word ‘mark’ and its variations appear thirty-four times. In some instances, the references are unhelpful. In other places the term clearly refers to a marker that is something other than a painted line. Though, there are multiple references which suggest that the definition does include the painted lines which Ms. Rogowski crossed. [All emphasis below added by the author.] [ 16 ]

Section 1(

d) of the Regulation defines a “crosswalk”, subsection (ii) of the definition reads: (ii) any part of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or by other markings on the road surface ; [ 17 ] This

section shows that a marking may appear on the road surface. This describes the lines which Ms. Rogowski crossed. [ 18 ]

Section 1(m), subsection (ii) defines a “parking lane” as: (ii) the nearest solid white line , not being the centre line, marked on the roadway ; [ 19 ] This

section shows that the verb “mark” properly applies to solid white lines which appear on the roadway, such as the solid white lines Ms. Rogowski crossed. [ 20 ]

Section 15 of the Regulation is titled ‘Rules for Traffic Lanes’.

Section 15 (5) reads: When a highway has been divided into traffic lanes by clearly visible lines marked on the road surface , a person driving a vehicle other than a cycle shall drive the vehicle as closely as practical in the centre of the traffic lane so marked. [ 21 ] Section 15(5) again refers to visible lines marked on the road surface. [ 22 ] In addition to reviewing relevant sections of the Traffic Safety Act and Regulation for context, I searched for past legal decisions to see whether a painted line on a roadway has been found to be a traffic control device.

The only reference I found which could be helpful is the case of R v Del Rosario 2011 ABPC 294 . While different on its facts, the Court makes the following comment at paragraph 9: [Emphasis added] [9] I am satisfied that there was a crosswalk on the west side of the intersection marked by lines painted on the roadway ...

[ 23 ] This paragraph again shows that painted lines on the roadway should be considered markings under Alberta traffic laws. At paragraph ten the Court goes on to say: [10] On the evidence I am satisfied that the painted lines and signs were clear and visible. There were no other traffic control devices at that location. [ 24 ] In this paragraph the Court refers to “painted lines and signs” as traffic control devices. I find this based on the fact that the decision states that there were ‘no others’ at the location in question.

Conclusion [ 25 ] According to the Traffic Safety Act, “markings” are traffic control devices. It is clear from the legislation and case referenced that painted lines are considered to be markings. For these reasons, the painted lines that Ms. Rogowski crossed qualify as ​ “traffic control devices” in accordance with

section 57 of the Use of the Highway Rules of the Road Regulation. [ 26 ] I was told at trial that since August, 2021, the City has made changes to 130 th Avenue S.E. to facilitate access into the left turn lane Ms. Rogowski crossed the road to enter. Mr. Santillana argued that because the City has made changes to enable the flow of traffic, the case should be dismissed. I disagree. The manoeuvre taken by Ms. Rogowski in order to reach the turn lane – crossing the two painted Vs delineating concrete curbs and two lanes of traffic in between – was sudden and potentially dangerous.

It violates the principle of safety which justifies our traffic safety laws in Alberta. For this reason, it ought to have been obvious to Ms. Rogowski that the move was illegal, and she ought to have chosen a different means to access 46 th Street S.E., and her destination. [ 27 ] I find the defendant guilty as charged. Heard on the 05 th day of April, 2023. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 20 th day of April, 2023. S. L. Bagg A Justice of Peace of the Alberta Court of Justice Appearances: Ross Jackson for the Crown Roberto Santillana for the Accused