Mohamed Farah

By Joel Goldenberg

Montreal Municipal Court Judge Isabelle Doray recently ruled that Mohamed Farah did not contravene Section 443.1 of the Highway Safety Code when he scrolled a Spotify playlist on a cellphone mounted on a bracket and adjusted the volume while stopped at a red light.

The city had accused Farah of violating the law, arguing that “even if the cell phone was mounted on a bracket, Mr. Farah still used its screen, which, at the relevant time, was not displaying information relating to the operation of the usual equipment of the vehicle” and that “scrolling down a playlist for 10 seconds does not constitute a simple usage of the phone screen and is thus a prohibited distraction.”

Farah argued that his operation of the cell phone was no different than a person operating a standard car radio, and that the city did not prove the law was violated. According to court documents, Farah was stopped by police and accused of operating the phone while holding it in his hand while driving. But Farah countered that he was touching the phone as it was attached to a bracket.

“[Farah] explained that he had only touched it to find a song on a Spotify playlist and to turn down the volume. According to him, that is not an action prohibited by the law.” The court determined that while the police officer reported having a “close and unobstructed view when he allegedly saw Mr. Farah holding his cell phone in his hands,” this was “insufficient to reject Mr. Farah’s contrary version, as the Court must not assess the credibility of this version by opposing it to that of the police officer.

“Nothing in the content of Mr. Farah’s testimony or in his way of testifying justifies rejecting his version of the events. He appeared to genuinely attempt to answer questions accurately and did not contradict himself during cross-examination.Even if the Court determines that the officer honestly believed that Mr. Farah was holding his phone when he saw him at the red light, the Court equally believes in Mr. Farah’s sincerity when he denied it. This is, in a nutshell, the very essence of reasonable doubt.”

The judgment added that such a conclusion would still not be enough for an acquittal, and that Farah still had to prove he did not violate the law. The defendant argued that he was not distracted, “since he could see the cars ahead of him were still not moving.”

The City of Montreal’s lawyer argued that “the screen [Farah] used was not displaying information relating to the operation of the usual equipment of the vehicle.”

But the judge disagreed, saying that while the relevant provision of the Highway Safety Code “authorizes the use of a screen as long as it only displays information relevant to driving the vehicle or relating to the operation of its usual equipment,” the legislator “had not yet defined the term ‘usual equipment” — this was revised June 1, 2023, after the alleged offence took place.

The judge said that “usual equipment”, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, means equipment that is commonly used.

“In the Court’s opinion, the audio system of a vehicle qualifies as usual equipment within the scope of this definition,” the verdict says. “It is used regularly, if not daily, by most drivers. Given Mr. Farah’s credible testimony that he used his cell phone to play music, the Court concludes that in doing so, he was using the audio system of his vehicle….much like he could have scanned through a few radio stations.”

To read the judgment, go to citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/ and search 854-092-621. n