Article content continued

The judge also found Wells was angry at passenger Amanda Sleeman for her rude gesture and deliberately cut off her vehicle, which he described as a “hazardous manoeuvre.”

But, Rosborough ruled Wells’ act of displaying the anti-Harper sign was not of itself a “stunt” within the Traffic Safety Act definition.

“Display of a sign in the rear window of a vehicle was hardly a notable or impressive act of skill or daring. Likewise, it could not amount to an exciting or dangerous trick or manoeuver.”

However, the judge did accept that some of the other motorists were offended by the sign and felt the vulgar language was not something they should have to put up with or have children see.

“Wells’ sign attracted the attention of other users of the highway, but did not distract them in the manner intended by the TSA,” he said. “The sign was unusual and it was offensive. But neither or both of these qualities of what was otherwise constitutionally permissible expressive conduct rendered it a stunt or other activity.”

Wells was intentionally interfering with other traffic in order to advertise his ‘anti-Harper’ sentiment via the sign.

Wells had gone to trial on the $543 ticket, arguing it suppressed his right to freedom of expression.

Court heard Wells was driving home from B.C. on Aug. 16, 2015, when he was pulled over by an RCMP officer near Ponoka, following complaints from other motorists, and told to remove the sign.

He refused, saying it was a political statement and he had a right to have it in his window.

Wells, who represented himself, testified he is a “human rights activist” who has previously expressed that activism in the past by displaying political bumper stickers on his vehicle.