Send this page to someone via email

A student at the University of Guelph learned the hard way that wearable tech counts as a distraction when you’re driving.

The student was charged under Ontario’s “distracted driving” law, the Highway Traffic Act, which was amended in 2009 to account for the growing use of mobile phones while driving. It now includes the phrase, “while holding or using a handheld wireless communication device.”

WATCH: Distracted driving claims up in the West: insurance company

3:49 Distracted driving claims up in the West: insurance company Distracted driving claims up in the West: insurance company

Victoria Ambrose claims she was simply checking the time, which required her to tap the device to activate the display. She additionally argued that the watch wasn’t connected to her smartphone, or to any external communication device.

Story continues below advertisement

Justice of the peace Lloyd Philipps delivered his judgement after a hearing on May 16. Ambrose submitted a statement claiming that she was only checking the time on her device while she was pulled over on the University of Guelph campus on April 24, according to Guelph Today.

The officer reportedly noticed the glow of the watch, and noted the woman looking up and down at the screen. When the light turned green, Ambrose didn’t begin moving through the intersection until the officer shined his cruiser light into her car.

Philipps wouldn’t budge.

“Despite the Apple Watch being smaller than a cellular phone, on the evidence it is a communication device capable of receiving and transmitting electronic data,” Philipps stated in his ruling.

“While attached to the defendant’s wrist it is no less a source of distraction than a cell phone taped to someone’s wrist. It requires the driver to change their body position and operate it by touch,” he continued.

WATCH: Monthly record set for distracted driving in Saskatchewan

1:22 Monthly record set for distracted driving in Saskatchewan Monthly record set for distracted driving in Saskatchewan

Ambrose and the prosecutor agree on the timeline and details of the incident, but disagree on whether a smartwatch counts as a handheld device.

Story continues below advertisement

“The evidence before me is that an Apple Watch is capable of receiving and transmitting electronic data. Ms. Ambrose testified that the watch was not connected to her phone, which was in the car with her at the time. It is abundantly clear from the evidence that Ms. Ambrose was distracted when the officer made his observations,” Phillipps stated in his decision.