R v Ariganello

R. v. Ariganello

2013 ONCJ 13
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice L.M. Baldwin | January 17, 2013

Background

On February 21, 2008, Ottavio Ariganello was driving home from his job as an ice arena maintenance worker on Winston Churchill Boulevard in Halton Hills. He'd been battling a sore throat all day and had taken Benylin that morning. Just five minutes into his drive, while traveling at 50 km/h past a Canada Post vehicle stopped on the shoulder, Ariganello was hit by an intense, violent coughing fit.

The coughing was so severe it caused his eyes to close involuntarily and left him dizzy and choking. Within 2-4 seconds, his car veered off the roadway and tragically struck Carolyn McTavish, who was retrieving mail from the roadside. McTavish died at the scene. Ariganello immediately called 911, reporting his coughing episode to both the operator and the responding officers. He was charged with careless driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act almost three months later.

Issues

1. Did the Justice of the Peace err in finding that Ariganello had "chosen" to close his eyes rather than experiencing an involuntary reaction?
2. Did the trial court properly consider the defence of due diligence for this strict liability offence?
3. Was the conviction reasonable given the evidence of an involuntary medical episode?

The Due Diligence Defence and Involuntary Acts

Careless driving is a strict liability offence under the Highway Traffic Act, meaning the Crown only needs to prove the prohibited act occurred — not that the driver intended it. However, the defence of due diligence is available, where the accused must prove on a balance of probabilities that they took reasonable care in the circumstances.

The trial Justice of the Peace made a critical error in his analysis. Despite uncontroverted evidence that Ariganello's eyes closed involuntarily due to the coughing fit, the trial judge concluded that Ariganello had "chosen" to close his eyes and continue driving. The appeal court found this inference had no basis in the evidence — there was nothing to suggest Ariganello made a conscious decision to drive with his eyes closed.

Justice Baldwin emphasized this was "a case of an involuntary physical reaction to a coughing/choking episode, which through no fault of the Appellant, resulted in his eyes closing for a matter of seconds." The court noted that several seconds cannot be characterized as an "extended period" of dangerous driving, and that but for the tragic outcome, a conviction likely would not have been registered.

Key Takeaway

An involuntary medical episode that causes loss of control can be a complete defence to careless driving, even when tragedy results.

Courts must distinguish between conscious choices to drive dangerously and genuine involuntary reactions. If you can prove your driving was caused by a sudden, unforeseeable medical episode beyond your control, you may have a due diligence defence even in strict liability offences.