R v Bezina

R. v. Bezina

Provincial Offences Court, Brampton
His Honour T. Wilder (P.C.J.) | August 3, 1990

Background

On July 15, 1989, at 10:45 p.m., Constable Copley responded to an accident at 4200 Claypine Rise in Mississauga. Richard Bezina had crashed his vehicle and caused damage to public property. When the officer arrived, Bezina identified himself with a valid Ontario driver's licence. The officer later learned that Bezina was the vehicle owner and charged him with careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act and failing to report an accident.

The key facts emerged during testimony: Bezina had been at a party for four hours, consuming alcohol. He felt tired but figured he was close to home. A friend offered to drive him, but Bezina refused. He admitted he "just dozed off" while driving and crashed. He testified that everything happened suddenly with no prior warning signs of fatigue.

Issues

1. Whether statements made by Bezina to police required a voir dire (Charter warning)
2. Whether falling asleep while driving, without more, constitutes careless driving
3. Whether the trial judge improperly drew inferences about alcohol consumption

The Fatigue Defence

The appeal court found that the trial judge made a critical error in reasoning. The Justice of the Peace had stated: "I am saying that he may have fallen asleep and I am talking—there is an inference, that because of the alcohol he consumed at the party, that it put him to sleep." The appeal court ruled this inference was improper because there was no evidence connecting Bezina's alcohol consumption to his falling asleep.

More importantly, the court referenced Regina v. Verma from Alberta, which established that unless there's evidence of prior warning signs of fatigue or tiredness, the mere fact that someone fell asleep while driving doesn't automatically constitute dangerous or careless driving. The court noted that Bezina's own testimony showed no prior warning—he testified that "everything happened suddenly" and he had "no prior warning."

The Voir Dire Issue

The defence argued that Bezina's statements to police should have been excluded because no Charter warning was given before he identified himself as the driver. However, the appeal court found that Bezina's waiver was clear and voluntary, and the statements were properly admitted.

Key Takeaway

Falling asleep at the wheel isn't automatically careless driving if there were no warning signs beforehand.

This case shows that the Crown must prove more than just that you dozed off—they need evidence that you should have known you were too tired to drive safely. If you genuinely had no warning signs of fatigue, you may have a defence even if an accident occurred.