R v Conley

R. v. Conley

2019 ONCJ 66
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice David A. Berg | February 5, 2019

Background

On September 1, 2016, Steven Bruce Conley was driving a large truck eastbound on Laurier Avenue in downtown Ottawa. At the intersection with Lyon Street, he stopped for a red light with cyclist Nusrat Jahan waiting in the bicycle lane beside him. When the light turned to a green arrow (indicating straight-through traffic only), Conley moved into the intersection without signaling and began making a right turn. His truck struck Jahan, pinning her underneath. Witnesses heard her screaming "Stop! Stop!" but the truck moved forward another foot, killing her instantly.

Conley was charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death — serious Criminal Code offences carrying potential sentences of life imprisonment and 14 years respectively. The case hinged on whether his driving constituted a "marked departure" from reasonable standards, not just simple carelessness.

Issues

1. Did Conley's failure to signal and premature entry into the intersection on a green arrow constitute dangerous driving?
2. Did his forward movement after Jahan was trapped under the truck represent criminal negligence?

The "Marked Departure" Standard

Justice Berg applied the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Roy, which established that criminal driving offences require more than simple negligence. The court must find a "marked departure" from reasonable driving standards — not just carelessness that might justify a civil lawsuit or Highway Traffic Act ticket. As the Supreme Court warned: "If every departure from the civil norm is to be criminalized, regardless of the degree, we risk casting the net too widely and branding as criminals persons who are in reality not morally blameworthy."

The judge found that while Conley's driving violated the Highway Traffic Act (failing to signal, moving on a green arrow when intending to turn), his overall conduct wasn't egregious enough for criminal conviction. Conley had driven properly on Laurier Avenue, stopped appropriately at the red light, and stopped immediately when he realized something was wrong. The judge accepted that a blind spot likely prevented Conley from seeing Jahan once stopped, and that he was genuinely unaware she was under his truck when it moved forward.

Key Takeaway

Criminal driving charges require proof of seriously substandard driving, not just violations that cause tragic consequences.

This case illustrates the high threshold for criminal liability in driving cases — even when someone dies due to clear Highway Traffic Act violations, the crown must prove the driving was a "marked departure" from reasonable standards, not merely careless.