R v Desrosiers

R. v. Desrosiers

[1998] O.J. No. 6185
Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) — Sinai J.P. | November 3, 1998

Background

On December 19, 1995, Yoland Desrosiers was driving his empty logging truck westbound on Highway 560 in Northern Ontario when he collided with an eastbound sanding truck. The road was snow-covered and icy, with temperatures around 20 below. Desrosiers had been warned by radio that a slow-moving sander was ahead, putting sand on the road at 10-15 mph while straddling the centre line.

According to Desrosiers, when he came around an "S" curve at about 70 km/h, he saw the sanding truck "in full middle of the road" applying sand to the yellow line. He pulled right, hit his brakes, felt his trailer start to slide, and tried to avoid the collision by driving into the north ditch. His tractor made it to the ditch, but the trailer was still across the roadway when it struck the sander, breaking it into three pieces.

Issues

1. Did Desrosiers drive carelessly contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act?
2. Did Desrosiers fail to share the roadway contrary to section 148(1) of the Highway Traffic Act?

The Burden of Proof Problem

The prosecution's case fell apart on a fundamental issue: they couldn't prove where the accident actually happened on the roadway. The investigating officers took measurements and photos, but admitted they "could not determine the point of impact." One officer believed the collision occurred "at the centre line or in the eastbound lane very close to the centre line" but conceded this was "not accurate or proven."

The yellow centre line was barely visible under snow and ice. Officers disagreed about whether you could even see it in their photographs. Without being able to establish the precise location of impact relative to the centre line, the Crown couldn't prove Desrosiers had crossed into the wrong lane or failed to share the roadway properly.

The Emergency Situation Defence

Justice Sinai found that Desrosiers was confronted with an unexpected emergency when he encountered the sander occupying the middle of the roadway. The court asked: "What would a reasonable and prudent man in this situation have done? He would have done exactly as the defendant, hit the brakes." The judge concluded Desrosiers was "put into an emergency situation, faced with an unexpected situation, it was never anticipated. Prior to the occurrence, he was driving with care and attention."

Crucially, the court noted that "momentary inattention or a simple error of judgment is not in itself a manner of careless driving" and that careless driving must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt through sufficient evidence of the driver's actual conduct.

Key Takeaway

The Crown must prove exactly where an accident occurred on the roadway to establish charges involving lane positioning or roadway sharing.

When faced with an emergency situation not of your own making, taking reasonable evasive action like braking or steering away from danger is not careless driving — even if those actions ultimately contribute to a collision.