R v Ereddia

R. v. Ereddia

2006 ONCJ 303
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice David A. Fairgrieve | August 25, 2006

Background

William Ereddia was driving a heavily loaded Mack construction truck on Humphrey Gate, a narrow residential street in Toronto with no lane markings. He came upon a City garbage truck parked on the side of the road compacting garbage, effectively blocking traffic. After waiting patiently for 10-12 minutes with no movement from the garbage truck, Ereddia decided to try to "squeeze by" between the garbage truck and a parked car on the opposite side.

The road was 8.6 metres wide. Both trucks were about eight feet wide, with Ereddia's mirrors protruding another 18 inches on each side. Moving at just 2 miles per hour and guided by his son due to the tight clearance, Ereddia's passenger-side mirror barely contacted the garbage truck's driver-side mirror, cracking it. He immediately stopped, admitted fault to the garbage truck driver, offered to pay for the damage, and voluntarily reported the incident to a nearby police officer. The City supervisor who arrived said not to worry about it — but PC Lazenby still issued a careless driving ticket, explaining she "could not find anything else in the book" to charge him with.

Issues

1. Whether misjudging clearance by a couple of inches constitutes careless driving under s. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act
2. Whether careless driving should be used as a "default" charge when no other Highway Traffic Act violation can be identified

The Standard for Careless Driving

Justice Fairgrieve emphasized that careless driving under s. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act requires more than just a mistake or error in judgment. The court cited established precedents: driving must "amount to a breach of one's duty to the public and is deserving of punishment" (R. v. Beauchamp), and "mere momentary inattention, or a simple kind of error of judgment" does not meet the threshold (R. v. Namink).

The judge noted that careless driving carries a minimum fine and six demerit points, indicating the Legislature intended it to cover conduct with "at least some degree of seriousness" — not trivial incidents where the minimum penalty would be "entirely disproportionate to its gravity." The court found that misjudging clearance by perhaps a couple of inches, while moving at 2 mph with a guide, was simply an error in judgment that did not constitute a departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent driver sufficient to warrant punishment.

Most importantly, the judge rejected both the officer's and justice of the peace's reasoning that careless driving was appropriate because "no other charge could fit." The court stated clearly: "It is obviously not the case that every collision, no matter how minor, must result in a finding that there was a Highway Traffic Act infraction, much less that careless driving should be regarded as a 'default' violation when no other offence can be identified."

Key Takeaway

Careless driving requires proof of conduct that seriously departs from reasonable driving standards — not just making a mistake or being involved in a minor collision.

If you're charged with careless driving for a simple error in judgment, especially in challenging circumstances, you should challenge whether your conduct actually meets the legal threshold for this serious offence. The prosecution cannot use careless driving as a catch-all charge just because they can't think of anything else to charge you with.