R v Higginson

R. v. Higginson

Certificate No. 1719813B
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice F. Campling | May 12, 2015

Background

Blythe Higginson was charged under section 175(12) of the Highway Traffic Act for failing to stop at least 20 metres behind a stopped school bus with flashing overhead red signal lights. Officer Larkin testified that he observed a chrome yellow school bus operated by Attridge School Buses (bus number 451) with its stop sign deployed and red lights flashing. He saw children getting off the bus and noted that Higginson passed the stopped school bus without stopping the required distance behind it.

The case came before the court as an appeal from Higginson's conviction by Her Worship Justice of the Peace Casey on January 12, 2015. The defence argued that the prosecution failed to properly identify the vehicle as a "school bus" within the statutory definition.

Issues

1. Whether the Crown proved that the vehicle met the statutory definition of "school bus" under section 175(1) of the Highway Traffic Act
2. Whether the officer's evidence was sufficient to establish all required elements of the offence

The School Bus Definition Defect

Under section 175(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, a "school bus" must be: (a) painted chrome yellow; and (b) display on the front and rear the words "school bus" and on the rear the words "do not pass when signals flashing." The defence cited previous cases (R. v. Raposo and R. v. McKay) where convictions were overturned because the Crown failed to prove these specific marking requirements.

Officer Larkin testified extensively about the bus being chrome yellow, having flashing lights, a stop sign, and children with school bags getting off. However, he was never asked about — and never testified to — seeing the words "school bus" displayed on the front and rear of the vehicle, or the "do not pass when signals flashing" warning on the rear. The Crown relied on inference rather than direct evidence of these statutory markings.

Justice Campling ruled that when a statute defines a term used in creating an offence, the Crown must prove that definition is satisfied. The court noted that "there is no question in my mind that when a statute defines a term, in order to prove a charge, the words of which include that term, the Crown must prove that the definition is satisfied." Although it was clearly a school bus in the ordinary sense, the Crown failed to prove it met the technical statutory definition.

Key Takeaway

Technical statutory definitions must be proven with evidence, not assumptions — even when the facts seem obvious.

Self-represented defendants should carefully examine whether the Crown has proven every element of the statutory definition, not just the common-sense meaning of terms. Sometimes the most obvious-seeming cases have technical defects that can lead to acquittals.