R v Pamenter

R. v. Pamenter

Court of Appeal for Ontario, Docket C34846
Court of Appeal for Ontario — Charron, Sharpe and Simmons JJ.A. | April 18, 2001

Background

On September 8, 1995, Scott Pamenter drove through an intersection without stopping at a stop sign and collided with another vehicle. The crash was devastating — three of the four occupants in the other vehicle were killed, and the fourth was seriously injured. Pamenter was charged and convicted of careless driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.

Pamenter appealed his conviction to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court. At the reopening of his trial, the defence called expert opinion evidence that provided what the appeal court judge called "another rational explanation for missing the sign other than an extended period of inattention." The appeal court judge was persuaded by this expert evidence and set aside the conviction, entering an acquittal. The Crown then sought and obtained leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario on a question of law.

Issues

1. Did the appeal court judge apply the proper test for reviewing the reasonableness of a verdict?
2. Was the trial justice's conviction supported by the evidence, despite the expert testimony providing an alternative explanation?

The Standard of Review Error

The Court of Appeal found that the Provincial Offences Appeal Court judge made a fundamental error in how he reviewed the trial decision. The appeal court judge had concluded that because the expert evidence provided "another rational explanation" for missing the stop sign, this created substantial doubt about guilt. But that's not the right test.

The proper test is whether "a properly instructed trier of fact acting judicially could reasonably make a finding of carelessness notwithstanding the other possible rational explanation provided by the expert testimony." In other words, just because there's another possible explanation doesn't automatically mean the original conviction was wrong — the question is whether the trial judge could still reasonably find guilt on all the evidence.

The Court of Appeal noted that even the appeal court judge himself had concluded that "accepting the prosecution evidence about the visibility of the sign, the only logical inference that emerged from the evidence [other than the expert evidence] was that the sign and intersection were missed because the appellant was not exercising due care and attention." The trial justice was entitled to accept the prosecution evidence about sign visibility and conclude the offence was proven. Crucially, the trial justice was also entitled to find that the expert evidence didn't help Pamenter because his own explanation for the accident didn't match what the expert witness suggested might have happened.

Key Takeaway

Appeal courts can't simply substitute their own view of the evidence for what the trial judge found.

Even when defence expert evidence offers alternative explanations, a trial judge can still reasonably reject that evidence and convict if the prosecution case is strong enough. The appeal court's job is to determine whether the conviction was reasonable — not to retry the case themselves.