R v Pellerin

R. v. Pellerin

2005 ONCJ 522
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice of the Peace J.S. Woloschuk | September 21, 2005 (conviction), October 26, 2005 (sentencing)

Background

On May 11, 2004, just before 8:00 AM, Randy Pellerin was driving his family's drywall company pickup truck northbound on Appleby Line over the QEW overpass in Burlington. Traffic was heavy but road conditions were good. David Squirrell was cycling to work on the same road when Pellerin's truck struck and killed him.

The 27-year-old Pellerin had positioned himself directly behind a cube van that blocked his forward vision. When he moved to the right lane to exit toward Hamilton, he failed to see what was ahead of him — including Squirrell on his bicycle. Pellerin was charged under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act with careless driving.

Issues

1. Whether Pellerin's driving fell below the standard of a reasonable driver exercising due care and attention
2. What sentence was appropriate for a careless driving conviction involving a fatality

The Failure to Keep Proper Lookout

Justice Woloschuk found that Pellerin's actions "cannot be considered reasonable or prudent." Despite being familiar with the road from numerous previous trips, Pellerin "never the less does not have a look out for bicyclists using Appleby Line legally." The judge emphasized that Pellerin put himself so close behind the cube van that when he decided to change lanes, "he was not able to see what was in front of him, to the right."

This case illustrates that careless driving under section 130 HTA doesn't require intentional misconduct, excessive speed, or impairment. The offence is made out when a driver fails to exercise the care and attention expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances.

Sentencing Considerations

The Crown sought 30 days jail plus a 24-month licence suspension. However, the judge noted this was "clear, but not the worst, case of careless driving," referencing R. v. Martinez from the Ontario Court of Appeal. While Pellerin had seven previous driving convictions (mostly speeding), his conduct wasn't intentional and involved no alcohol, drugs, or excessive speed.

The judge imposed the maximum $1,000 fine, a 24-month driving prohibition, and 24 months probation with 120 hours of community service "in lieu of a jail term." The sentence also required completion of defensive driving training.

Key Takeaway

Careless driving can be proven simply by failing to keep a proper lookout, even without speeding or other obvious violations.

This case shows that positioning yourself where you can't see potential hazards — like following too closely behind a large vehicle — can constitute careless driving. The tragic consequences don't determine guilt, but they significantly influence sentencing.