R v Perry

R. v. Perry

Ontario Court of Justice — Brampton
Justice Rosemay | July 14, 2000

Background

Annie Perry was charged with failing to stop for a school bus with flashing red lights under the Highway Traffic Act. The officer who witnessed the incident was positioned where he could observe the front and side of the school bus, but crucially, he had no view of the rear of the bus — the part that Perry would have been approaching and where the red lights needed to be visible to her.

At trial, the Justice of the Peace convicted Perry based on a "presumption of regularity" — essentially ruling that if the front lights were working, the court could assume the rear lights were also functioning. Perry appealed this conviction, arguing that without direct evidence that the rear lights were actually flashing, the Crown had failed to prove an essential element of the offence.

Issues

1. Can a court presume that rear warning lights on a school bus are working based solely on evidence that front lights are functioning?
2. What standard of proof is required to establish that warning lights were actually visible to an approaching driver?

The Presumption Problem

Justice Rosemay agreed with the defence that the trial judge had made a fundamental error. The court cannot simply presume that all lights on a school bus are working based on observation of only some lights. This isn't a valid "presumption of regularity" — it's speculation.

The judge explained that if an officer testifies that traffic lights at an intersection were working and the northbound light was red, a court can reasonably infer the southbound light was also red. But here, the officer never observed the rear lights at all. No school bus driver testified about conducting a pre-trip inspection to confirm all lights were operational.

Under section 175 of the Highway Traffic Act, drivers must stop when "approaching from the rear" a school bus with "overhead red signal lights flashing." The Crown must prove these lights were actually flashing and visible to the defendant — not just assume they were based on other lights working.

Key Takeaway

The prosecution cannot fill gaps in their evidence with assumptions, even seemingly reasonable ones.

If you're charged with a school bus violation, examine exactly what the officer could actually see. If they didn't have a clear view of the lights that would have been visible to you as the driver, that's a serious weakness in the Crown's case that shouldn't be papered over with presumptions.