R v Richards

R. v. Richards

2009 ONCJ 651
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice of the Peace M. A. Cuthbertson | December 22, 2009

Background

Just after midnight on February 3, 2009, thick fog blanketed Kitchener with visibility down to only 50 metres. Officer Nelson was driving northbound on Fischer-Hallman Road at 60 km/h when he spotted Janis Richards approaching from his right on Queen's Boulevard. She was doing about 40 km/h and facing a red light — which she ran right through without stopping. Nelson had to brake hard to avoid a collision, then pulled her over and charged her with careless driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.

Richards testified that she did stop at the red light before turning, claiming she should have seen the officer's cruiser if he was within 50 metres. But her own testimony revealed she hadn't noticed the approaching police car with its headlights on, undermining her credibility about what she observed that foggy night.

Issues

1. Did Richards actually stop at the red light?
2. If she didn't stop, did running the red light constitute careless driving under section 130 HTA?
3. Could she be convicted of the lesser offence of failing to stop at a red light under section 144(18) HTA?

The Careless Driving Standard

Justice Cuthbertson found that Richards clearly ran the red light, rejecting her testimony as lacking credibility and detail. But running a red light doesn't automatically equal careless driving. The court applied the established test from R. v. Beauchamp: careless driving requires conduct that "amounts to a breach of one's duty to the public and is deserving of punishment." A driver isn't held to a standard of perfection, and "mere momentary inattention, or a simple kind of error of judgment" doesn't cross the threshold.

Here's the key finding: Richards was driving reasonably for the conditions — 40 km/h in heavy fog on wet roads was appropriate speed. Her failure to stop was more consistent with momentary inattention than the kind of dangerous conduct that warrants a careless driving conviction. The court noted her actions "did not bespeak the kind of conduct over which the net of this section is cast."

The Included Offence Problem

The prosecution might have hoped to get Richards on the lesser charge of failing to stop at a red light under section 144(18) HTA. But there's a procedural hurdle: for an offence to be "included" under section 55 of the Provincial Offences Act, its essential elements must be contained within the original charge or clearly stated on the certificate. Since the charging certificate only mentioned "Careless Driving" with no reference to running red lights, Richards had no notice she might need to defend against that specific charge. The court ruled section 144(18) is not an included offence within section 130.

Key Takeaway

Careless driving requires more than just making a driving mistake — it demands conduct that's truly deserving of punishment.

If you're charged with careless driving, examine whether your actions were genuinely dangerous or just momentary inattention. Courts distinguish between being a public menace and simply having a bad moment behind the wheel.