R v Shergill

R. v. Shergill

2016 ONCJ 163
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice M.J. Epstein | March 23, 2016

Background

On March 5, 2014, Mandeep Shergill was driving a tractor-trailer on Highway 24, following a milk truck driven by Mr. Madden. The highway was a two-lane paved road with an 80 km/h speed limit, and conditions were perfect — sunny, dry, clear visibility. Madden had been travelling at 75-80 km/h when he decided to make a left turn at a country intersection. He activated his left signal, applied his brakes well before the intersection, and took 5-8 seconds to come to a complete stop. He then waited about 5 seconds for two oncoming cars to pass before beginning his turn.

Shergill, who had been following at what he claimed was a safe distance of 50 metres for about 5 kilometres, rear-ended the milk truck 2-3 seconds into Madden's turn. The impact caused almost $10,000 in damage and left skid marks over 75 feet long on the roadway. Police confirmed that all of the milk truck's signal lights and brake lights were functioning properly. In total, there were 12-16 seconds between when Madden first signaled and applied his brakes and when the collision occurred.

Issues

1. What constitutes the actus reus (guilty act) element of careless driving under s. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act?
2. Can inadvertent negligence or momentary inattentiveness establish careless driving?
3. Does evidence of proper driving prior to an incident prevent a careless driving conviction?

The Careless Driving Standard

Justice of the Peace Radulovic acquitted Shergill at trial, even though she accepted the milk truck driver's evidence and rejected Shergill's claim that the truck had stopped suddenly. She found that Shergill had failed to maintain proper distance or reduce his speed, but concluded this "inadvertent negligence did not constitute careless driving" because his driving for the previous 5 kilometres had been proper, and the conduct wasn't "deserving of punishment."

Justice Epstein overturned this decision on appeal, clarifying several crucial points about careless driving law. First, careless driving under s. 130 of the HTA is a strict liability offence — the Crown only needs to prove the defendant drove "without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway." There's no requirement to prove the conduct was "deserving of punishment" beyond showing it fell below the standard of a reasonable driver.

Second, the court rejected the outdated notion from the 1952 Beauchamp case that careless driving requires conduct that's "blameworthy and deserving of punishment." Modern Supreme Court cases like R. v. Beatty distinguish between Criminal Code dangerous driving (which requires a "marked departure" from reasonable care) and provincial careless driving offences (which require only simple negligence).

Momentary Inattention and Prior Good Driving

The appeal court emphasized that each case depends on its specific circumstances. Momentary inattention can constitute careless driving if, given all the circumstances, it represents a departure from what a reasonable driver would do. Here, with perfect road conditions, clear signaling, and 12-16 seconds of warning, a reasonable driver simply wouldn't have rear-ended the milk truck.

Critically, evidence of proper driving before an incident is irrelevant to whether careless driving occurred at the moment of the alleged offence. The court must focus on the driver's conduct "at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed" — not their driving history over the previous kilometres.

Key Takeaway

Careless driving doesn't require intentional misconduct — simple negligence that falls below reasonable driving standards is enough for conviction.

Self-represented defendants can't escape liability by showing they were driving properly before an incident, and "momentary inattention" isn't automatically a defence if the circumstances show a reasonable driver would have avoided the situation entirely.