Reasonable, ordinary person would have foreseen risk of driving the way accused drove

Following two confrontations between accused and some young men at quarry, accused and friends left with accused driving. Accused, who was afraid other man would kill or hurt him, was crying as he left quarry and began hyperventilating. Accused refused to stop or slow down even after being told no one was following them and continued to accelerate, ultimately reaching speed of 183 kilometres per hour. Accused overtook two other vehicles on roadway as they approached knoll in road, fishtailed, overcorrected and then vehicle went into ditch, became airborne and struck hydro pole, and moved into woods. Two passengers died instantly and third suffered serious injuries. Accused was charged with two counts of dangerous driving causing death and other offences. Accused was convicted. Trial judge found that degree of care exhibited by accused was marked departure from standard of care of reasonable person in accused’s circumstances. Trial judge found that although there may have been initial sense of urgency to leave quarry, as time and distance increased, urgency diminished, but speed at which vehicle was being driven did not. Accused appealed conviction. Appeal dismissed. Even if accused was deprived of rational considered thought by actions beyond his control because he panicked, trial judge was not obliged to assess his negligence on that footing unless reasonable, ordinary person in his circumstances would also be deprived of rational considered though. Trial judge was entitled to conclude that reasonable, ordinary person in accused’s situation, having received repeated warnings and pleas from victims, coupled with repeated assurances that they were not being followed by assailants, would have foreseen risk of continuing to drive in manner he did. Trial judge was entitled to find that accused was not in state of automatism.  

R. v. Galletta (2020), 2020 CarswellOnt 1013, 2020 ONCA 60, M.L. Benotto J.A., David M. Paciocco J.A., and Thorburn J.A. (Ont. C.A.); affirmed (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 13109, 2019 ONCJ 571, Jacqueline V. Loignon J. (Ont. C.J.).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca