R. v. Beatty (J.R.), (2006) 225 B.C.A.C. 154 (CA)

• Judge: Finch, C.J.B.C., Ryan and Smith, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: May 10, 2006
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2006), 225 B.C.A.C. 154 (CA);2006 BCCA 229

R. v. Beatty (J.R.) (2006), 225 B.C.A.C. 154 (CA);

    371 W.A.C. 154

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.037

Regina (appellant) v. Justin Ronald Beatty (respondent)

(CA33031; 2006 BCCA 229)

Indexed As: R. v. Beatty (J.R.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Finch, C.J.B.C., Ryan and Smith, JJ.A.

May 10, 2006.

Summary:

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a charge of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial. The trial judge failed to properly apply the law as laid down in R. v. Hundal (S.C.C.).

Criminal Law - Topic 1391

Motor vehicles - Dangerous driving - What constitutes - The accused's truck fully crossed the centre line on a turn, colliding with an oncoming vehicle and killing its three occupants - The accused was travelling at the posted speed limit, was driving properly until he crossed the centre line, and alcohol and drugs were not involved - The accused claimed that he either lost consciousness because of heat stroke or fell asleep - The trial judge acquitted the accused of dangerous driving causing death - He held that a momentary lapse of attention did not constitute dangerous driving, as such was not a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person in like circumstances (i.e. driving not objectively dangerous under the first step in Hundal) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal ordered a new trial - Whether a momentary lapse of attention constituted dangerous driving was not the issue - Crossing the centre line in the face of oncoming traffic was objectively dangerous - The issue to be determined at trial was whether the accused's explanation for crossing the centre line raised a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person in like circumstances ought to have been aware of the risk and the danger involved in the manner in which the accused drove (i.e. second step of Hundal test).

Criminal Law - Topic 1391.2

Motor vehicles - Dangerous driving - Causing death or bodily harm - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1391 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1395

Motor vehicles - Dangerous driving - Evidence and proof - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1391 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hundal (S.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867; 149 N.R. 189; 22 B.C.A.C. 241; 38 W.A.C. 241; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 97, appld. [para. 1].

R. v. Reed (R.R.) (1997), 86 B.C.A.C. 111; 142 W.A.C. 111; 11 M.V.R.(3d) 11 (C.A.), affd. [1998] 1 S.C.R. 753; 225 N.R. 81; 106 B.C.A.C. 142; 172 W.A.C. 142, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Johnson (K.C.) (2004), 197 B.C.A.C. 17; 323 W.A.C. 17; 2004 BCCA 141, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Bilodeau (M.J.) (2005), 219 B.C.A.C. 261; 361 W.A.C. 261; 2005 BCCA 618, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Bilodeau (M.J.), [2004] B.C.J. No. 2550; 2004 BCPC 440, refd to. [para. 17].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 249(1)(a), sect. 249(4) [para. 14].

Counsel:

A. Budlovsky, for the appellant;

A.P. Watt, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 8, 2006, before Finch, C.J.B.C., Ryan and Smith, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On May 10, 2006, Finch, C.J.B.C., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.