R. v. Brogan (P.), (2008) 267 N.S.R.(2d) 255 (PC)

• Judge: Derrick, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: July 21, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2008), 267 N.S.R.(2d) 255 (PC);2008 NSPC 42

R. v. Brogan (P.) (2008), 267 N.S.R.(2d) 255 (PC);

    853 A.P.R. 255

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.050

Her Majesty The Queen v. Patrick Brogan

(1703209; 1703210; 2008 NSPC 42)

Indexed As: R. v. Brogan (P.)

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Derrick, P.C.J.

July 21, 2008.

Summary:

The accused, driving his vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol content, struck and killed a six year old child riding his bicycle. The accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol content (to which he pleaded guilty), criminal negligence causing death and impaired driving causing death.

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court acquitted the accused of criminal negligence causing death and impaired driving causing death, because causation was not established. Where the child unexpectedly swerved into the path of the accused's vehicle, his death was the result of an "unavoidable accident". Since a normal, alert driver would not have had time to brake or take other evasive action, the accused's impairment, per se, could not constitute criminal negligence or impaired driving causing death.

Criminal Law - Topic 1353

Motor vehicles - Criminal negligence in operation of motor vehicle - Causing death - The accused, while having a blood-alcohol level exceeding .08, drove his vehicle at dusk on a familiar street at a normal rate of speed and within his appropriate lane - The accused's vehicle struck and killed a six year old bicyclist who had unexpectedly veered onto the street into the accused's path - The accused admitted guilt to driving with an excessive blood-alcohol content, but pleaded not guilty to criminal negligence causing death and impaired driving causing death - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court found the accused not guilty - The accused was slightly impaired, but impairment, by itself, could not found a conviction for dangerous driving or impaired driving causing death - The Crown failed to establish causation - The court accepted the expert evidence of an engineer retained by the Crown that this was an "unavoidable accident" - The boy appeared out of nowhere and even an alert, normal driver would not have had time to brake or even start to take evasive action - The accused was not speeding and there was no evidence of improper or faulty driving - The accused's impairment, in these circumstances, was irrelevant, because but for his impairment the result would have been the same - The Crown failed to prove that the accused's impairment was a significant, contributing cause of the accident - The court rejected the submission that the accused, knowing of the presence of children in the area, should have slowed down and his reaction time was lessened - The accused's driving did not constitute a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable person in like circumstances - There was no reason to slow down, as the habitual presence of children on the sidewalk did not create a hazard - Although some might question how an impaired driver who struck a bicyclist could be not guilty, guilt could not be imposed where the impairment had nothing to do with the accident.

Criminal Law - Topic 1399

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving causing death or bodily harm - What constitutes - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1353 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Ferguson, [1965] 1 C.C.C. 123 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Anderson, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 265; 105 N.R. 143; 64 Man.R.(2d) 161; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Waite, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1436; 98 N.R. 69; 35 O.A.C. 51, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 7].

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, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Beatty (J.R.) (2008), 371 N.R. 119; 251 B.C.A.C. 7; 420 W.A.C. 7 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Mueller, [1975] O.J. No. 1190 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Cabral (J.M.) (2001), 153 Man.R.(2d) 115; 238 W.A.C. 115 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Colby (1989), 100 A.R. 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Nette (D.M.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 488; 277 N.R. 301; 158 B.C.A.C. 98; 258 W.A.C. 98, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Fisher (1992), 7 B.C.A.C. 264; 15 W.A.C. 264 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Rhyason (B.P.) (2006), 397 A.R. 163; 384 W.A.C. 163 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Ewart (1989), 100 A.R. 118 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Isaak, [1988] Y.J. No. 113 (Terr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Petznick, [1987] O.J. No. 2474 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Vanmerrebach (T.R.) (2008), 261 N.S.R.(2d) 106; 835 A.P.R. 106 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Deruelle, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 663; 139 N.R. 56; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 313 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Stellato (T.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478; 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Webber (R.A.), [2003] Sask.R. Uned. 262 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Gray, [2005] O.J. No. 1010 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Cooper, [1993] O.J. No. 501 (C.J. Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Nagy, [2006] O.J. No. 4989 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Good, [1991] O.J. No. 2183 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Grosse (P.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 40 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 209 N.R. 400; 99 O.A.C. 239 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Andrew (R.J.) (1994), 46 B.C.A.C. 299; 75 W.A.C. 299 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Menezes (C.), [2002] O.T.C. 118 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. White (G.) (1994), 130 N.S.R.(2d) 143; 367 A.P.R. 143 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Kwasnica (T.D.), [2006] B.C.T.C. 1216 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Hall (S.), [2004] O.T.C. 1039 (Sup. Ct.), affd. (2007), 219 O.A.C. 251 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (2007), 379 N.R. 395 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 133].

R. v. J.L. (2006), 206 O.A.C. 205 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 146].

R. v. Grant (D.C.), [1991] B.C.T.C. Uned. C20 (S.C.), dist. [para. 148].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 150].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 151].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 151].

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322, refd to. [para. 152].

R. v. Boivon (1976), 34 C.R.N.S. 227 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].

R. v. Houchen (1976), 31 C.C.C.(2d) 274 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].

Counsel:

Darcy MacPherson and Shane Russell, for the Crown;

Derrick Kimball and Nash Brogan, for the accused.

This matter was heard on June 2-5, 2008, at Sydney, N.S., before Derrick, P.C.J., of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on July 21, 2008.