R. v. Deforest (T.M.), (2013) 413 Sask.R. 293 (PC)

• Judge: Morgan, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 05, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2013), 413 Sask.R. 293 (PC);2013 SKPC 30

R. v. Deforest (T.M.) (2013), 413 Sask.R. 293 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.025

Her Majesty the Queen v. Twila M. Deforest

(7126318; 7126319; 2013 SKPC 30)

Indexed As: R. v. Deforest (T.M.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Morgan, P.C.J.

March 5, 2013.

Summary:

The accused was charged with speeding, contrary to s. 199(2) of the Traffic Safety Act, and disobeying a signal to stop by a peace officer, contrary to s. 209.1(4) of the Act. The accused claimed that she had exercised due diligence and was entitled to an acquittal.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty of both offences.

Motor Vehicles - Topic 4124

Offences - Liability of owner - For offence of driver - Police observed a vehicle speeding - They turned on their emergency lights and siren and pursued the vehicle but were not successful in stopping it or identifying the driver - They observed the licence plate number and learned that the vehicle was registered to Deforest - Deforest was charged with speeding and disobeying a signal to stop by a peace officer - She claimed that she had not been driving the vehicle - Deforest operated a contracting business for which her two brothers had occasionally worked - Both brothers had convictions for driving while disqualified - Deforest testified that she had registered the vehicle so that either of her brothers could arrange to have a third party driver take them to work or appointments - The vehicle was usually left at one of the brothers' houses - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found Deforest guilty of both offences - Section 273(2)(b) of the Traffic Safety Act made Deforest liable unless she could satisfy the court that the vehicle had not been operated by any authorized person in charge of the vehicle - Deforest had no idea who had been driving the vehicle - She had not exercised due diligence - She had demonstrated a complete lack of control over the vehicle - She had no idea where it was located at any particular time, who was driving it or when - The conditions she had placed on the vehicle were communicated to her brothers and not to the people who were authorized to operate it - She had authorized an entire group of unidentified and unidentifiable people - Such a wide-ranging "authorization" would frustrate the intent of s. 273.

Trials - Topic 1172

Summary convictions - Strict liability offences - Defence of due diligence or error of fact - [See Motor Vehicles - Topic 4124 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Auto Clearing (1982) Ltd. et al. (2007), 300 Sask.R. 25; 2007 SKPC 69, refd to. [para. 13].

Statutes Noticed:

Traffic Safety Act, S.S. 2004, c. T-18.1, sect. 273 [para. 10].

Counsel:

L. O'Connor, for the Crown;

T. Forsyth, for the defendant.

This matter was heard at Melfort, Saskatchewan, before Morgan, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on March 5, 2013.