R. v. Gratton (A.L.), 2003 ABQB 728

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 20, 2003
• Citations: 2003 ABQB 728;(2003), 341 A.R. 201 (QB)

R. v. Gratton (A.L.) (2003), 341 A.R. 201 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. AU.132

Her Majesty the Queen v. Aime Leo Gratton

(Action No. 0160 51344 Q1; 2003 ABQB 728)

Indexed As: R. v. Gratton (A.L.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of St. Paul

Watson, J.

August 20, 2003.

Summary:

The accused was charged upon an indictment containing 16 counts following a motor vehicle accident involving five fatalities. The 16 counts consisted of 1 count of leaving the scene of an accident (Count 1) and 3 sets of 5 counts of fatality-causation offences. Counts 2 to 6, charged the accused with causing death while operating a motor vehicle while impaired (Criminal Code, s. 255(3)). Counts 7 to 11 charged the accused with criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle causing death (s. 220(b)) . Counts 12 to 16 charged the accused with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death (s. 249(4)).

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench convicted the accused of Counts 1 to 6 and 12 to 16. The court found the accused not guilty of Counts 7 to 11.

Criminal Law - Topic 1351

Motor vehicles - Criminal negligence in operation of motor vehicle - Criminal negligence defined - The accused drove his truck through a stop sign and struck a car which had the right of way, killing the five occupants of the car - He fled the scene and was discovered by police hiding in a nearby farm building - He was charged with leaving the scene of an accident (Count 1), causing death while operating a motor vehicle when he was impaired (Counts 2 to 6), criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle causing death (Counts 7 to 11) and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death (Counts 12 to 16) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench convicted the accused of Counts 1 to 6 and 12 to 16 - The court found that the accused was impaired - The accident was caused by the accused running a stop sign at excessive speed - He was not paying adequate attention - He fled the accident scene to avoid civil or criminal liability - The court acquitted him on Counts 7 to 11, where the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's conduct rose to the moral level of criminal negligence as defined in the Criminal Code.

Criminal Law - Topic 1353

Motor vehicles - Criminal negligence in operation of motor vehicle - Causing death - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed generally the offence of criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle causing death - See paragraphs 25 to 34.

Criminal Law - Topic 1356

Motor vehicles - Failing to stop or remain at accident scene - Elements - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the elements of the offence of leaving the scene of an accident (Criminal Code, s. 252) - See paragraphs 9 to 19.

Criminal Law - Topic 1357

Motor vehicles - Failing to stop or remain at accident scene - Mens rea or intention - The accused was involved in a motor vehicle accident involving five fatalities - He was charged, inter alia, with leaving the scene of an accident contrary to s. 252 of the Criminal Code - At trial, the accused contended that the Crown did not prove the requisite intent beyond reasonable doubt - He claimed that he lacked the criminal intent for this offence because of a combination of a panic attack, and genuine fear of what angry persons at the scene were threatening to do to him as a result of the crash (i.e., that he was acting out of an instinctual form of necessity and not simply to avoid civil or criminal liability) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found the accused guilty where the court determined that he fled the scene to avoid criminal or civil liability - See paragraphs 16 to 19 and 288.

Criminal Law - Topic 1398

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving causing death or bodily harm - Elements - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the elements of the offence of impaired driving causing death (Criminal Code, ss. 253 and 255(3)) - See paragraphs 20 to 24.

Criminal Law - Topic 1399

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving causing death or bodily harm - What constitutes - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1351 ].

Evidence - Topic 7062

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - Particular matters - Crime scene (incl. staging behaviour and computer analysis) - The accused was charged with numerous offences following a motor vehicle accident involving five fatalities - At trial, the Crown offered expert evidence from a collision analyst, who had downloaded information from the sensing diagnostic module (SDM) of the accused's truck - This information was used by the expert to estimate the vehicle speed just before impact - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that this expert's evidence could not be used to support the Crown's case - There was no sufficient evidential support to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that this device took in the relevant information, accurately recorded it, and accurately and meaningfully provided that accurate information on download - The court opined that such evidence might be useful in future cases if the sufficient level of proof required for expert evidence was established - See paragraphs 100 to 125.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hnatiuk (1983), 45 A.R. 125 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 1].

R. v. Kienapple (1974), 1 N.R. 322 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 2].

R. v. Prince (1986), 70 N.R. 119; 45 Man.R.(2d) 93 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 3].

R. v. Andrew (1990), 57 C.C.C.(3d) 301; 78 C.R.(3d) 239; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 325; 24 M.V.R.(2d) 85 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 4].

R. v. Deslisle (G.) (2003), 181 B.C.A.C. 55; 298 W.A.C. 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 5].

R. v. Cormier (Y.) (2000), 229 N.B.R.(2d) 215; 592 A.P.R. 215; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 172 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 6].

R. v. D.W. (1991), 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 7].

R. v. Lifchus (W.) (1997), 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 8].

R. v. Hansen (1988), 46 C.C.C.(3d) 504; 13 M.V.R.(2d) 33 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 9].

R. v. Colby (1989), 100 A.R. 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 10].

R. v. Adler (1981), 8 Sask.R. 414 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 11].

R. v. Roche (1983), 47 N.R. 217 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 12].

R. v. Gosselin (1988), 31 O.A.C. 155 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 13].

R. v. Downey and Reynolds (1992), 136 N.R. 266; 1125 A.R. 342; 14 W.A.C. 342 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 14].

R. v. Penno (1990), 115 N.R. 249; 42 O.A.C. 271 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 15].

R. v. Daviault (H.) (1994), 173 N.R. 1; 64 Q.A.C. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 15].

R. v. Stone (B.T.) (1999), 239 N.R. 201; 123 B.C.A.C. 1; 201 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 15].

R. v. Hofer (1982), 20 Sask.R. 389; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 16].

R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson (1984), 55 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 17].

R. v. Ruzic (M.) (2001), 268 N.R. 1; 145 O.A.C. 235 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 18].

R. v. Stellato (T.) (1994), 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 20].

R. v. Andrews (M.A.) (1996), 178 A.R. 182; 110 W.A.C. 182 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 21].

R. v. Power (K.) (2002), 311 A.R. 27 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 22].

R. v. Ewart (1989), 100 A.R. 118, supplementary reasons (1990), 105 A.R. 348 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 23].

R. v. Pinske (1988), 6 M.V.R.(2d) 19; 30 B.C.L.R.(2d) 114 (C.A.), affd. (1989), 100 N.R. 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 24].

R. v. Abel (A.D.) (1999), 232 A.R. 186; 195 W.A.C. 186 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 25].

R. v. Creighton (1993), 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27, footnote 26].

R. v. Finlay (1993), 156 N.R. 374; 113 Sask.R. 241; 52 W.A.C. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 28].

R. v. Gosset (1993), 157 N.R. 195; 57 Q.A.C. 130 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 29].

R. v. Naglik (1993), 157 N.R. 161; 65 O.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 30].

R. v. DeSousa (1992), 142 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 109 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 31].

R. v. Emans (A.) (2000), 135 O.A.C. 338 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 32].

R. v. Hundal (S.) (1993), 149 N.R. 189; 22 B.C.A.C. 241; 38 W.A.C. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 33].

R. v. MacGillivray (D.G.) (1995), 179 N.R. 83; 140 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 399 A.P.R. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 34].

R. v. Levasseur (1987), 77 A.R. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40, footnote 35].

R. v. Kootenay (C.M.) (1994), 149 A.R. 41; 63 W.A.C. 41 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40, footnote 36].

R. v. Mohan (1994), 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 121, footnote 37].

Daubert et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1993), 113 S. Ct. 2786; 507 U.S. 579 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 121, footnote 38].

R. v. J.-L.J. (2000), 261 N.R. 111 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 122, footnote 39].

Foley v. Administrator, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act (Alta.) et al. (2002), 330 A.R. 1; 299 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 123, footnote 40].

R. v. Nikolovski (A.) (1996), 204 N.R. 333; 96 O.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 124, footnote 41].

R. v. Jolivet (D.) (2000), 254 N.R. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 238, footnote 42].

Ares v. Venner, [1970] S.C.R. 608; 73 W.W.R.(N.S.) 347; 14 D.L.R.(3d) 4; 12 C.R.N.S. 349, refd to. [para. 239, footnote 43].

R. v. White (R.G.) and Côté (Y.) (1998), 227 N.R. 326; 112 O.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 272, footnote 44].

R. v. Arcangioli (G.) (1994), 162 N.R. 280; 69 O.A.C. 26 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 272, footnote 45].

R. v. Chambers (No. 2) (1990), 119 N.R. 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 279, footnote 46].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 219 [para. 25]; sect. 252(1) [para. 9]; sect. 252(2) [para. 10]; sect. 253 [para. 20]; 255(3) [para. 21].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fletcher, George, The Individualization of Excusing Conditions (1974), 47 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1269, generally [para. 19, footnote 19].

Counsel:

Debra Drissell and Jason Snider (Crown Prosecutors' Office), for the Crown;

David Cunningham (Beresh Depoe Cunningham), for the defendant.

This action was heard in November 2002, March 2003 and on August 18-20, 2003 by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of St. Paul, who released the following decision on August 20, 2003.