R. v. Smith (J.), 2015 MBQB 84

• Judge: Bryk, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: May 19, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2015 MBQB 84;(2015), 317 Man.R.(2d) 158 (QB)

R. v. Smith (J.) (2015), 317 Man.R.(2d) 158 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.002

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Jillian Smith (accused/appellant)

(CR 14-01-34013; 2015 MBQB 84)

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

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Bryk, J.

May 19, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was charged with failing to remain at the scene of an accident and exchange particulars, contrary to s. 155(2) of the Highway Traffic Act. She admitted that an accident had occurred, but asserted that she had been unaware of it. A justice of the peace rejected the defence and convicted the accused. She appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Motor Vehicles - Topic 2870

Regulation of vehicles and traffic - Accidents - Leaving accident scene - General - [See Motor Vehicles - Topic 2893 ].

Motor Vehicles - Topic 2893

Regulation of vehicles and traffic - Accidents - Providing information to party to accident - Evidence and proof - The accused was charged with failing to remain at the scene of an accident and exchange particulars, contrary to s. 155(2) of the Highway Traffic Act - She admitted that an accident had occurred, but asserted that she had been unaware of it - A justice of the peace rejected the defence and convicted the accused - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the accused's appeal - Based on the agreed statement of facts, the Crown made out a prima facie case against the accused - Following that, the burden shifted to the accused to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that her mistake of fact was an honest one that was based on reasonable grounds - It was not enough that the accused, subjectively, was unaware that her vehicle had been involved in a collision with another vehicle, but her evidence also had to be objectively reasonable - The facts were very straightforward - Notwithstanding the accused's insistence that she was unaware of having collided with another motor vehicle, the circumstances made her evidence impossible to believe.

Trials - Topic 1172

Summary convictions - Strict liability offences - Defence of due diligence or error of fact - [See Motor Vehicles - Topic 2893 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. McMillan, 2013 ONCJ 25, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 32].

Statutes Noticed:

Highway Traffic Act, S.M. 1985-86, c. 3; C.C.S.M., c. H-60, sect. 155(2) [para. 10].

Counsel:

Jamie A. Kagan, for the appellant;

Samir Hassan, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by Bryk, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following written reasons for judgment on May 19, 2015.