Jon Dobrowolski

The accused was convicted of careless driving and pleaded guilty to driving while licence suspended.

On April 29, 2015, the accused drove a van with six passengers on Highway 3 in Leamington when a bee entered the driver's window.

The accused became distracted by the bee and failed to maintain attention on the road despite warnings from passengers.

This resulted in multiple overcorrections, the van rolling over, and two passengers being fatally injured.

The court imposed a sentence of 30 days incarceration, a two-year driving prohibition, and a $1,000 fine.

The court found that the accused's status as both never-licenced and suspended made non-custodial sanctions ineffective as deterrents.

The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to Section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act and driving with a suspended licence contrary to Section 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the suspended licence charge.

At trial, the court found the defendant guilty of careless driving after determining that the defendant's prolonged and repeated focus on a bee that entered the vehicle, rather than on the roadway and driving, fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable, average, careful driver.

The defendant's inattention led to the vehicle veering onto a gravel shoulder, overcorrecting multiple times, and ultimately rolling three to four times, resulting in two fatalities.

The court found that while the initial swatting at the bee was a reflexive action, the continued focus on the bee beyond that initial moment constituted careless driving.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault against his wife: assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, arising from an incident on August 5, 2013, where he threw a ceramic coffee mug that struck her arm, causing a fracture.

The Crown alleged the accused intentionally threw the cup at his wife as she exited the kitchen.

The trial judge found that the accused could not see his wife when he threw the cup, did not know she would be exiting the kitchen at that moment, and threw the cup as an act of frustration to get her attention during an argument about her whereabouts over the weekend.

The court found no intentional application of force under section 265(1)(a) and no threat to apply force with present ability under section 265(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The charges were dismissed.