R. v. Needham, 2008 ONCA 562

ENDORSEMENT

1The appellant’s main contention is the conviction for dangerous driving is unreasonable. We do not accept this contention.

2In our view, the following evidence supports the trial judge’s findings that the appellant’s driving was dangerous to the public and that it amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the appellant’s situation:

• the appellant was joy riding, giving the party-goers a thrill;

• the appellant admitted that his driving was out of the ordinary;

• the appellant was driving extremely quickly at the time of the accident;

• just before the accident, the appellant drove his jeep in a manner that nearly resulted in a collision with another party-goer driving the ATV; and

• the appellant saw the ATV with the complainant and his girlfriend on it from 100 yards away, yet he made no attempt to slow down.

3These considerations show that when the appellant looked down to adjust his stereo he did not suffer a momentary lapse of attention in otherwise normal driving. Rather, this lapse of attention was part of an overall pattern of dangerous driving. The trial judge’s verdict was therefore reasonable.

4The appellant also contends that the trial judge’s reasons for convicting on dangerous driving were in substance no different from his reasons for acquitting on criminal negligence. He says that the trial judge failed to show the path to his conclusion. We do not agree. The trial judge imported a subjective assessment into the mens rea for criminal negligence, but properly applied the modified objective test for the mens rea for dangerous driving.

5Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.