CITATION: Brantford (City) v. Williams, 2026 ONCJ 468
DATE: July 22, 2026
ONTARIO COURT OF Justice
Central West Region
CIty of Brantford
-and-
Peter T. Williams
Trial conducted May 22, 2026
Decision and Reasons issued July 22, 2026
Appearances:
Reed, A. for the City
Liley, R. for the defence
Statutes Considered or Cited:
Highway Traffic Act of Ontario, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, as amended (“HTA”)
Cases Considered or Cited
R. v. Shergill, [2016] O.J. No. 1503
Decision of the Court
1. Peter Williams is charged with the offence of “careless driving” pursuant to s.130(1) of the HTA. For the reasons set out below I find Mr. Williams guilty, enter a conviction and invite submissions on penalty.
Background and Evidence
2. Mr. Williams is a professional transport truck driver, who daily drives a route between Michigan in the United States of America to New York, also in the United States of America, along a route that takes him along Highway 403 in Ontario. He was carrying a load of liquid cargo. He is charged as a result of a collision between his tractor trailer combination, and a “crash truck”, which was positioned on Highway 403, within the City of Brantford, occurring on the 6th day of September 2023.
3. The evidence establishes, and there is no dispute with regard to date, time and location.
4. The evidence further establishes that the area in which the collision occurred was being set up as an active construction area; at the same time, it is clear that any active construction work (being started) that day, was further ahead of the location of the collision.
5. There is also evidence that there were indicators of (possible) construction along a long portion of the highway that Mr. Williams would have already travelled. Mr. Williams’ evidence, both viva voce and based on a series of still images captured by a camera mounted in the cab of his tractor unit, was that there were construction “barrels”[1] positioned along the roadside for this long distance, estimated generally as approximately ten kilometres long. For the portion of the road visible on the images viewed by the Court and tendered as Exhibit 1, these appear to be well off to the side of the road, and at least in some cases, near or on the grassy area beyond the gravel shoulder of the road.
6. This portion of the highway consists of two travelled lanes in each direction separated by a wide median. The collision occurred approximately 1:00am; road conditions were good, traffic was light; there was no precipitation. One prosecution witness suggested there may have been artificial lighting in the area, however, the photographic images do not support that.
7. Three police officers gave evidence for the prosecution. The first was one of the investigating officers, Kyle West. He gave evidence regarding the indicators of the construction zone; there were black and oranges barrels on the side of the highway, a digital construction sign and the presence of the crash truck. He advised there were signs posted for a (reduced) speed in the area, which he described as extending for several kilometres. He could not detail what portion of the highway he travelled to arrive at the collision scene so he could not attest to the exact length of highway that would have been marked by indicators of a construction zone.
8. He described the scene of the collision/impact.
9. On cross -examination, he was challenged as to whether the digital sign was actually illuminated or contained any text or messages, or as to whether the orange signs he described were visible in the series of photo images (often referred to as “video”). He agreed that the pylons to the side of the highway were not near the paved part of the road but likely at least a metre away from the paved portion of the road and possibly close to the grassy area next to the gravel shoulder.
10. A second was Sgt. Catharine Lewis who had previously been performing paid duty work on an unrelated construction site on Highway 403 but which was no longer going to be active and thus not requiring her services. She was filling her cruiser with gas nearby, heard the dispatch and attended the scene. Her evidence confirmed date, time and location. She attended the scene and checked on well-being of individuals involved,
11. Sgt. Lewis confirmed that the regularly posted speed limit would be 100 kilometres per hour (“kph”) however, she also noted that signs were posted with a reduced limit of 80kph, although she did not know the exact location of those signs.
12. Further, Sgt. Lewis gave evidence regarding the presence of workers. Her evidence was that there were workers working further along the highway (that is, beyond the scene of the collision). However, how she knew that became unclear. If fact, at one point Sgt. Lewis noted that various crews were working at various locations and may have been moving about to different sites over the course of the evening.
13. The third, Cst. Daryl Giles, arrived on scene and assisted with various aspects of the investigation. Once again, he gave evidence of the presence of posted speed limit signs with a limit of 80kph, differing from the normal 100kph limit that regulates this area. He could not confirm the exact location or placement of such signs. Notably, he gave evidence that there was artificial lighting in the area.
14. He also confirmed the presence of the pylons or barrels positioned along the side of he road.
15. There is a dispute as to whether there were more than one construction sign(s) posted and specifically whether a construction zone sign that is visible in the photographic images was lit or whether any wording was visible on it.
16. It is a common understanding that the regular posted speed limit is 100 kilometres per hour. Prosecution witnesses provided consistent evidence that there were signs posted to indicate a reduced speed in the area immediately before the collision scene, as well as along a significant portion of the section of road where the construction barrels were positioned, with a speed of 80 kph. The exact location of these signs in relation to the collision scene was not provided.
17. Antonio Sansone gave evidence as a witness for the prosecution. He was the operator of the “crash truck”, and was initially (relevant to the time of this collision), on lane one, being the left lane or lane closest to the centre median of the highway. He was creeping along, following behind work crews that were positioned somewhere on the highway ahead of him. His role was to provide protection for those workers.
18. He stated that he observed using his side view mirrors a motor vehicle approaching from behind. As he kept watch on this vehicle, he became concerned that it was not slowing down and might pose a danger. He also reported not hearing sounds of braking by the approaching tractor trailer combination.
19. Based on that, he made a radio call to the crew to clear the highway, and moved his truck from the left to the right lane. He eventually brought the truck to a stop on something of a diagonal across that lane (lane two), with the right (passenger side) rear wheel of this truck abutting the marker showing the edge of the paved roadway, and the left (driver’s side) front wheel straddling the lane markings between the two lanes on the highway.
20. He then exited the truck, leaving the door open (and thereby at least partially obstructing a clear path for vehicles in the left lane), ran around the front of the truck and off the to side of the highway, pulled out a flashlight and tried to signal the driver of the approaching vehicle. As that tractor trailer approached, in Mr. Sansone’s estimation, dangerously close, he then fled onto the grassy area further from the highway.
21. Mr. Sansone was asked about the time lapse and estimates of distances for his various observations. They were inconsistent, in spite of his insistence he had a clear recollection of the events.
22. Under cross examination, Mr, Sansone was asked about the lights at the back of his truck. He advised he had completed a circle check at the start of his shift and at that time they were functioning properly. They would include lights that would form an arrow to direct approaching vehicles to move either to his left or right side.
23. Mr, Sansone gave a statement at the time to the investigating officers. There are clear instances of his evidence in this trial, now almost three years after the fact, including detail that was not originally recorded. Although he acknowledged that he was now providing evidence beyond what he shared with the investigating officer, I do not know the extend or detail of any such enhancements, nor whether or how they impact credibility.
24. Mr. Sansone remarked that this particular experience was well etched in his mind given that he has not experienced anything of similar significance since.
25. There were, of necessity, many more personnel responding to the scene but were not called to give evidence.
26. Mr. Williams gave evidence that he may have seen “one or two speed limit signs from the point when I entered onto the 403; there’s not a lot of them out there.” When asked under cross examination what he thought the posted speed limit to be, he replied “it’s either 100 or 110”.
27. Mr. Williams’ evidence is that he first saw (what eventually proved to be) the crash truck positioned “near” the shoulder of the highway some distance ahead; he thought it may be off to on the shoulder of the highway. He was unsure what kind of vehicle it was and thought it might be a tow truck. He indicated he slowed as he approached the vehicle and was surprised to find it in a live lane. He then tried to steer into the next lane but came into collision with the crash truck, with impact occurring on the front, passenger side of his tractor unit, and to the side of the crash truck just behind the driver’s side door.
28. Defence introduced a “video”, captured by a camera located in the cab of the tractor unit operated by the defendant, and provided to him by his employer. Although it was referred to as a “video”, it was indeed a series of still images captured approximately three seconds apart. In addition to the images of the road ahead, the system captured and displayed what Mr. Williams described as the speed of the tractor trailer combination, expressed in miles per hour (“mph”). It also reports the posted speed limit, although the basis upon which this is established is not in evidence. Finally, it displays a timestamp.
29. It is clear in the series of images (the “video”) that Mr. Williams was attentive to the road ahead, with his eyes not wandering from the roadway. He did not appear to doze or otherwise be inattentive.
30. What is also clear on the video is that in the moments following the collision, there were (flashing) yellow lights visible. While this was not explored in examination of any witnesses, it appears clear that these were from the crash truck.
31. Both vehicles were towed from the scene as they were inoperable.
32. Mr. Williams denied seeing any signs to indicate a reduced speed, or that this was a construction zone.
33. There is an image that clearly shows a sign positioned on the side of the highway which apparently can be illuminated, but does not appear as such, nor what may have been visible on that sign. The images do reveal orange signs on the side of the highway although it is difficult from the images to decipher what is on them.
34. Mr. Williams gave evidence asserting that the speed recorded on the images is higher than what he was travelling, although he was unable to indicate by what amount. He was unable to provide evidence regarding the calibration of the software to indicate whether or when the speeds recorded were checked for accuracy.
35. In all the images, what I understand to be the “posted speed limit” is shown as 60 mph, which converts to 104.61 kilometres per hour (“kph”)[2].
36. At the start of the series of images tendered in evidence, he would have been travelling 68 miles per hour (converted to 109.44kph), and in the few seconds before the collision, he had reduced his speed, which was recorded as 27mph (converted to 43.452kph). As best can be deciphered from the images provided, Mr. Williams was travelling at 68mph at 12:45:54 and his speed had reduced to 27mph at 12:46:00, a lapse of six seconds. At the steady and full speed of 68mph for that full interval, he would have covered 182.394 metres during that time (relying on the on-line calculator), however, because he was reducing his speed, he would have travelled a far shorter distance.
37. Similarly, from the point where he was recorded travelling at 27mph to when he stopped, was a further lapse time of no more than 12 seconds. During this time, he would have covered roughly 145 metres at full speed, however, as he was decelerating, the distance travelled would have been less.
Defence Position
38. The defence position is best captured by his legal representative who asked whether this “was a truck driver who believed he saw a tow truck, but the tow truck wasn’t a tow truck but a crash truck but was taking manoeuvres that would have cleared him around a tow truck but it wasn’t a tow truck but a crash truck that on an angle that was difficult to see because of conditions, and indecipherable and [was] there for a very weird reason and a reasonable person would not be expected to have the perfection to anticipate every one of these exceptional factors.”
39. Defence also submits that there are weaknesses in the prosecution case. For example, Mr. Sansone is said to have included greater detail in his evidence today than was recorded in his statement to the investigating officers.
40. In this context, defence submits that the officers’ credibility ought be assessed as weak, given the inconsistencies between their evidence (ambient lighting), lack of clarity on whether or where construction zone and speed signs were posted. In the case of the crash truck driver, his unrealistic estimates of distances at which he assessed the approaching tractor trailer to be, and his assertion he could gauge whether the truck was slowing by listening for sounds of engine braking, given his window was closed, all impugn his credibility. And, in particular, his now enhanced recollection of the events that night, some three years after the events, compared to the statement he made on the night of the collision should put his evidence in question.
41. Further, defence points to other inconsistencies between various witness, and in particular as to ambient lighting. Defence also invited the Court to weigh heavily any doubt about the location of posted speed limit signs or construction zone signs.
42. Finally, defence submits that Mr. Williams’ driving behaviour is consistent with careful attention to the roadway, and he should not be punished for not demonstrating “the perfection to anticipate every one of these exceptional factors” he encountered. The crash truck may not have been fully illuminated and was positioned in a live lane of traffic where a reasonable person would not have expected it.
Crown Position
43. Put at its simplest, the Prosecution holds that the vehicle was there to be seen, was seen, and any prudent driver would have taken steps to avoid the collision. The issue was not whether there was a collision but rather whether the actions of the driver were those of one operating with due care and attention.
44. Prosecution and defence both relied on a number of cases, although these addressed the general principles more than the specifics of this case.
Analysis
45. In my review of the case, it comes down simply to whether the crash truck was there to be seen, and, if so, whether the actions of the driver were those of one operating with due care and attention.
46. It is clear that the defendant, Mr. Williams, is proud of his track record as a driver. The impression I am left with is that a conviction would leave him feeling that he had deliberately done something wrong.
47. Of the cases cited by the parties, I find returning to foundational cases is usually helpful. The prosecution references R. v. Shergill, which states at paragraph 12
12 It is clear and conceded by the respondent in this case that careless driving as dealt with by s. 130 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act is a strict liability offence (see R. v. McIver 1965 CanLII 26 (ON CA), [1965] 2 O.R. 475 (Ont.C.A.) and R. v. Sault Ste. Marie 1978 CanLII 11 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299 (S.C.C.)). There is no obligation on the Crown to establish a mens rea element on a careless driving prosecution. Rather, "the doing of the prohibited act prima facie imports the offence, leaving it open to the accused to avoid liability by proving that he took all reasonable care. This involves consideration of what a reasonable man would have done in the circumstances. The defence will be available if the accused reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts which, if true, would render the act or omission innocent, or if he took all reasonable steps to avoid the particular event." (Sault St. Marie, supra, page 15) Therefore, the prosecution need only prove the actus reus of the offence of careless driving. The defendant stands to be convicted unless he can establish that he took all reasonable care.
- To the extent that it imports to the charge of careless driving a consideration that the conduct must be of such a nature that it can be considered a breach of duty to the public and deserving of punishment" does Beauchamp survive subsequent decisions by Provincial Appellate Courts and the Supreme Court of Canada?
48. This of course, hearkens back to the seminal case, Beauchamp.
49. Turning to the facts of this case, I find:
a. Mr. Williams was driving a motor vehicle (loaded tractor trailer combination) on a highway and struck another motor vehicle (a crash truck).
b. That crash truck was there to be seen. Mr. Sansone had maneuvered the crash truck onto lane 2, admittedly at something of an angle, in order to afford a measure of protection to the workers located a short distance further along the highway.
c. Visibility of any lights on the back of the crash truck might have been reduced as a result of the angle it was positioned across lane 2.
d. Mr. Williams’s own evidence was that he saw something – he thought it may be a tow truck – on or near the side of the road, or possibly off on the side of the road, at some distance. This proved to be the crash truck.
e. While he stated he “eased off on the pedal”, the evidence discloses that he was within 200 metres of the crash truck and he was still driving at or most likely above the speed limit, regardless of whether it a construction zone or not.
f. At approximately that distance, he slowed his motor vehicle and started to change lanes, but was unable to make a clear path around the crash truck.
g. The section of Highway 403 over which Mr. Williams had travelled had been marked as a construction zone for long distances (likely exceeding 10km), although it is clear that construction work was not being performed along that entire distance at all times.
50. I accept, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, that the speed reflected on the photos as the speed of travel by Mr. Williams correctly reflects his speed of travel.
51. It is worthy of note that O.Reg.587: Equipment incorporates a requirement for speed-limiters. This requires limitation of speed to 105kph for specified vehicles. I acknowledge that Mr. Williams is not charged with an offence under this or the enabling section of the HTA, it certainly is troubling. This provision was not argued by either party. In keeping with this, neither party suggested that this is over-ridden in the event that the 110kph speed limit may have been in effect on that section of highway at the time.
52. I mention this given that Mr. Williams was not at all troubled that he was travelling near or more likely above the posted speed limit in the moments just prior to this collision, notwithstanding that he observed something either just off the side of the road (Mr. Williams’ evidence taken at its best), or, as was established to be the case, on a live lane of travel.
53. In my view, it is irrelevant whether the truck was a tow truck or crash truck. It was there and seen.
54. Further, whether it was an “active” construction zone, or whether construction and reduced speed signs were properly posted is interesting but in my mind irrelevant. Even were it not a construction zone, I find he was travelling above the speed limit. I find that the section of highway along which he was travelling was a “construction zone”, although not having work performed at all times. It would be reasonable to anticipate that at some point along that section of highway, work may be performed at differing times of the day or days of the week. Mr. Williams conceded that the construction along that section of road had been going on (and off) for a long period of time.
55. Regrettably, Mr. Williams did not establish that, having noted “something” on or near the highway ahead, he took sufficient actions to adjust his speed and/or lane of travel, and, as a result, did not act with due care and attention.
56. I also note Mr. Williams’ evidence regarding posted signs. He stated he observed only one or two speed signs from the time he entered on Highway 403. This is not evidence that such signs were not posted. In passing, I note that prosecution of speed related offences has not collapsed in recent memory. Since these prosecutions would be predicated on speed limits being posted, and, given the statutory and regulatory framework, together with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I find Mr. Williams’ evidence to strain credulity and weaken his credibility.
57. Alternately, I am concerned that his evidence evinces a level of casualness with respect to his observations while driving. This may not be surprising, given he travels this route almost daily, and may simply reflect his comfort as a driver. The same is likely true with respect to the designation of the roadway as a construction zone. Again, this goes to my assessment of whether he acted with due care and attention.
58. I want to reiterate that the standard is not perfection as suggested by Ms. Liley. While I accept that Mr, Williams is normally a safe and prudent driver, he failed to exercise due care and attention on this date and time, at this location given all the circumstances.
59. For these reasons, I enter a conviction.
Issued at City of Brantford, Ontario,
Original Signed
_____________________________
His Worship Donald Dudar
Justice of the Peace
1This is the term used to described taper-shaped items consisting of alternating orange and black stripes which are deployed in construction zones.
2These conversions were obtained using an on-line conversion website, www.metric-calculator.com .