COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 20060512

DOCKET: C44134

RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – ALDO BADARACCO (Appellant)

BEFORE: GOUDGE, GILLESE and LAFORME JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Lawrence Greenspon and Eric Granger for the appellant

James V. Palangio for the respondent

HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY: May 5, 2006

On appeal from the conviction entered on July 22, 2005 by Justice Bernard T. Ryan of the Ontario Court of Justice.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] We see no error in the trial judge’s determination that the appellant’s driving amounted to dangerous driving. The trial judge based his conclusion that the appellant’s driving was dangerous on the fact that the bus was “way too far to the right”. The witnesses who testified about the position of the bus immediately before it struck the curb agreed that it was and the appellant’s evidence is not inconsistent with that. On the evidence, it was open to the trial judge to reject the defence of steering failure and conclude that there was no problem with the bus’s steering prior to impact with the curb as the bus responded to the appellant’s steering thereafter, although he responded too late. The evidence of Mr. Riddell, the mechanic, supports that conclusion. Indeed, so does the appellant’s own evidence.

[2] We do not accept the argument that the reasons for judgment are inadequate. It is clear why the trial judge found the appellant guilty of dangerous driving. Although the lapse may have been only a matter of seconds, it occurred by a professional bus driver, approaching a bus platform with several people waiting to be picked up, operating a bus with eight to ten passengers, early in the morning under excellent weather conditions. The appellant allowed the bus to travel too far to the right prior to striking the curb and he acted too late in trying to resolve the problem. It was open to the trial judge to find this constituted a marked departure. See: R.. v. Hundal, 1993 120 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867.

[3] Finally, there is no reason to think the trial judge did not consider all of the evidence. The case was relatively straightforward and short. He did not have to refer to all of the relevant evidence in his reasons. It is sufficient that it is clear that he heard and considered all of the evidence and there is nothing in the reasons to suggest otherwise.

[4] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

“S. T. Goudge J.A.”

“E. E. Gillese J.A.”

“H. S. LaForme J.A.”