Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: June 23, 2016

Court File No.: Barrie 3860 – 3303819B

In the Matter of: An appeal under subsection 135(1) of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, as amended

Between:

City of Barrie Respondent

— And —

Adam Longaphie Appellant

Before: Justice Enno J. Meijers

Heard on: June 7, 2016

Reasons for Judgment released on: June 23, 2016

Counsel:

• C. Powell – Counsel for the prosecution
• E. Mateus – Agent for the defendant Adam Longaphie

On appeal from: A conviction by Justice of the Peace James E. Oates on Monday, June 16, 2014 and from the sentence imposed on June 16, 2014.

Reasons for Judgment

MEIJERS J.:

[1] This is an appeal from the decision of His Worship Justice of the Peace J. Oates on June 16, 2014 at Barrie, Ontario.

[2] His Worship found Adam Longaphie guilty of careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act as a result of driving conduct which resulted in a collision with Casandra Chapman on the Second Line of Oro, ON. It was a clear day but the roads were snow-covered, icy and slippery. Ms. Chapman was driving a Cavalier motor vehicle southbound on Line 2 at about 9:25 AM. She was travelling at about 50 to 60 km/h and slowed to make a left-hand turn onto a driveway. She activated her signal light and began her turn.

[3] As she began her turn, Ms. Chapman was struck in the rear and side of her vehicle by the white Dodge Caravan being driven by Mr. Longaphie. The point of collision began in the centre of the roadway and continued into the northbound lane. Ms. Chapman testified that about 30 to 45 seconds earlier she had noticed the caravan behind her, about 20 car lengths away.

[4] At the scene, Mr. Longaphie told police that he was southbound on Line 2 and had crested a hill when he saw the Chapman vehicle in front of him. He said she braked so he began to brake but in doing so started sliding and felt he wasn't able to stop. He pulled into the northbound lane to avoid hitting the Chapman vehicle. Mr. Longaphie said he was probably going 70 km/hr and only saw brake lights, no blinker so he didn't know if she would be turning.

[5] At trial, Adam Longaphie said he saw the black car as he crested the hill and that when he hit his brakes he realized it was a lot slipperier at that point than other parts of the roadway. He said he was 8 to 10 car lengths behind the vehicle when he saw the brake lights.

[6] In his reasons, His Worship summarized the evidence and found that Ms. Chapman did in fact turn on her left turn signal. His Worship also noted that even if there was no signal it still would be reasonable in all the circumstances to assume that Ms. Chapman was going to be turning. He found that there should have been ample room for Adam Longaphie to stop his car and to get his vehicle under control, and that there is no reason why the collision should have occurred.

[7] E. Mateus for the appellant argues that:

1. The court erred by not assessing the Appellant's due diligence on a balance of probabilities.

In my view His Worship clearly did not accept the appellant's evidence but rather concluded that he was operating his motor vehicle at speeds too fast for the conditions and could not control it when faced with a slowing car ahead of him on the road.

2. His Worship erred by finding Mr. Longaphie's speed was too fast for the road conditions and there was no evidence to allow the court to conclude on an objective basis that Adam Longaphie's speed was too fast.

In my view, there was considerable evidence upon which His Worship could rely to make the conclusion he did including the evidence of Adam Longaphie himself and that of Ms. Chapman who was operating her motor vehicle at the considerably slower speed. She had no difficulty stopping within similar distances as existed between Adam Longaphie and Ms. Chapman when she began to slow for her turn. (Ms. Chapman said she began to slow for her turn at 10 to 12 car lengths from the turn, and he said he was 8 to 10 car lengths behind when he saw brake lights and started braking.)

3. His Worship erred by not applying the test in R v. Beauchamp, and instead applied a test whether "had Adam Longaphie used greater care or skill would the accident still have occurred?"

His Worship made specific reference to R. v. Beauchamp and did so in the context of the specific driving conditions facing Mr. Longaphie at the time. His Worship specifically stated that a "standard of perfection" is not what is required of drivers.

[8] While it is not my function to retry this case or substitute my own view of the evidence for that of the trial Justice, looking at the totality of the evidence that was before His Worship, I'm satisfied that he made appropriate factual findings and applied the appropriate test and that there was ample evidence to support his ultimate conclusion.

[9] Mr. Longaphie was travelling behind Ms. Chapman on a slippery country road. She would have been visible to him 45 seconds before the collision at a distance of 20 car lengths ahead. He was travelling at a higher speed and was closing in on her. She slowed and signalled a left turn 10 to 12 car lengths before the driveway she wished to enter. Mr. Longaphie saw her slowing while 8 to 10 car lengths behind but could not get his vehicle into a controlled stop. He opted to pass the vehicle on the left notwithstanding the left turn signal which he says he did not see.

[10] Clearly, it was open on this evidence for His Worship to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Longaphie was not paying due care and attention to other users of the road, nor the challenging road conditions present for both vehicles and, accordingly, was unable to navigate his vehicle safely through what is a routine road situation; namely, a vehicle ahead signalling slowing and turning left.

[11] For these reasons the appeal is dismissed and the conviction stands.

Released: Thursday, June 23, 2016

"Justice Enno J. Meijers"

Justice Enno J. Meijers, O.C.J.