ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: M113/12
DATE: 20130320
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
– and –
GURPAL SIDHU
Applicant
Lori Hamilton, for the Respondent
Richard Goldman, for the Applicant
HEARD: March 18, 2013
Decision on Application for Certiorari
Benotto J.
[1] The accused seeks review of his committal for trial by way of certiorari. The applicant says that the preliminary inquiry judge committed a jurisdictional error when he committed Mr. Sidhu for trial on dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm.
[2] On July 16, 2010, close to midnight, the accused was driving a tractor trailer on Highway 401 near McCowan Road in Toronto. The area was under construction and this necessitated the closure of two lanes such that four lanes had to merge into two. Signs were posted giving advanced warning of this. Mr. Sidhu was travelling at 87.7 miles per hour. Cars were merging into the two lanes causing a bottleneck. There is evidence that a Mazda moved into Mr. Sidhu’s lane and he braked. He collided with the Mazda and the driver was killed. A passenger in the Mazda was injured.
[3] Melissa Gaumond was driving a SUV hauling a trailer. She was ahead of Mr. Sidhu’s tractor trailer. She testified that other vehicles moved directly in front of Mr. Sidhu and he did not have enough time to stop.
[4] Officer Van Deursen gave expert opinion based on accident reconstruction. He testified that, based on the onboard computer, Mr. Sidhu was travelling at 87.7 kilometers per hour when he braked. The distance to stop safely would be between 46 and 61 meters. The tractor trailer actually stopped 50 meters after brakes applied.
[5] The preliminary inquiry judge discharged the accused on criminal negligence causing death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm. He ordered him to stand trial on the two dangerous driving charges.
[6] The applicant submits that the preliminary inquiry judge made two errors:
He based his decision on the consequences of Mr. Sidhu’s actions, not the manner of his driving. In doing so, it is argued, he also ignored Ms Gaumond’s evidence.
He was required to conduct a limited weighing of the circumstantial evidence and did not do so.
[7] With respect to the manner of driving, the provincial court judge said:
I infer that based on all this evidence, in particular the evidence of P.C. Van Duersen, that Mr. Sidhu was travelling too fast for the conditions and size of vehicle … Mr. Sidhu should have foreseen the risk of heavy traffic, his vehicle with its size and road narrowing up ahead and take steps to avoid, if possible a collision. Failure to foresee the risk and takes steps to avoid it, in my view constitutes a marked departure from the standard of care expected from a reasonable person facing these highway conditions in this vehicle.
[8] He reached this conclusion based on all of the evidence, which he reviewed. In this passage he deals with the actus reus and the mens rea. I agree with the assessment of the preliminary inquiry judge and would have come to the same conclusion on this record. Officer Van Deursen testified that it would take 47-61 meters to stop safely. It took Mr. Sidhu 50 meters to stop. There was evidence to support the judge’s finding that he was driving too fast. The judge did not ignore Ms Gaumaud’s evidence. He discussed it but rightly inferred that she was not in a position to make an assessment of Mr. Sidhu’s manner of driving.
[9] With respect to the weighing of circumstantial evidence, if competing inferences arise, the preliminary inquiry judge is not to weigh them but to accept the inference that favours the Crown.
[10] Having reviewed all of the evidence, the preliminary inquiry judge determined that there was evidence on which a properly instructed jury could convict. Having reviewed the evidence before him, I agree. The applicant was travelling in a tractor trailer on the 401 in reasonably heavy traffic. He was in a construction zone with signs marking the narrowing of 4 lanes to 2. A jury could find that he was travelling too fast for the conditions. There is evidence on which a guilty verdict could be based.
[11] The application is dismissed.
M.L. Benotto J.
Released: March 20, 2013