Such a tragedy and really impossible to sentence to appease the family, victims, and society. I do think pleading guilty should really have impacted his sentence. The driver saved an extreme amount of heart ache to the families and burden on the state to prove the charges. Had he fought, max would have been 10 and he got 8.
For context on the challenge proving this case especially around the definition of dangerous driving:
The leading case from the Supreme Court of Canada on Dangerous Driving is R. v. Roy
At paragraph 28 of the decision, Cromwell J., writing for the majority, cites an earlier case, R. v. Beatty. In reviewing the actus reus and mens rea of the offence. He repeats the wording of s. 249(1)(a) offence to find the actus reus and outlines the mens reu as “the degree of care exercised by the accused was a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the accused’s circumstances.” Cromwell J. later adds that a marked departure is a more serious attracts criminal punishment unlike a mere departure which would only justify civil liability.
The analysis of this is done on a case by case basis to determine how the driving was relative to the incident.
For example, a Court may find that driving at 100km/h and striking a pedestrian is dangerous no matter how attentive one was on the road. However, in another context, driving on the same road and conditions, if one was travelling at 55km/hr and looks away for a brief moment to see why their child is crying may not result in criminal liability.
Although every case involving death is inherently tragedy, the circumstances in which that takes place are different and must be analyzed on a case by case basis. There is no clear answer and Courts must follow the law in deciding whether the actions of the driver meet the definition under Canadian law.
|