Court file no.

1234-567-89-1011123A-14

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES COURT

B E T W E E N:
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
Respondent

- and -

ROBERT FORBES
Appellant

APPELANTS FACTUM

Ryan J. Turnbull
Paralegal
Regional Municipality of Clarington
Not The Worst Paralegal Services L.L.P
123 King Street East
Bowmanville, ON L1C 4B2
Tel: (289) 385-3630
Fax: (289) 385-1415
Counsel for the Appellant

TO: Thomas McKinnon

Prosecutor
Regional Municipality of Durham
POA Prosecution Services
605 Rossland Rd. East
Whitby, ON L1N 0B3
Tel: (905)668-4113ext. 3641
Fax: (905)668-9776

AND TO: Ontario Court of Justice

Provincial Offences Court Services
605 Rossland Rd E, Lower Level
Whitby, ON L1N 0B3
 2

INDEX to Factum

OverviewPg. 3
Part I: Statement of Facts..Pg.
3
Part II: Appellant Issues....Pg.
4
Part III: Applicable Law...Pg.
4
Part IV: Application of Law..Pg.
4
Part V: Order Requested...Pg.
5
Authorities/Statutes Cited.Pg.
6
 3

Overview:

1. This appeal is to challenge the decision made by Justice DeBartolo with regard to the Highway
Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, by Robert Forbes, a man charged with Careless Driving under s. 130 of
the Act, decided January 5, 2017.
2. The Appellant agrees to amend the improperly cited section on the Certificate of Offence which
was s. 180 to the corresponding section for Careless Driving, which is s. 130 of the Highway
Traffic Act.
3. Mr. Forbes was driving in poor weather so as a precaution, he drove 20km/hr under the speed
limit (50km/h in a 70km/h zone). He was not speeding and in fact, exercised due care to
accommodate for the poor weather conditions. Mr. Forbes has had a clean driving record prior to
this incident.
4. Thus, the Appellant respectfully submits that the trial Justice erred in her Worships decision by
improperly convicting Mr. Forbes.
5. The Appellant respectfully requests that the Justice re-examine the incident.

Part I: Statement of Facts

1. On or about December 1, 2016 at approximately 6:00pm Mr. Forbes was driving Southbound on
8th Line, in the Township of Halton Hills.
2. It was dusk however, relatively visible.
3. It had just snowed, the roads were not yet cleared therefore making them slippery in some areas.
4. Mr. Forbes was driving 50km/hr in the 70km/hr zone to accommodate his driving for the weather
conditions.
5. Mr. Forbes was heading towards 10th Side Road which crossed directly through 8th Line.
6. There was Stop Ahead warning sign, clearly visible, approximately 161 meters north of 10 th
Side Road.
7. The Stop sign at the intersection of 10th Side Road and 8th Line was also clearly visible.
8. Approximately 60 feet behind Mr. Forbes was Mitchell Butt, a witness in this matter.
9. Mr. Butt, from his position behind Mr. Forbes, could see with no difficulty, Mr. Frank Hardys
white van approaching the intersection from the west. Nothing appeared to be out of the ordinary.
 4

10. Mr. Butt, upon realizing that Mr. Forbes was not going to stop at the Stop sign at the
intersection, pulled over onto the side of the road.
11. It was not until after Mr. Forbes ran the stop sign, according to Mr. Butt, did he hit his breaks. By
that time, Mr. Forbes and Mr. Hardy collided.
12. Mr. Hardys van flipped through the intersection between 5 and 7 times.
13. Mr. Hardy was seriously injured however not in life threatening condition.
14. Mr. Forbes was then charged under s. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act by the police.
15. Speeding and drug/alcohol influence was not an issue.

Part II: Appellant Issues:

1. Whether or not the Trial Justice erred in convicting Mr. Forbes with Careless Driving under s.130
of the Highway Traffic Act.

Part III: Applicable Law

1. Case Law
a. R. v. Richards, [2009] O.J. No. 5776
b. R. v. Beauchamp, [1953] O.R. 422
2. Statutes/Regulations
a. Highway Traffic Act R.S.O. 1990 s. 130 (Careless Driving)

Part IV: Application of Law

1. In this case, Mr. Forbes was driving slowly to accommodate for the weather conditions when he
ran through the stop sign and collided with Mr. Hardy. Similarly, in R. v. Richards, the Appellant
Ms. Richards, ran a red light in poor weather conditions, she as well was driving under the speed
limit, approximately 40km/hr in a 60km/h zone. The officer on scene charged her with careless
driving.
2. The presiding Justice of the Peace, upon appeal, determined that running a red light does not
constitute as Careless Driving, especially when the driver was driving cautiously to accommodate
for the weather conditions, they said it was more of a mere momentary inattention, or a simple
kind of error of judgment.
3. S. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act states the offence of driving carelessly as when the driver
operates the vehicle "without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other
persons using the highway, and in reference to R. v. Richards the Justice said that running a stop
light (or in this case a stop sign) does not "bespeak the kind of conduct over which the net of this
section is cast.
 5

4. In R. v. Beauchamp, the presiding Judge stated that the offence of careless driving is of a quasi-
criminal nature. It is something which goes beyond mere error in judgment. It indicates a measure
of indifference, a want of care for the matter in hand and an indifferent regard for the rights of
others which again is similar to what was mentioned in R. v. Richards and relates directly to the
case at hand. Though Mr. Forbes ran the stop sign, it was not because he was careless, by nature
it was merely an error in his judgement, especially since Mr. Forbes was driving under the speed
limit to accommodate for the poor weather.

Part V: Order Requested

1. The Appellant respectfully requests that his Honourable court quash the conviction.
2. The Appellant respectfully submits this request March 2, 2017.

Ryan J. Turnbull
__________________________________
Ryan J. Turnbull
Paralegal
Regional Municipality of Clarington
Not The Worst Paralegal Services L.L.P
123 King Street East
Bowmanville, ON L1C 4B2
Tel: (289) 385-3630
Fax: (289) 385-1415
Counsel for the Appellant
Authorities/Statutes Cited
 6

1. R. v. Richards, [2009] O.J. No. 5776

2. R. v. Beauchamp, [1953] O.R. 422
3. Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990