Was It Dangerous Driving?

The initial supreme court decision on the case of R v Hecimovic made me scratch my head. Ms. Hecimovic was charged and acquitted of dangerous driving after causing a collision in a Pitt Meadows. The behaviour was clearly dangerous to me, but the court didn't look at it that way.

Definition of Dangerous Driving

Dangerous driving is defined by Section 320.13 of the Criminal Code as operating a conveyance in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances. This means driving in a way that a reasonable person would consider a substantial deviation from safe practices, creating a risk of harm to others, even if no collision occurs. Factors considered include the driver's actions, the location, road conditions, and traffic.

Circumstances of the Collision

Ms. Hecimovic was driving her Toyota Paseo southbound on the Lougheed Highway approaching Harris Road. She says that she was overcome with emotion from her day's work as an emergency department nurse and began to cry.

At the intersection she drove straight through using the right turn only lane and encountered the pedestrian island on the far side. This changed her direction toward the left and vaulted the vehicle upward.

Her Toyota struck a Suzuki in the left turn lane, tearing the roof off of it and killing both occupants.

The Lougheed Highway has a posted speed limit of 80 km/h. According to the RCMP collision reconstructionist, the Toyota lost 67 km/h of speed when it struck the pedestrian island. Another reconstructionist employed by the Crown suggested an appropriate initial speed of 110 km/h.

Initial Trial

Madame Justice Gropper decided that this was not dangerous driving and acquitted Hecimovic:

[48]         Here, there were a series of acts and each compounded the other, but I have not found that any of the acts separately constituted a marked departure from the norm. When considered together, I find that they do not establish the mens rea element of the defence. These three acts were part of a momentary error and even together they do not show a marked departure from the norm or something other than simple carelessness.

[49]         The Crown has not met the heavy onus required. I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's driving at 11:44 p.m. on October 19, 2010 at the intersection of Lougheed Highway and Harris Road constitutes the offence of dangerous driving causing death. I find the accused not guilty of both counts.

The Appeal

Crown's appeal of the dismissal was heard by Justices Tysoe, Garson and Willcock. Justices Garson and Willcock agreed that:

[74]         In my view, it was an error not to have considered the respondent’s conduct in light of all the relevant evidence in order to determine whether it was a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the respondent’s circumstances. I agree with the Crown’s submission that the analysis was inappropriately limited, perhaps reflecting the Crown’s emphasis on its principal theory of guilt, focusing upon only three aspects of the respondent’s conduct. Examining only those acts said to evince intent to drive dangerously in effect resulted in the application of a subjective standard. In my view, this amounted to an error of law pursuant to s. 686(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

A new trial was ordered.

The New Trial and It's Outcome

Justice Harvey presided over the retrial. He found that Ms. Hecimovic's actions taken in isolation might be considered a momentary lapse, but taken together they were a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances.

The Justince imposed a sentence of 90 days incarceration, two years of probation and 120 hours of community service on both counts of dangerous driving causing death. The sentences will be served concurrently.

In addition, there was a victim surcharge of $400 and a three year driving prohibition imposed.

Learn More

• Initial Judgment
• Appeal Decision
• Retrial Judgment
• Retrial Sentencing

Share This Article