R. v. Badaracco
The trial judge permissibly found on the evidence that the bus was too far to the right, that there was no steering failure before impact, and that the professional driver acted too late; those findings established a marked departure under Hundal and justified the dangerous driving conviction, warranting deference...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C44134
- Parties
- Appellant: Aldo Badaracco; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 May 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Dangerous Driving, Marked Departure Standard, Adequacy of Reasons, Defence of Steering Failure, Appellate Deference to Factual Findings
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Aldo Badaracco
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's driving constituted dangerous driving
- 2 Whether the trial judge properly rejected the defence of steering failure
- 3 Whether the trial judge's reasons were adequate
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge permissibly found on the evidence that the bus was too far to the right, that there was no steering failure before impact, and that the professional driver acted too late; those findings established a marked departure under Hundal and justified the dangerous driving conviction, warranting deference on appeal.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Badaracco Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-05-12 Docket numbers C44134 Judges Goudge, Stephen Thomas; Gillese, Eileen E.; LaForme, Harry Smith Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20060512 DOCKET: C44134 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – ALDO BADARACCO (Appellant) BEFORE: GOUDGE, GILLESE and LAFORME JJ.A. COUNSEL: Lawrence Greenspon and Eric Granger for the appellant James V. Palangio for the respondent HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY: May 5, 2006 On appeal from the conviction entered on July 22, 2005 by Justice Bernard T. Ryan of the Ontario Court of Justice. ENDORSEMENT [1] We see no error in the trial judge’s determination that the appellant’s driving amounted to dangerous driving. The trial judge based his conclusion that the appellant’s driving was dangerous on the fact that the bus was “way too far to the right”. The witnesses who testified about the position of the bus immediately before it struck the curb agreed that it was and the appellant’s evidence is not inconsistent with that. On the evidence, it was open to the trial judge to reject the defence of steering failure and conclude that there was no problem with the bus’s steering prior to impact with the curb as the bus responded to the appellant’s steering thereafter, although he responded too late. The evidence of Mr. Riddell, the mechanic, supports that conclusion. Indeed, so does the appellant’s own evidence. [2] We do not accept the argument that the reasons for judgment are inadequate. It is clear why the trial judge found the appellant guilty of dangerous driving. Although the lapse may have been only a matter of seconds, it occurred by a professional bus driver, approaching a bus platform with several people waiting to be picked up, operating a bus with eight to ten passengers, early in the morning under excellent weather conditions. The appellant allowed the bus to travel too far to the right prior to striking the curb and he acted too late in trying to resolve the problem. It was open to the trial judge to find this constituted a marked departure. See: R.. v. Hundal, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867. [3] Finally, there is no reason to think the trial judge did not consider all of the evidence. The case was relatively straightforward and short. He did not have to refer to all of the relevant evidence in his reasons. It is sufficient that it is clear that he heard and considered all of the evidence and there is nothing in the reasons to suggest otherwise. [4] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. “S. T. Goudge J.A.” “E. E. Gillese J.A.” “H. S. LaForme J.A.”