R. v. Beatty

Listen to Podcast

Case Brief

Facts

Justin Ronald Beatty was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death after his pick-up truck crossed the center line and collided with an oncoming vehicle, killing all three occupants. There was no evidence of mechanical failure or intoxication. Beatty stated he was unsure what happened, suggesting he may have lost consciousness or fallen asleep. Witnesses observed Beatty driving properly before the accident. The key issue was whether this momentary lapse of attention constituted dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death under s. 249(4) of the Criminal Code.

Issues

Did the accused's momentary lapse of attention, resulting in his vehicle crossing the center line and causing a fatal collision, constitute a 'marked departure' from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver, thus satisfying the actus reus and mens rea requirements for the offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death under s. 249(4) of the Criminal Code?

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court considered the elements of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. The actus reus requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was driving in a manner dangerous to the public. The mens rea is established through a modified objective test, requiring the Crown to prove the conduct amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the accused's circumstances. If an explanation is offered, the trier of fact must be satisfied that a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have been aware of the risk. The court distinguished between civil and penal negligence, emphasizing that penal negligence requires consideration of the offender's mental state. The majority found that while the actus reus was established (crossing the center line was dangerous), the mens rea was not. A momentary lapse of attention, without more, was insufficient to demonstrate a marked departure from the standard of care.

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the acquittals. The Court held that the Crown failed to prove the mens rea required for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. The evidence only indicated a momentary lapse of attention, which was insufficient to establish a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver. Therefore, the necessary mental element for the offense was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.