Fail to Yield - Driveway

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-05-08
CLNP Page ID:	2204
Page Categories:	Highway Traffic
Citation:	Fail to Yield - Driveway, CLNP 2204, <>, retrieved on 2024-05-08
Editor:	MKent
Last Updated:	2023/05/16

R. v. Hayward, 2018 ONCJ 105 (CanLII)

[24] Both parties agree that Failure to Yield contrary to s.139 of the Highway Traffic Act is a strict liability offence – R v Dillman 2008 ONCJ 101. The prosecution must prove that the accused committed the prohibited act beyond a reasonable doubt. It is then open to the accused to show, on the balance of probabilities, that he or she took all reasonable care to avoid creating the hazard.

(...)

[26] The Crown submitted that this trial was not really about proof of the actus reus as the evidence at trial including the accused’s own evidence showed he turned directly into the path of a speeding motorcycle and was hit almost immediately after he entered that lane. The only issue on those facts was due diligence. The defence submitted that the Crown failed to prove the prohibited act as the accused entered into a clear lane. It was the extreme speed of the motorcycle that caused it to appear in that lane, close the distance of beyond 200 feet to 20 feet without being seen, then crash into the accused’s vehicle.

[27] The Justice of the Peace carefully summarized the prosecution and defence evidence, then considered all of the evidence “in its entirety” along with the submissions of counsel in coming to a final conclusion. The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the prohibited act. He turned into the path of an oncoming vehicle in circumstances that created an immediate hazard. That finding was reasonably supported by the whole of the evidence including the circumstances of the collision and portions of the accused’s own testimony about the impact.