1. Case Name:
R. v. Seles
IN THE MATTER OF the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O.
1990
Between
Her Majesty the Queen, and
Rebecca Seles
[2007] O.J. No. 5533
Information No. 78057097
Ontario Court of Justice
Cayuga, Ontario
D. MacDonald J.P.
Heard: October 26, 2007.
Oral judgment: October 26, 2007.
(10 paras.)
Charge: s. 130, Highway Traffic Act - Careless Driving.
Counsel:
S. Stanley, Ms.: Prosecutor on behalf of the Crown.
M. Riddell, Esq.: Counsel for the Defendant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 D. MacDONALD J.P.:-- Thank you. Ms. Seles you are here on a charge of careless driving
under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act. That section reads that every person is guilty of the
offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or streetcar on a highway without due care and
Page 1

2. attention and without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway. And that goes
on to cover the penalties for conviction.
2 There is in addition to the Court having to determine what is reasonable in the circumstances of
due care and attention or reasonable consideration really means.
3 Without having been a witness to the particular accident or sort of put in the position of what
would a reasonable person if they were informed of the particular matter think of what transpired on
August the 4th, 2006 on Rainham Road?
4 It is clear that something happened that day. It is clear that from the evidence at least provided
so far by the prosecutor, that at least according to the officer's evidence, you were the driver of a
motor vehicle that was travelling eastbound on Rainham Road and ended up going from the
roadway through the gravel shoulder into the ditch.
5 But the rest of the, as set out by your counsel, higher burden on the prosecution with regarding
the nature of how and why the vehicle likely ended up in the ditch has not been addressed today. In
the course of what I have heard so far, I was making notes to myself and if something transpired
and you gave evidence to the Officer as to why your motor vehicle ended up in the ditch, that
evidence was not presented to the Court today.
6 It is not for the Court to intervene and say, "Well Officer, did you have a conversation with her
and what exactly did she say? Did she incriminate herself?" All of those things possibly took place,
but as your counsel is pointing out there is no reverse onus in the trial of this nature. You did not
have to prove that you are not guilty. The prosecutor has to prove that you are guilty of the offence
beyond a reasonable doubt.
7 I think in this particular case the officer exercised his discretion in laying the charge of careless
driving. He may well have had reasons to do that. The difficulty is that that information has not
been provided to the Court. He could have laid other charges, such as leaving the roadway not in
safety, certainly a less onerous on you than the charge that was laid.
8 But I agree with your counsel in this particular circumstance the case of careless driving has not
been made out beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps there was a reason. Perhaps the officer did lay
the correct charge but that information was not provided to the Court. So there is no need for you to
provide a defence to this particular charge and the charge against you of careless driving will be
dismissed. The Motion of Non-suit is granted.
9 MR. RIDDELL: Thank you, Your Worship.
10 THE COURT: You are welcome.
qp/s/qlala/qlprp
Page 2