Lien ver la décision
[28] Le juge Montgomery s’exprimant au nom de la Cour a déclaré ce qui suit :
2 On the afternoon of 21st April 1968, a Sunday, a number of persons assembled on the parking lot of a shopping centre to participate in or watch a form of automobile racing, sometimes referred to as drag-racing, involving rapid acceleration over a short distance. The Crown endeavoured to prove that one of those who drove in these races was respondent and that his conduct on this occasion constituted dangerous driving within the meaning of s. 221(4), which reads as follows:
"(4) Every one who drives a motor vehicle on a street, road, highway or other public place in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances including the nature, condition and use of such place and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be on such place, is guilty of
"(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years, or
"(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction."
3 The motion for nonsuit was maintained on the ground that the parking lot in question was privately owned and therefore was not a public place within the meaning of this section.
4 With all respect for the carefully reasoned opinion of the trial judge, I consider that he erred in relying upon jurisprudence interpreting provincial highway Acts. The constitutional validity of the penal provisions in such Acts has been upheld precisely because they are Acts relating to public highways under provincial jurisdiction. (See the decision of the Supreme Court in O'Grady v. Sparling, 1960 CanLII 70 (SCC), [1960] S.C.R. 804, 33 C.R. 293, 33 W.W.R. 360, 128 C.C.C. 1, 25 D.L.R. (2d) 145, and particularly the comments of Judson J., at pp. 810-11.) We are here dealing with a charge laid under the Criminal Code, and the essence of the offence is the danger to the public. The title to the piece of ground upon which the offence is committed is of secondary importance, and it becomes a question to be decided in each case whether or not the public has sufficient degree of access to the place to make it a public place within the meaning of this section.
[29] Selon la fin de ce dernier paragraphe, il ressort qu’un endroit est public au sens du paragraphe 221(4) C.cr. selon que le public y a accès d’une façon suffisante pour justifier la qualification d’endroit public, et ce, peu importe le titre de propriété.
[30] Cette idée a été reprise en 2013 par la Cour de justice de l’Ontario dans l’affaire R. v. Dunsford. Le juge Fraser y déclare ce qui suit au sujet du paragraphe 259(1) C.cr. :
35 This reading of the section is intrinsically tied to the sentencing sanction of the driving prohibition. There should be a loss of driving privilege on any place where motor vehicles are normally used, namely roads, streets and highways. But in addition, there is a prohibition covering any place where members of the public will be impacted by a prohibited driver operating a motor vehicle.
36 "Public place" in this sense is a place where a non-trivial number of the population can be expected to be present and expect to be protected from exposure to prohibited drivers operating motor vehicles.
[31] Dans la présente affaire, le juge de première instance a conclu que, selon la preuve faite devant lui, le stationnement où a été arrêté l’appelant était un lieu public au sens du paragraphe 259(1) du Code criminel. Il s’agit là d’une conclusion tirée à partir des constatations de fait effectuées par le juge. La Cour est d’avis que le juge n’a pas commis d’erreur manifeste et déterminante dans cette appréciation de la preuve qui justifierait son intervention à cet égard.
[32] Le stationnement visé est de dimensions appréciables, tel qu’il appert des photos déposées. Sa partie avant jouxte un chemin public sur toute sa largeur et elle ne comporte aucun signe ou obstacle qui empêche un automobiliste ou un piéton de s’y engager ou d’y pénétrer. Le stationnement est à la disposition des occupants des 20 appartements des deux immeubles, des membres de leurs familles, de leurs invités et, plus généralement, de toute personne qui visite un locataire. Ces faits permettaient au juge d’instance de conclure que le public avait un accès suffisant à cet endroit pour en faire un lieu public où la sécurité des personnes présentes peut être menacée par un conducteur assujetti à une interdiction de conduire selon le Code criminel.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire