The crown most likely listens to the "momentary inattention" story everyday. They'll definitely have you test it with the JP to see if they believe it and if your daughter is unshaken under cross-examination. --- Interesting, hadn't thought of it this way. So, if the testimony never changes and it was a matter of a sneeze, and a very dirty road surface (construction in progress, she did not stop when the brakes were first applied as she slid) provided it held up to cross examination, it could be accepted as a valid defense by the JP? This is what happened.
There's a lot of decisions and precedent cases at http:///canlii.ca regarding "momentary inattention". You could do some research yourself and see if there's any relevant cases. --- I have read everything there, and could not find one conviction where there was a minor accident as the only evidence of careless driving behaviour....feel I am missing something as it is charged so often looking at these boards. Even in the Wong vs. R case, I read she was found to be driving below the standard expected of a driver, but acquitted as it was believed the behaviour she not be punishable by law.
There are a lot of experienced folks here as well --- the input from this forum and it smembers has been great! Really helps me get my head around this. I have rear ended, no less than 4 times, was asked once if I wanted the other driver charged, I said no (my car was written off) and none of the others were charged either. This has been an eye opener for me.
Your best bet is to go in to your first attendance meeting and see what the Prosecution says. "Momentary inattention" is a common reason for a collision, but if you're not careful with your caselaw, it will be very easy for the JP to convict your daughter of careless since she wasn't driving with undue care and attention. ---- would taking Wong v R. be a good thing to take, along with the decisions quoted in that case to the ER meeting? Is there a chance of coming off as cheeky and getting under the prosecutor's skin? I would not go to trial unrepresented I feel up to the ER meeting however. Thank you for explaining the otherside for the paralegals and lawyers out there representing people; I understand it more.
The important thing here imo is to get out of the Careless - don't get hung up on pride or anything else - just get her out of the Careless - if you don't and she's convicted you'll know where to point the finger while you're writing the cheque to a professional for the appeal and to the insurance company. --- Thank you. This is a reality that has hit me, and rubs me so hard the wrong way. It seems that the charge is so broad and serious that they can slap it down knowing they are almost guaranteed a lesser conviction out of very serious consequences alone. When the accident happened she was devastated, and insisted on paying for the damage, picking up extra shifts (she is in grade 12; she needed to concentrate on school) She could not stand to think that someone would be out their deductible because she did not react, and then could not stop in time. I was proud of her for doing the right thing. She was charged 3 weeks later. If someone I knew was in similar circumstances later today, I would tell tell them 2 things: it could cost you a lot later on, think twice about paying for the damage (especially if it is reported) and do not talk to the officers, you know nothing. Both of those pieces of advise go against how I have lived my life until this incident. There really needs to be a charge under HTA that fits, as careless does not!
Thank you for the help, it really is invaluable