r v. SALVATORE MULE, 2020 QCCQ 792

Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions c. Mule 2020 QCCQ 792 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF BEDFORD CITY OF GRANBY « Criminal and Penal division » N° : 460-61-017886-191 DATE : 17 th of February 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE MADAM TANYA LAROCQUE, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE AND JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL AND PENAL PROSECUTIONS Prosecutor v.

SALVATORE MULE Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] A police car is stopped on the shoulder of the highway with its flashing lights activated. The police officer notices the defendant’s vehicle, hauling a trailer, in the right lane. When the defendant passes the police car, the officer determines that the defendant’s vehicle is so close he could not have opened his door without hitting the defendant’s car.

The defendant is accused of not having moved over [1] . [ 2 ] If an emergency vehicle is stopped on the shoulder or on a lane contiguous to the lane in which the driver of the road vehicle is travelling, the driver must, in the following order : 1) Reduce speed to avoid endangering human life or safety or any property that is on the shoulder or in that other lane; 2) Change lanes, if there is another lane for travelling in the same direction and after making sure it can be done safely, so as to leave one free lane between the vehicle and the stopped vehicle or, otherwise, put as much distance as possible between the vehicle and the stopped vehicle while remaining in the same lane.

Reduce speed [ 3 ] The reduction of the speed must be adapted to the space needed for the safety corridor [2] . The bigger the corridor, the less the speed must be reduced. The smaller the safety corridor, the more the speed must be reduced. [ 4 ] In both cases, the reduction of the speed must be sufficient to avoid endangering human life or safety or any property. Therefore, the court must evaluate the facts brought forth to determine if the speed was sufficient. [ 5 ] The defendant was hauling a trailer at the time of the events. His speed was between 80 and 95 km/h.

He did not reduce his speed further when he saw the police car. [ 6 ] This speed would be adequate if the defendant’s vehicle was in the left lane of the highway. Even if the Court found this speed to be acceptable while driving in the right lane, the defendant did not respect his second obligation. Change lanes [ 7 ] The defendant was driving in the right hand lane when he saw the police car about 200 feet away. There were no other vehicles in close proximity to the defendant’s vehicle rendering a change of lane dangerous.

The defendant maneuvered his vehicle to the left as to be driving in the center of the two lanes. There is 4 to 5 feet between the two vehicles. [ 8 ] Therefore, the defendant did not change lanes as to leave one free lane between the emergency vehicle and his own. In this case, the defendant does not respect his legal obligation by slightly moving over. The infraction is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 9 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[ 10 ] DECLARES the defendant guilty of the infraction; [ 11 ] CONDEMS the defendant to pay a fine of 200 $ with costs in the next sixty days of the present judgment. __________________________________ Tanya Larocque Justice of the peace and judge Me Julie Langlois Attorney for the Prosecutor Me Alexandre Caissie Attorney for the Defendant Date of hearing : 30 th of January 2020