R. v. Lingard, 2022 ONCJ 52

CITATION: R. v. Lingard , 2022 ONCJ 52 DATE: January 14, 2022 Information #999-21-1075 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. DARREN ROBERT LINGARD P R O C E E D I N G A T G U I L T Y P L E A Careless Driving – Highway Traffic Act S.130(3) BEFORE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE M. CUTHBERTSON On JANUARY 14, 2022, at GUELPH, Ontario APPEARANCES : M. DOLBY Provincial Prosecutor G. BURD Paralegal for Mr. Lingard FRIDAY, JANUARY 14, 2022 MS. DOLBY: Yes, Your Worship, this is the Darren Lingard matter. The proposal is a guilty plea to the charge as read. MR. BURD: Good afternoon, Your Worship. THE COURT: All right.

Go ahead. MR. BURD: Thank you, Your Worship. For the record my name is Burd, B-U-R-D, initial G, appearing as legal representative for Mr. Darren Lingard who is present before the court. THE COURT: All right, thanks. And just for the record, Ms. Dolby, please.

MS. DOLBY: Yes, it’s Dolby, D-O-L-B-Y, initial M for the provincial Crown. THE COURT: All right. And is your client ready to be arraigned. Mr. Burd? MR. BURD: Yes. THE COURT: All right. When you’re ready, please, Madam Clerk. COURT CLERK: Thank you, Your Worship, and just to confirm then Ms. Dolby, there are two informations before the court. There is one information for March the 25 th , 2020, a charge under the Highway Traffic Act , Section 130(1). And there is a second information, same date with an offence under the Highway Traffic Act , Section 130(3). MS.

DOLBY: Yes, it’s that second information – careless cause bodily harm. COURT CLERK: Thank you. Thank you. And Darren Robert Lingard you are charged, sir, on or about the 25 th day of March 2020, at the Township of Wellington North, in the West Region, with the following offence: did drive a motor vehicle on a highway carelessly, to wit: without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway, and did cause bodily harm, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act under Section 130(3). To this charge how do you plead – guilty or not guilty? THE COURT: Mr.

Lingard, you’re muted sir, if you’d kindly unmute – we couldn’t hear you. MR. LINGARD: Sorry about that. Guilty. THE COURT: Thank you. And Mr. Burd, is this a fully informed plea pursuant to

Section 45 of the P.O.A .? MR. BURD: Indeed it is, Your Worship. THE COURT: Thank you. Please go ahead, Ms. Dolby. MS. DOLBY: Yes, Your Worship, on Wednesday, March the 25 th , 2020, approximately 5:30 in the afternoon, there was a motor vehicle collision. That collision occurred at the intersection of Sideroad 13 at Line 2 in the Township of Wellington North in Wellington County. Sideroad 13 is a gravel two-lane road for northbound and southbound traffic flow; Line 2 is a paved two-lane road for westbound-eastbound traffic flow. Both roads are straight and flat at this intersection.

The posted speed limit is 80 kilometers per hour. The weather at the time of the incident was daylight, clear and sunny and the roads were bare and dry. On March 25 th , 2020, approximately 5:34 p.m. Darren Lingard was operating a white Ford F150 pickup truck. He was travelling northbound on Sideroad 13 at a high rate of speed. There was a silver Cadillac SRX plated. It was travelling westbound on Line 2 and was operated by Joao, I believe it was Joao, J-O-A- O, D-E space J-E-S-U-S. The front passenger was his 17-year-old daughter; her name is Alexa DeJesus.

And the driver’s side rear passenger was his spouse; her name is Vitalina DaSilva DeJesus. Mr. Lingard failed to stop at the stop sign at the intersection of Line 2 colliding with the driver’s side of the DeJesus vehicle pushing him off the road. The DeJesus vehicle subsequently rolled into the south ditch at Line 2 and hit a hydro pole. The hydro pole snapped in half. Lingard’s vehicle spun into the southwest corner of the intersection. The rear end of it collided with the stop sign. There was severe damage to both vehicles and air bags deployed in both vehicles.

The emergency services transported Vitalina Dasilva DeJesus to Groves Memorial Hospital for non-life threatening injuries; all other occupants uninjured. On arrival police spoke with the driver of the car who verbally identified as Mr. DeJesus. The driver of the pick-up was Darren Lingard. Police conducted alcohol screening both of the driver of the Cadillac, the driver of the pick-up truck, was zero percent alcohol. They did some screening. Mr. Lingard was issued the careless, straight careless driving charge on that particular evening.

Subsequently Ms...the rear, driver’s rear, rear driver’s side passenger, the spouse, Vitalina, had to be airlifted to Hamilton Health Sciences for significant injuries. She was significantly injured, and in fact the whole family was impacted by the collision. Those are the facts as I have them. THE COURT: Are those facts substantially correct, Mr. Burd? MR. BURD: Substantially correct and admitted, Your Worship.

THE COURT: Thank you. Conviction will be registered. Ms. Dolby, please go ahead. MS. DOLBY: Yes, there is a driving abstract I would like to file as an exhibit. I’ve sent it to Madam Clerk and I’m hoping to file that as Exhibit One on the sentencing. THE COURT: Yes I’ve received a copy of that. Mr. Burd, your position on that? MR. BURD: Well I don’t believe it is the driver’s abstract under the seal of the Ministry. We do accept that as being the driver’s abstract of Mr. Lingard. THE COURT: All right, thank you. It will be an exhibit to these proceedings. EXHIBIT NUMBER 1 : Driver’s abstract for Mr.

Lingard – produced and marked. MS. DOLBY: Secondly, Your Worship, I’ve provided one document that contains the three Victim Impact Statements from the named parties. All three of them have provided the court with their input and I would like that marked as Exhibit Two. THE COURT: Agreeable, Mr. Burd? MR. BURD: Yes, that’s agreed. THE COURT: Thank you. Then the document which contains the three victim impact statements will be the next exhibit in these proceedings.

EXHIBIT NUMBER 2 : Victim Impact Statements of Vitalina DeJesus, Joao DeJesus and Alexa DeJesus, the three persons in the Cadillac – Produced and Marked. MS. DOLBY: And that’s [indiscernible] for the Crown. THE COURT: All right, thank you. Mr. Burd? MR. BURD: Other than the facts being admitted, and Mr. Lingard being very remorseful for the collision that occurred on that day, we have nothing else to say.

He’s happy to [indiscernible], to put this behind him and get on with his life and try to become a better person, but that would be, I guess, for submissions with respect to sentence, Your Worship, those are the facts, there is nothing else to add. THE COURT: Thank you. Then please go ahead with sentencing submissions, Ms. Dolby. MS. DOLBY: Yes, Your Worship, the proposal is a $2000 fine followed by a 12-month Probation Order under the Provincial Offences Act , with terms. The court has been provided a copy of that Order. The statutory terms are included.

We have a term that he will report to his probation officer by January the 18 th , 2022 by the contact information. He is not to operate a motor vehicle during the first 30 days of the Order; thereafter there are a few exceptions. And then in the next term he is to complete the Back on Track program or its equivalent prior to the completion of the Probation Order. Those are the suggestions. THE COURT: Mr. Burd on the sentence, please. MR. BURD: Yes, Your Worship, Mr. Lingard is 46 years of age; he’s been married for 23 years.

His wife and himself have two female children -– a 16-year-old that attends Wellington Heights High School; and a daughter attending, an 18-year-old daughter attending Laurentian University in Sudbury. Mr. Lingard is currently unemployed with a back injury, but he is a, his trade is that of a licensed mechanic. I can tell you that he and his wife are also the primary caretakers for a 93-year-old aunt of his and other than that, that he is very remorseful for this collision.

And although his record is certainly nothing to be proud of, and certainly something to be ashamed of, I can indicate that other than the speeding ticket, I think from 2017, it’s fairly dated that. However, it’s again nothing to be proud of over a 30 something year driving career. I think there is 36 convictions registered on that record. S E N T E N C I N G

CUTHBERTSON, J.P. (Orally)): Yes, thank you. All right, counsel, I appreciate your work on bringing this to a resolution. I have reviewed the Victim Impact Statements that have been, are an exhibit in these proceedings and it’s clear to me that not only was Ms DeJesus’ injured physically and suffered significant injuries, but the other two people who submitted the Victim Impact Statements suffered as well. This is largely an inexplicable situation in that Mr. Lingard has admitted to failing to stop at a stop sign that was readily observable, and this tragic set of circumstances unfolded thereafter.

The challenge I have, and counsel had frankly when they were putting the joint submission together, is to meet the requirements of specific and general deterrence, and I’ll talk about that a little more in a moment. Mr. Burd, I think fairly but I would say kindly, stated Mr. Lingard’s record. It is abysmal in my view. A number of offences including driving offences – speeding, etcetera, etcetera, multiple speeding offences over the years is quite appalling in my view. Perhaps the only thing that mitigates the impact of the driving record is the fact that he has had no convictions in almost five years.

Perhaps the gentleman has learned from his past inappropriate driving behind the wheel of a car. So from a specific deterrent perspective, I must send a message to Mr. Lingard, and bearing in mind his driving record that he must always be paying attention to his driving habits, especially observant of roadside signs that are crucial to all of us being able to drive safely on the highways of Ontario and to follow all the laws... the signs and the laws set out in the Highway Traffic Act for us to all travel on those highways. The sentence put together by counsel, in my view, achieves that specific deterrent.

But equally important is the concept of general deterrence where the driving public will get the message they too must be observant at all times and follow the laws of Ontario when they are travelling on its roadways. I believe that the sentence, the joint submission on sentence, also balance that need appropriately. So I will agree to the joint submission of counsel. There will be a fine of $2000 plus appropriate court costs and surcharges levied against Mr. Lingard. And how much time does the gentleman need to pay that, please, Mr. Burd? MR.

BURD: His wife is the only one currently bringing in a salary; she works from home in telephone sales, Your Worship. So we’re seeking 12 months, please. THE COURT: All right. I don’t want this to fall off the radar screen as Mr. Lingard I understand is currently not employed with a back injury. I’m going to start him with six months, Mr.

Burd, and hopefully his opportunity for employment will improve, but I would ask that you explain to him the opportunities for an application for an extension of time to pay if he hasn’t been able to fully pay that amount of money between now and the end of the initial six month period. In addition, there is a 12-month probation order which includes the following statutory terms and conditions and I should state it starts today. Mr. Lingard needs to be aware of that, especially as it impacts on his driving privileges.

So the statutory terms are as follows: The defendant shall comply with the following conditions: 1 . Mr. Lingard shall not commit the same offence or any related or similar offence, or any offence under a statute of Canada or Ontario or any other province of Canada that is punishable by imprisonment. 2 . The Defendant shall appear before the court as and when required.

3 . The Defendant shall notify the court of any change in his address. And in addition, Mr. Lingard shall: Report to a probation officer on or before January 18, 2022 by telephone at [519- …]; He shall not operate a motor vehicle during the first 30 days of the commencement of this Order; He shall during the remainder of this Order not operate a motor vehicle except for the following reasons:

a) For employment as an auto mechanic

b) Travelling to and from employment

c) Medical emergencies or medical appointments for himself or his immediate family. 4 . He shall attend and complete the Back on Track program, or its equivalent prior to the completion of this Order. So he is under a supervised Probation Order under the direction and conditions, not only in this Order, but as set out by the Probation officer that he reports to. So Mr. Lingard, do you understand the terms and conditions of this Order, sir? MR. LINGARD: Yes, I do. THE COURT: Do you agree to follow it? MR. LINGARD: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Do you understand if you break my Order you will be subject to further charges and a conviction may result in a jail sentence? MR. LINGARD: Yes. THE COURT: All right, thank you. And is there anything else on this charge that needs to be addressed, counsel? MS. DOLBY: I don’t believe so. MR. BURD: I’ll just, if I could be in touch with Madam Clerk and give her Mr. Lingard and my e-mail addresses, verify those, so that the probation Order could be sent out to both me and himself. THE COURT: All right.

And just to comment, Madam Clerk has noted his address on Line 8... in Wellington North Township, is that the correct address? MR. LINGARD: Yes. THE COURT: All right. As I understand it a copy of the Probation Order will be mailed to Mr. Lingard at that address; and Madam Clerk you have my authority to sign that Order on my behalf. So if that’s all that needs to be done on that 130(3) charge, that leaves the 130(1) charge. What is the Crown’s intention in that regard? MS. DOLBY: Yes, I’d ask that that information be endorsed withdrawn, please, at the request of the Crown. THE COURT: All right, thank you, it is.

Is there anything else I can do to assist counsel in this matter? MR. BURD: No, thank you very much, Your Worship. MS. DOLBY: No, thank you Your Worship.

THE COURT: And I’d like to thank you both for your considered efforts in bringing this matter to a relatively early resolution. Thank you. MS. DOLBY: Thank you. THE COURT: All right, thank you. Do you need to speak to Mr. Lingard in a breakout room again, Mr. Burd? MR. BURD: No, I’ll contact him by telephone. I would want to ask Madam Clerk whether or not she can confirm that I can get copy of the Probation Order sent to my email address? COURT CLERK: Yes, of course, Mr. Burd. I’m just going to print a copy, sign it and I will forward it to you shortly thereafter, and to Ms. Dolby as well. MR.

BURD: Thank you. very much. MS. DOLBY: Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you everyone, have a good weekend. MS. DOLBY: You too. MR. BURD: You too, Your Worship. MS. DOLBY: Thank you. MR. BURD: Thank you Ms. Dolby. *********************** Form 2 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5 (2)) Evidence Act I, Jacoba Near (Name of Authorized Person) certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R. vs D.

Lingard In the Ontario Court of Justice (Name of Case) (Name of Court) held at 59 Carden Street, Guelph (Court Address) taken from recording Digital Recording , which has been certified in Form 1. February 4, 2022 [Original signed by Jacoba Near] (Date)