a sentence must be “proportionate to the gravity of the offence
and the degree of responsibility of the offender”: R. v. Lacasse,
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, [2015] S.C.J. No. 64, 2015 SCC 64, at para.
53. We do not interfere with the period of parole ineligibility
imposed by the trial judge.
Disposition
[66] The appeal as to conviction is dismissed. Leave to appeal
the sentence is granted but the appeal as to sentence is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Chiocchio et al. v. Ellis et al.*
[Indexed as: Chiocchio v. Ellis]
2018 ONCA 762
Court of Appeal for Ontario, Simmons, Huscroft and B. W. Miller JJ.A.
September 19, 2018
Highways — Non-repair — Trial judge finding that driver was negligent in entering intersection when it was unsafe to do so — Trial judge
finding that city breached its duty of repair by failing to repaint faded
stop line and that it was 50 per cent responsible for accident — Trial
judge erring in his application of ordinary reasonable driver standard —
Trial judge failing to consider that reasonable driver had obligation to
stop at point close enough to intersection that he would have sightlines
in both directions — Evidence before trial judge not supporting conclusion that intersection posed unreasonable risk of harm to ordinary reasonable driver.
A stop sign governing the flow of westbound traffic at an intersection was
between 8.4 and 9.4 metres behind a faded stop line. E accelerated away from the
stop sign into the intersection without seeing a northbound vehicle in which the
plaintiff was a passenger. He T-boned that vehicle, seriously injuring the plaintiff.
The trial judge in the plaintiff’s personal injury action found that E was negligent
in entering the intersection when it was unsafe to do so. He also found that the
city breached its duty of repair by failing to repaint the faded stop line, which was
no longer effective in guiding drivers concerning where to stop. On the trial judge’s
findings, had E stopped at the stop line, he would have been able to see the plaintiff’s vehicle. He concluded that the city was 50 per cent responsible for the accident. The city appealed.
Held, the appeal should be allowed.
A municipality is required to prevent or remedy conditions on its roads that
create an unreasonable risk of harm for ordinary drivers exercising reasonable
_____________
* Vous trouverez la traduction française à la p. 356, post.
