Fail to Share half Roadway

• R v Blier

  [2002] OJ No 1336 · Ontario Court of Justice · fail to share half roadway - meeting vehicle

  R. v. Blier

  [2002] O.J. No. 1336
  Ontario Court of Justice — Quon J.P. | Heard February 11, 2002; Judgment April 10, 2002

  ---

  Background

  Tina Blier was driving eastbound on Gerrard Street East in Toronto when a cube van driven by Christakis Yinanakou suddenly pulled out from the curb into her path. According to witnesses, Yinanakou failed to signal his intention to move into traffic. Blier swerved to avoid hitting the van, but her evasive maneuver took her across the streetcar tracks and into the westbound lane, where she collided with a Wheel-Trans vehicle driven by Margaretta McCleary.

  Police charged Blier under section 148(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for failing to share half the roadway when meeting an oncoming vehicle. Blier defended herself, arguing that the collision was unavoidable and caused entirely by the negligent actions of the cube van driver. The Wheel-Trans driver supported Blier's version of events, testifying that the van driver had not signaled and that she (McCleary) had actually expected the collision and "just waited for impact."

  Issues

  1. Was the defendant still "in charge of a vehicle" immediately before the collision?
  2. Had the defendant been driving lawfully, prudently and reasonably prior to the emergency?
  3. If still in charge, did the defendant have a reasonable opportunity to turn right when meeting the oncoming vehicle?

  The "In Charge" Analysis

  Justice Quon conducted a detailed analysis of what "in charge of a vehicle" means under section 148(1). The court rejected a narrow interpretation that would only require being in the driver's seat, instead adopting a broader meaning that requires "the ability to control the movements of the vehicle or to drive the vehicle in a manner as intended or to manoeuvre the vehicle in a particular direction."

  The judge found that while Blier may have temporarily lost some control during her evasive maneuver, the evidence didn't clearly show she had completely lost the ability to control her vehicle before the collision. However, the court established an important principle: even if a driver loses control due to another's negligence or a road hazard, they can still be exonerated under section 148(1) if they were driving lawfully, prudently and reasonably before the emergency occurred.

  Emergency Maneuver Defense

  The court found Blier's testimony credible and supported by objective witness evidence. McCleary's testimony was particularly damaging to the prosecution — she confirmed the van failed to signal, that Blier was forced to take evasive action, and that the resulting collision was unavoidable. The judge calculated that even at 50 km/h, Blier would have had less than 3.6 seconds to react when the van pulled out 50 meters ahead, making an emergency swerve the reasonable response.

  Critically, the court applied established case law requiring only that drivers act reasonably in emergencies — not with perfection. The judge found no evidence Blier had been speeding, driving carelessly, or violating any traffic laws prior to the van's intervention. The court concluded that neither Blier nor the Wheel-Trans driver had sufficient time or distance to avoid the collision once the emergency maneuver was complete.

  Key Takeaway

  Section 148(1) charges can be defended when emergency evasive action is caused by another driver's negligence, provided you were driving properly beforehand.

  This case establishes that courts will consider the full circumstances leading to a collision, including third-party negligence that forces emergency maneuvers. The key is proving you were driving lawfully and reasonably before the emergency, and that you didn't have sufficient time or opportunity to recover and comply with the right-of-way rules.

  Read the decision

← All topics