A truck driver ticketed after a four-vehicle crash near Beiseker has lost a bid to limit the careless driving charge he faces to a single issue — whether he failed to use a pilot car.
In a July 18 ruling issued at the Alberta Court of Justice in Airdrie, Her Worship Alison A. Sabo denied a motion from John Farnel’s legal team seeking to restrict the Crown from introducing any grounds beyond the absence of a pilot vehicle.
“I find that the Crown can proceed with the contravention that is a prohibition of careless driving,” Sabo wrote in R v Farnel, 2025 ABCJ 123. “Mr. Farnel will be able to recognize the transaction in question and there is reasonable information on the prohibited act of driving carelessly on a highway.”
Farnel was ticketed under Section 115(2)(b) of Alberta’s Traffic Safety Act following a January 5, 2024, collision on a Township Road near Beiseker. The trial was adjourned in March after defence counsel challenged the adequacy of Crown disclosure and particularization of the charge. A new date was set for August 7.
In its application, defence requested a court order “confirming that the Charge is predicated upon an alleged failure of Mr. Farnel to have a pilot vehicle at the time of the Collision, and that the Crown is not permitted to rely upon any other grounds to establish the Charge at trial.”
Defence also asked for an order “requiring the Crown to particularize that the actus reus of the offence upon which the charge was laid by Cst. McWhinnie was solely the alleged failure of Mr. Farnel to have a pilot vehicle at the time of the Collision, as disclosed to Mr. Farnel at the scene of the Collision and never disclosed by the Crown to be otherwise.”
Sabo found that the requested relief “would unduly narrow the contravention” and was “not consistent with the caselaw.”
“The contravention should not be restricted solely to the evidence of the exchange respecting the violation ticket between the RCMP officer and Mr. Farnel on the requirement for a pilot car,” she wrote. “The Crown confirmed on the record that careless driving encompasses numerous behaviours on the road, and giving undue care for other operators on the roadway is part of the description of what is careless. I accept that view.”
Careless driving under the Traffic Safety Act is a strict liability offence. The Crown must prove that the accused drove without due care and attention or reasonable consideration for others. The burden then shifts to the accused to establish a due diligence defence.
“There is no mystery that the prohibited act and transaction alleged is Mr. Farnel was operating a motor vehicle and there was a four-vehicle collision,” Sabo wrote.
The Crown’s disclosure included RCMP documents dated January 6, 2024. The Occurrence Report described Farnel’s Kenworth truck hauling a combine and included the issuing officer’s notes:
“I looked into the charge sections under the legislation for commercial vehicles. I am not trained in commercial vehicle enforcement. I called OCC and they gave me the phone number for the Airdrie Weight Scales… I decided that there was likely a litany of driving offenses under the commercial vehicle acts that seeing the amount of carnage V1 caused… I decided to serve V1 driver FARNEL with a TSA dangerous [sic.] driving VT.”
It also recorded Farnel’s statement at the scene: “ORDINARILY he would be required to have a pilot vehicle but there is a provision in the commercial driving laws that if he is hauling farm equipment that he is exempt.”
The officer added: “This did not sound correct to me, I told FARNEL to consider his options associated with a not-guilty plea as it is possible that I am incorrect.”
Sabo ruled that the information provided by the Crown satisfied the test for adequate particularization as articulated in R v ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corp and the “golden rule” from R v Cote.
She wrote: “The transaction is reasonably apparent and the prohibited act of driving in a manner alleged to be careless is properly set out.”
“The alleged transaction of driving a motor vehicle on a highway carelessly, resulting in a four-vehicle collision, is reasonably known to him. Accordingly, Mr. Farnel has a sufficient opportunity to present a full answer and defence on the reasonable steps he took on the day of the collision related to the prohibited act of careless driving, the transaction itself, and any other matters relevant to his defence.”
The Crown confirmed it intends to call one officer and three civilian witnesses. It also stated that “there was no officer video evidence as he arrived on scene later” and that the case “is not just proceeding on the fact that there was not a pilot car involved.”
One example cited in the officer’s report described a wide load in an “oncoming” lane that struck two vehicles, with “no warning to those in the other lane.”
“This ruling does not preclude any submissions from Crown or Defence counsel to the Court if new substantial facts arise at trial that would cause surprise or otherwise would impact trial fairness,” Sabo wrote.
The trial is scheduled for August 7.
Sign up to get the latest local news headlines delivered directly to your inbox every afternoon.
Send your news tips, story ideas, pictures, and videos to news@discoverairdrie.com. You can also message and follow us on Twitter: @AIR1061FM.
DiscoverAirdrie encourages you to get your news directly from your trusted source by bookmarking this page and downloading the DiscoverAirdrie app.