Farmer chasing ATV trespassers acquitted of dangerous driving

From the Judgment of Justice R. Green of the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan:

A farmer was charged with driving in a manner dangerous to the public on Church Road in the Rural Municipality of Fertile Belt, contrary to s. 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.  The farmer is now 54 years of age and works for a neighbour. He farmed his own land in the past, but now leases it. On October 3, 2010, in the latter part of the afternoon, he was helping the neighbour fix his combine. He heard some All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) being operated in the distance, on a field he owned. These ATVs were being driven by three young males who were at the time they came to the farmer's attention driving around in mud on his field, which was to the south of Church Road.

The farmer took the neighbours 4x4 truck and drove, in 2-wheel drive on Church Road and then south into his field where the ATVs were.  At that point, the ATVs scattered.  The farmer followed one of the ATVs over Church Road and back north into another of his fields, in which a crop of canola had just been swathed.

A police constable arrived on the scene at 4:36 p.m., and found the ATV wedged under the front driver’s side bumper of the truck.  The farmer was seated in his vehicle. After attending to the young male ATV driver, and viewing the scene, the officer arrested the farmer at 5:08 p.m. for dangerous driving.

The Crown submitted at trial that the farmer chased after the young male on Church Road and rammed his ATV.   The farmer claimed that, as he pulled up beside the young male on Church Road, the young male accelerated his ATV and swerved into the truck and turned in front of it.  He said, as this was happening, he slammed on his brakes and skidded in a straight direction for a number of feet.

Ultimately, the Judge stated, the issue was not whether he is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the collision on Church Road happened as the farmer described, but rather whether it is possible that it did.   Considering: (1) his finding that it is possible the farmer was travelling as slowly as 35 to 40 kilometres per hour on Church Road when he collided with the ATV; (2) the lack of any expert evidence on accident reconstruction of what happened between the two drivers on Church Road; and (3) the reality that the young male was an inexperienced ATV driver who admitted he may have swerved before the truck reached him, the judge concluded that it is possible the collision happened as the farmer described, with the young male swerving into the driver’s side of the truck, the farmer slamming on the brakes and the young male accelerating and turning into the path of the truck. 

With respect to the degree of care exercised by the farmer, the Judge ruled that he was not satisfied that the degree of care exercised by the farmer in driving on Church Road was a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in these circumstances.  Whatever the farmer's liability might be civilly for the collision, the Judge was nevertheless not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that his driving was a marked departure from the standard a reasonable person would have observed in these circumstances.

On this basis, the farmer was acquitted of the dangerous driving charge.

Read the decision at: R v Tranberg.

Saskatchewan farmer convicted for offering a stray animal for sale

On inspecting cattle delivered by the accused, Douglas Lamb, to the Spiritwood stockyards on January 19, 2010, Brand Inspector Kenneth Wasden noticed that one calf was of a different colour, had a different ear tag, and a brand on the left rib. The brand could not be clearly identified before clipping the hair covering it, but was noticeable because the hair covering it was of a lighter colour. The animal was black with a black and white spotted face, referred to as “brockle face”. Wasden had noticed the brand from six to eight feet away. The ear tag was hand printed with a letter and numbers, whereas the other cattle had factory printed ear tags with numbers only. Both types of ear tag were yellow in colour. 

The animal appeared to be stunted, which he attributed to lack of nourishment from early weaning and its hair was rougher. If born in the spring, it should have weighed between 600 and 800 pounds, rather than 450.  The other 20 cattle delivered by the accused were exotic cross-breeds (Simmental and Charolais) and were larger, heavier animals. None of the others were black in colour. The calf in question was a Black Angus cross. The body condition was similar to that of the others, but it was smaller in size.

Richard Williams is a large cattle rancher from Alberta, but brings some cattle to Saskatchewan to pasture in the summer. He brought between 230 and 240 head of cattle to the Rabbit Lake pasture in 2009. He recalled a fence being down between his pasture and that of the accused, which he repaired. When the cattle were transported back to Alberta in the fall, there was one calf missing. Williams identified the calf’s brand and the type of hand lettered ear tag as his, and the black brockle face calf as a product of his cross-breeding Herefords and Black Angus, born in the spring of 2009.

In the eyes of the Court, the Crown proved on this evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused offered a stray animal for sale in violation of the Stray Animals Act. As the charge is a strict liability offence, the defence of due diligence would apply if the accused could prove on a balance of probabilities that he took all due care.  Due care is simply what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances. The accused must have taken all reasonable steps to avoid the event in order to show that he was not negligent.

The Court disbelieved Lamb's evidence about what he knew and didn't know about the calf in question, and found that he had not taken reasonable steps to avoid committing the offence.  To not recognize your own calves in such a small herd alone shows lack of a reasonable standard of care, in the judge's opinion. In addition, failing to notice a bawling, orphaned calf, and failing to observe an obvious brand also shows lack of due diligence. The accused should have been checking his animals carefully enough and been familiar enough with them to have detected this stray calf among them.

Read the full decision at: R. v. Lamb.

62 acres, pruning shears and 1,500 marijuana plants - when is circumstantial evidence enough to convict?

This isn't exactly a case about "farming" in the "legal" sense, but I found the recent decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal in R. v. Rong of interest because it involves a rural "rental" property.  Rong was convicted at trial of production and possession of marijuana for trafficking and appealed on the basis that the circumstantial evidence against him was not sufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, and the following excerpts from the judgment say it all:

There was a trail leading from the residence to the field. A garden hose and electrical extension cord ran from the house and connected to the watering and fertilizing system in the field which was manually operated. Partially full bottles of fertilizer were found in the basement of the house similar to empty bottles found in the field. An unopened new garden hose was found beside buckets in the field and a package of new unopened anvil pruning shears were found in the kitchen of the residence along with a pair of gardening gloves similar to a pair found in the field. Garden shears, an axe and pruning clippers were found on the main floor of the house near a fireplace. More pruning shears and a gas-powered generator were found in the basement. Three of the four bedrooms upstairs in the two-storey house had clothing and mattresses on the floor. The house appeared lived in as a temporary residence and there was food in the fridge and freezer and toiletries in the bathroom. There was no garden or crops other than marijuana on the property. [...]

In my view, despite these arguments, the evidence amply supports an obvious connection between the residence and the field of marijuana cultivation. The power and water lines linking the house and the field, the pruning shears, gloves and fertilizer in both locations and the absence of any agricultural or other activity on the property other than marijuana cultivation lead irresistibly to the conclusion that the residence was occupied by persons engaged in intensive cultivation of the field of marijuana. The sparse furnishing of the residence and mattresses on the floor in the bedrooms strongly support the inference that the persons residing on the premises were only there to work in the field, and the appellant was clearly residing there when the search warrant was executed. His personal effects were found in one of the bedrooms and he appeared to be just getting out of bed. He was also observed on the property on an earlier occasion, in circumstances indicating both some familiarity with the property and a measure of control with respect to the dogs on the property.

Read the decision at: R. v. Rong.