I am sometimes known for taking very unpopular positions. Judging from the fury on Facebook, this will probably be one of those weeks as I defend the Court鈥檚 decision in the Ungar case.
On a July evening in 2011, Jason Ungar was travelling westbound on Smith Street. As he was entering the intersection on a green light at Gladstone Avenue, a kid on a bike travelling northbound on Gladstone ran the red light. The crash killed 14-year-old Yotin Ironstand.
Last week, Justice Darin Chow found Ungar guilty of speeding and driving without due care and attention and fined him a total of $410.
I get the outrage. I really do, because intuitively it seems there should be greater consequences when a child is dead. Somehow, a fine just doesn鈥檛 seem right.
It is right, though.
Ungar was never charged criminally because he did not commit any criminal act. Yes, according to the evidence he was speeding. And, the judge felt there was sufficient evidence to suggest that given the conditions at the time of collision, particularly having the setting sun in his eyes, that his manner of driving 鈥渨as a departure from the standard a reasonable and prudent driver would have observed in all the circumstances.鈥�
Neither of those things are criminal, regardless of the outcome. The police and the Crown never felt there was a criminal case and it would have been virtually impossible to make the case that his actions demonstrated a wanton disregard for public safety.
Had he been drunk that would have been different because drunk driving is already a criminal act opening the door for an impaired driving causing death prosecution.
That was not the case here. Contrary to the social media chatter, no alcohol was involved聽 so the judge is left with little choice. By law he cannot consider the outcome of an incident in determining guilt or innocence nor in determining the severity of the penalty.
It is what it is.
Now, it is a horrible thing that happened to this boy and his family. Nothing the justice system can do will ever make it better, but as hard as it is to swallow, it was a just decision.
Another 2011 case decided this week, also by Justice Chow, is bound to spark outrage as well. When it comes to animal abuse, people really get upset, almost more so than people abuse. Our sympathies, particularly for dogs and cats, animals many of us keep as pets is acutely elevated, probably because we see them as defenseless.
Murray Andres was found guilty Friday of causing animals to be in distress, a charge under Saskatchewan鈥檚 Animal Protection Act.
While these charges related to 33 dogs seized from Andres鈥� farm in May 2011 were before the court, the SPCA once again seized another 18 dogs who were similarly deprived of proper shelter, food and water.
He was convicted in that case in December 2014 and received fines of $4,000 in January of this year.
Andres still insists he takes good care of his animals, but his standards appear to be significantly different from those of the SPCA and now two Saskatchewan judges.
He is appealing the first conviction and will undoubtedly challenge the second one as well.
