Home page

Text size

E-mail this page

SOMBA K'E/YELLOWKNIFE
A Yellowknife lawyer convicted of dangerous driving last year had his charge overturned by the Supreme Court of the NWT on March 23.

Justice Edward Richard ruled last week that the charge of dangerous driving did not fit the crime.

On Aug. 30, 2011, Garth Wallbridge was handed one year's probation, a one-year driving ban, and fined $1,150 for dangerous driving by territorial court Judge Bernadette Schmaltz.

This sentence was based on a road rage incident that occurred on March 4, 2011. On that date, Wallbridge was driving south in the right-hand lane along Franklin Avenue during rush hour when he encountered a driver that was parked illegally in front of the Royal Bank, waiting for a passenger who was doing business in the bank.

While waiting for the car to move, Wallbridge, who is in his mid-50s, became enraged, honked his horn repeatedly, and used his cellphone to call a city bylaw officer to remove the vehicle from his path. Before the municipal enforcement officer arrived, the passenger returned from the bank and the car drove away.

Wallbridge, driving a grey Dodge Durango, followed the silver Dodge SX as it turned left onto 57 Street. The 29-year-old-driver of the car became concerned that Wallbridge continued to follow him closely and pulled over.

In the confrontation that followed, the younger driver grabbed Wallbridge's cellphone out of his hand.

As the younger driver began to walk back to his car, Wallbridge manoeuvered his truck closely alongside the silver car, bumping the other driver at least twice in the process. Wallbridge then proceeded to sound his vehicle's alarm for several minutes. The RCMP arrived at the scene and arrested Wallbridge.

While he agreed that the facts of the case were accurate, Richard's written decision indicates that he thought trial judge Bernadette Schmaltz erred in ruling that intentionally making contact with a person with a motor vehicle constitutes dangerous driving.

In the evidence presented during trial, there was little traffic on 57 Street during the incident, and Wallbridge was driving slowly and had his vehicle under control when he bumped into the other man.

In his verdict, Richard stated that the facts did provide reasonable grounds for a conviction of assault, but not for dangerous driving.

"On the facts as found by the trial judge, the appellant was not without criminal fault. He intentionally assaulted (the other man)," Richard stated. "However, the charge was not assault but rather dangerous driving."

Wallbridge declined to comment on the appeal. The Crown lawyer could not be reached as of press time.

We welcome your opinions. Click here to e-mail a letter to the editor.