Library:
Criminal Law
Published in the December 2009 issue of Transportation Notes - View Article
In the spring of 2008 the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench tried a criminal case arising out of an aviation accident and registered convictions on three charges. This is one of very few cases in Canada in which criminal sanctions were brought to bear on a pilot involved in a crash. The Manitoba Court of Appeal has recently dismissed two of the charges.
The aircraft in question, a Navajo Chieftain, was operated by Keystone Air Service, a small operator which provided scheduled and charter air services in Manitoba. On June 11, 2002, Mark Tayfel, as pilot in command, operated an early morning trip to a fishing camp some 200 miles north of Winnipeg. He dropped off one group and picked up another for return to Winnipeg. He failed to ensure adequate fuel for the return flight and began noticing a problem about 40 miles north of Winnipeg. In overcast conditions he made an approach to the runway but was forced to pull out and make a second attempt. Before he could complete the approach, both engines failed over downtown Winnipeg and he was forced to land on a city avenue. Five of the six passengers were injured, and one of these died of complications.
An investigation followed, and Tayfel was charged and found guilty of two offences under the Canadian Aviation Regulations. The one of relevance for the subsequent criminal prosecution was s. 703.20, which stipulates that no person shall commence a flight unless the aircraft carries sufficient fuel to meet defined regulatory requirements. Tayfel’s pilot’s licence was suspended for 45 days.
In most cases, this would have been the end of the matter. However, in this case a criminal prosecution was initiated. The pilot was charged with criminal negligence causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous operation of an aircraft, all offences under the Criminal Code. Convictions were registered under each charge.
An appeal was taken to the Manitoba Court of Appeal which released its reasons for decision on December 16, 2009. The conviction for dangerous operation of an aircraft was upheld, but the convictions for criminal negligence were set aside. The evidence did not establish a “wanton or reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others”. Although Tayfel erred in failing to assess his fuel requirements, there was no evidence to call into question his piloting in general or the measures he took to avoid a crash once the problem was apparent. The dangerous operation offence carried a lower standard of proof and accordingly that conviction was upheld.
R. Tayfel,
[2009] M.J. No. 415