The accused was charged with failing to remain at the scene of an accident with intent to escape civil or criminal liability contrary to s. 252(1) of the Criminal Code, driving while suspended contrary to s. 53 of the Highway Traffic Act, careless driving contrary to s. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act, and driving without insurance contrary to s. 2(1)(a) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.
The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was operating the vehicle involved in the accident.
The court rejected the accused's testimony as unreliable and found that circumstantial evidence—including the accused's ownership of the vehicle, his proximity to the scene, his appearance shortly after the incident while sweating, and the removal of licence plates—established guilt on the fail to remain charge, driving while suspended, and driving without insurance.
The careless driving charge was dismissed due to insufficient evidence regarding the manner of driving.
