ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2024 08 30 COURT FILE No.: Peel – Mississauga Information No. 7080

BETWEEN:

His Majesty The King

— AND —

Sarveswaran RATNASABAPATHY

Before Justice of the Peace Natalia Krayzman

Heard on December 11, 12, 2023, July 30, 2024 Reasons for Judgment released on September 3, 2024

Counsel: S. Skoropada (Counsel) ......................................................... counsel for the prosecution R. Rowe (Licenced Paralegal) ……. for the defendant Sarveswaran Ratnasabapathy

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE N. KRAYZMAN (written reasons):

[1] The Defendant Sarveswaran Ratnasabapathy was charged by Information with driving a motor vehicle and making a right turn not in safety on March 17, 2019 at the intersection of Airport Rd and Morning Star Drive in the city of Mississauga, contrary to s.142(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, causing a pedestrian fatality. The Defendant entered a plea of not guilty.

[2] The Defendant was represented by Paralegal Mr. R. Rowe and the Prosecution was represented by Assistant Crown Attorney Ms. S. Skoropada.

[3] The Defendant also brought two Charter motions, both of which were denied by me in separate written decisions.

[4] The original charge read “left” turn, but was amended by me, after some objection by the Defendant’s Paralegal Mr. Rowe, who ultimately consented to the amendment to “right” turn. All the evidence presented at trial made it clear that it was a “right turn” involved in this incident.

[5] The Prosecution presented 4 civilian witnesses and two police witnesses, one of which also testified, after a Voir Dire, as an expert witness in collision reconstruction. I made a witness exclusion order before hearing any of their testimony.

[6] There were several exhibits presented including statements of the civilian witnesses, proof of ownership of the vehicle on the day of the accident from the Ministry of Transportation, photographs of the scene, the Collision Report prepared by Officer Mooney and his curriculum vitae, and a photograph of the Defendant on the day of the accident.

[7] There was no evidence presented by the Defence.

The Evidence at Trial

[8] On March 17, 2019, the Defendant was operating his motor vehicle, a Honda Ridgeline on Morning Star Drive, and in making a right turn onto Airport Road, struck and killed a pedestrian. All 4 civilian witnesses testified to this same set of facts from several different vantage points, although not all actually saw him strike the pedestrian.

Harpreet Gill

[9] The first witness, Harpreet Gill, testified that he was driving on Morning Star, planning to make a right turn at Airport Road when he pulled up behind a “greyish-green truck” also stopped at the red light at the intersection. They were both in the right lane. He saw a pedestrian to the right of both his and the Defendant’s vehicles standing near the post that had the walking signal at the intersection “at the light”, waiting for the light to turn green so she could cross the street. Mr. Gill described the pedestrian as an “elderly Indian woman” wearing a beige winter jacket and “Indian scarf covering her head”.

[10] Mr. Gill said the light then turned green and she began to walk. At the same time, he saw the vehicle in front of him start making its right turn onto Airport, but noted that it seemed to be making a wider than usual turn, as if heading into the second lane during the turn, rather than staying in the right lane. He said he saw the pedestrian when she started crossing the street, but then she became less visible when the pickup truck in front of him started turning right. Mr. Gill stopped his car and saw the pickup in front of him continue. He checked to see if he could still see the pedestrian continue across, but was no longer able to see her. He thought the truck hit the lady so he stopped. Mr. Gill then saw the driver of the truck get out of his truck, and say something like “Oh my God, I think I killed her!”

[11] Mr. Gill said he didn’t get out of his car during this time, but his sister-in-law who was also in his car did get out to check on the lady. Under cross-examination, Mr. Gill admitted that his own doors and windows were closed and he didn’t actually hear the driver of the truck in front of him say the words “Oh my God, I killed her!”, but saw his lips moving and could tell that was what the driver was saying. This last part of the testimony was concerning from a credibility perspective because he told the police at the time that he “heard” the driver say those things according to the statement he gave at the time, marked Exhibit 1.

[12] Mr. Gill saw the pedestrian’s leg twisted from where he was in his vehicle, about a foot away from the truck.

[13] He described the climate as a clear and chilly Sunday afternoon.

[14] Mr. Gill described the driver as short, “brown”, about 5’ 8”, “a little chubbier”, but not big, with a moustache and a Bluetooth in his ear.

Gurpreet Heer

[15] The second witness Gurpreet Heer was in the car with the first witness, Mr. Gill on March 17, 2019 at the time of the incident. She described him as her “brother-in-law” and said he was driving while she sat next to him in the passenger seat.

[16] Ms. Heer described the weather as overcast, but not raining, with no snow and dry roads.

[17] Otherwise, her testimony was very similar to that of Mr. Gill in terms of being directly behind the dark green Honda truck as they were both approaching the intersection on Morning Star to make right turns onto Airport Road. She said the light they were facing was initially red, and then turned green. She noticed a pedestrian that she described as an older lady wearing “Indian attire” including a winter jacket and scarf. She described there being no obstructions in her view of the pedestrian.

[18] Ms. Heer then saw the pedestrian signal display a “walk sign” and heard the loud noise it made. At that point, the light turned green and the pedestrian got off the walkway, start walking onto the roadway stepping onto the crosswalk to walk across the street. At the same time, she saw the vehicle in front of her proceed to make its turn. Mr. Gill stopped his car and Ms. Heer got out of the car because she thought the lady got hit by the truck, although she did not see her get struck. Ms. Heer did not see the lady after the lady starting walking across the street, until she approached the accident scene later on foot.

[19] Ms. Heer said she went around the passenger side to the driver side of the truck and saw the lady in between the first and second lanes from the right on the street, laying parallel to the front of the truck.

[20] Ms. Heer noticed the driver of the Honda truck did not exit his vehicle initially when she was with “the grandma” and other people began to run over.

[21] Ms. Heer said she was beside the truck’s tire and had a clear view of the interior of the truck. She saw there was no one else in the truck and made eye contact with the driver. Ms. Heer said she saw the driver of the truck hitting his wheel saying “I killed somebody! I killed somebody!” loudly. He was saying it so loudly that she could hear him inside his vehicle even though his windows were up.

[22] Ms. Heer described the driver of the truck as “middle height”, “chubby”, “East Indian”, with a Bluetooth in his ear that was big and noticeable. She does not remember seeing when the driver exited, but did remember seeing the same driver later standing with the police. She pointed him out to police as the driver when they asked her who the driver was.

[23] Ms. Heer called 911 and stayed for police. She said that neither her vehicle, nor that of the Defendant were moved, on instructions of the police. However, on cross-examination she said she did not know if her car was moved after she left the car.

[24] On cross-examination, Ms. Heer said that she did discuss what she saw with her family, including her brother-in-law, the first witness Mr. Gill as well as her sister-in-law who was in the car as well, but did not testify. She said that she did not talk about what she heard the driver say though. She re-iterated that she saw the pedestrian in the crosswalk.

Paula Blatchford

[25] The third witness, Paula Blatchford testified that on March 17, 2019 she was the passenger in a vehicle with her husband who was driving. They were at the intersection of Morning Star and Airport Road facing southbound and stopped at the light. They were on the inside lane and the first vehicle in line about one lane away from where the accident would occur. Their light was red when they approached the intersection and from this she assumed that the light facing the Defendant’s vehicle must have been green though she did not see it.

[26] Ms. Blatchford said she was talking to her husband and facing him when she saw a “dark, browny-green” coloured pickup truck turning right from Morning Star onto Airport Road. A flash of pink caught her eye and she said it took her a second to realize that what she saw was someone getting hit.

[27] Ms. Blatchford got out of her car and ran over. She saw what she described as a “tiny woman” in pink laying on the ground beside the driver-side of the truck that hit her closer to the front-middle of the truck, wearing a winter coat and a pink “Indian outfit”. Ms. Blatchford said that the woman was laying about ¾ of the truck’s length away from the crosswalk.

[28] She then saw the driver of the truck get out from the driver’s side and go to the front of his truck. She saw there was no one else in the truck.

[29] Ms. Blatchford described him as being between 50-60 years old, wearing what appeared to be work clothes and having a Bluetooth headset in his ear. She said he appeared to be talking to someone on the Bluetooth screaming that he “killed her”. Ms. Blatchford saw him coming toward the woman on the ground with his arms open as if to pick her up, and Ms. Blatchford told him not to touch her. She later saw the same driver go with police to talk with them to the side of the scene.

[30] Ms. Blatchford described the weather as cold and clear, no snow having fallen and she believes the roads were dry. She saw no obstructions to the “crossway” and was very close in proximity to the incident when she witnessed it.

Gurvinder Singh Duggal

[31] The final civilian witness was Gurvinder Singh Duggal. Like Ms. Blatchford, he was also on Airport Road at Morning Star in his vehicle. There was a bus ahead of him that made a left onto Morning Star and he approached the intersection as the light had turned red, at which point he stopped, being the first vehicle at the line at the intersection.

[32] Mr. Duggal saw the light for the other street turn green and saw a pedestrian on his left side start walking. He said he also saw the white-coloured pedestrian walking sign appear for her before she started walking. He then saw a green-coloured “jeep” that looked like a truck make a right turn and hit her when she was crossing within the crosswalk, about 5 or 6 feet into her crossing. He described the pedestrian as an old lady who was very slim, wearing a light brown coat. When she was hit, he saw her go upward and then down. He put on his flashers and went to assist her, but he said another “white lady” told him not to touch her.

[33] Mr. Duggal said that when the vehicle hit her and she fell, the Defendant’s driver’s side front tire was on her leg and he told the driver to move back off the leg. The Defendant did move his vehicle back approximately 5-6 inches according to Mr. Duggal and freed her leg.

[34] Mr. Duggal testified that when he approached the Driver of the vehicle, he was still in the Driver’s seat and no one else was in the vehicle. Mr. Duggal described this driver as a “bit fat”, “not slim” with a white beard and less hair on the back of his head. He saw the driver hitting his hands on the steering wheel saying “I killed someone” repeatedly.

[35] Mr. Duggal described the weather as clear and sunny with no snow. He said he had a clear view of the pedestrian when she was walking.

Officer Robert Mooney

[36] Officer Mooney testified that he was in charge of this investigation. He has been with the Peel Regional Police for 23 years and has been a Reconstructionist in the Major Collision Bureau since 2019, continuing in that capacity to the point of testifying. He has conducted over 200 collision investigations within the Major Collision Bureau and has investigated approximately 300 additional collisions, including between 100 and 250 fatalities.

[37] On March 17, 2019, at approximately 2:30pm, Officer Mooney received a call to attend Airport Road and Morning Star Drive, which he confirms are highways as defined by the Highway Traffic Act, in the city of Mississauga for a fatal motor vehicle collision.

[38] He arrived at the scene just before 4pm that day as the designated Officer-in-Charge (OIC). He said that being an OIC in a case like this normally entails being the one that gathers all the information from the parties and witnesses and conducts follow-ups.

[39] In this case, as part of his duties, he also authored a collision reconstruction report (Exhibit 7).

[40] He described the weather as cloudy with sunny periods and cool when he arrived. He said the roads were dry.

[41] Officer Mooney said that Airport Road runs North and Southbound with three lanes each way with dedicated left turn lanes. Morningside has two lanes running East and Westbound, but only runs East off Airport Road. The intersection is fully controlled by traffic signals.

[42] Officer Mooney said there were several officers at the scene taking witness statements as well as four remaining civilian witnesses still present when he arrived. He did not get their names because other officers were dealing with them, but was later provided with written statements from 5 witnesses: Paula Blatchford, Gurpreet Heer, Rajkamal Gill, Harpreet Gill, and Gurvinder Duggal.

[43] He described the motor vehicle involved in the collision as a 2006 green Honda Ridgeline with licence plate AS68212. He also noted a Honda Accord parked just behind the Defendant’s motor vehicle on an angle between Morning Star and Airport Road. The scene had already been closed off when he arrived.

[44] He saw the Honda Ridgeline in the curb lane just slightly north of the crosswalk. On the ground near the Ridgeline was a pair of glasses, a beige scarf, a brown fur coat, some medical supplies and a little bit of blood. He also noticed a bit of fur on the front bumper of the Ridgeline similar to that of the fur coat found nearby.

[45] Officer Mooney spoke to the Defendant in Constable Henry’s cruiser, identified him using his Driver’s Licence, which had the name and date of birth as indicated on the Information, cautioned him regarding making statements, told him he did not have to provide a statement and told him he could speak with Counsel or Duty Counsel. The Defendant did speak to a lawyer privately for about 12 minutes and then declined to make a statement.

[46] Officer Mooney assisted the Defendant in retrieving personal items from his vehicle, making sure he did not take anything of evidentiary value and then told the Defendant he would be seizing the vehicle for a mechanical inspection.

[47] Officer Mooney did not arrest, charge or serve the Defendant with a summons at the scene because the investigation was ongoing and he had not yet had a chance to review all the evidence and do a reconstruction. A summons was served later.

[48] Officer Mooney discussed a group of 16 photos which he said were taken while he was at the scene by the Police Forensic Identification Unit and described them as an accurate depiction of the scene. They were collectively marked Exhibit 5. They depicted what the Officer described as the scene in his earlier testimony.

[49] The victim of the collision was identified by Sergeant Makin as Charanjit Kaur Grewal, born August 14, 1953. He learned she was going to a trauma centre with a faint heartbeat from the scene but not breathing on her own. The next day, the Coroner’s Office contacted Officer Mooney’s officer to let him know she succumbed to her injuries.

Accident Reconstruction Report

[50] Officer Mooney provided his curriculum vitae (CV) to the court, as well as a Reconstruction Report he prepared for this case, marked Exhibits 6 and 7 respectively.

[51] Parts of his CV were read in in addition to the testimony he provided earlier about his experience in collision reconstruction. Both the Crown and Defence consented to Officer Mooney being qualified as an Expert in accident reconstruction. Based on this consent, his earlier testimony about his vast experience in the area and his CV, the Court was satisfied that Officer Mooney was an Expert in the area of Accident Reconstruction.

[52] Officer Mooney authored the Report tendered to the Court as Exhibit 7 within a month after being subpoenaed, incorporating the photos taken and marked as Exhibit 5 and had it reviewed by another officer and a Supervisor. No changes were made after these reviews. Officer Mooney adopted the report during his testimony.

[53] Officer Mooney made a number of findings in the report based on the evidence, measurements, and other data collected, and made calculations based on these collections.

[54] Officer Mooney reported that on the day of the incident, the temperature was 9°C with clear skies and dry roads. Scene photographs taken at the time show the Defendant’s vehicle had a number of items dangling from the rearview mirror in front of the windshield. The tires of the Defendant’s vehicle were still angled to the right and his vehicle was stopped in the photos in the right curb lane, though partly over the lane line into the next lane, which accords with Mr. Gill’s testimony that the Defendant’s vehicle appeared to be making a wider-than-normal right turn. A brown fur coat, some blood and other items were still on the road next to the driver’s side of the Defendant’s vehicle, although the pedestrian, Ms. Grewal was not there at the time the photos were taken.

[55] Examination of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was seized at the scene, did not show any defects that would be responsible for him losing control of it at the time of the collision. There were also no tire marks on the road to suggest rapid acceleration or emergency braking as a result of speeding through the right turn.

[56] Officer Mooney concluded in the report that the cause of Ms. Grewal’s injuries and ultimately her death one day later were from being struck by the front driver’s side of the Defendant’s motor vehicle while she was crossing the intersection at the light intended for her to cross. The Defendant’s Honda Ridgeline made a right turn at the same time that Ms. Grewal was properly crossing the intersection and struck her, causing her to be thrown forward, and running over her leg. Ms. Grewal’s head hit the road when she went down, causing blunt force trauma, that the Coroner determined to ultimately be the cause of her death, in combination with other bodily injuries.

[57] Officer Mooney stated in the report that Mr. Ratnasabapathy should have perceived Ms. Grewal crossing, particularly since so many other drivers and passengers who later gave statements were all able to see her at the corner before she started crossing and while she was crossing. She was conspicuous. Given that he was at an intersection used by both vehicles and pedestrians and that the light facing him turned green, he should have expected to see pedestrians crossing the roadway at that green light during these daytime hours. A safe right turn “means checking for other vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians (page 20).”

[58] Officer Mooney suggested that it was possible that Mr. Ratnasabapathy’s perception of the pedestrian “may have been compromised by the items handing from the Honda’s rear view mirror (Figure 9)…as the entire windshield is not visible to the driver and any other vehicles or pedestrians blocked by those items are still the driver’s responsibility to be aware of (page 20).”

The Law

[59] The offence in section 142(1) of the Highway Traffic Act is an offence of strict liability according to the leading case on this offence, R. v. Dillman, [2008] O.J. No. 1120, para 13.

[60] The Defendant’s representative, Mr. Rowe says that the evidence presented at trial does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not make a right turn in safety that day. Specifically, he challenges the credibility and/or accuracy of the testimony provided by the civilian eyewitnesses as well as the accuracy of the expert police witness and his associated Collision Report. Mr. Rowe also says the Defendant was charged under the incorrect section of the HTA and further says that the identity of the Defendant was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is also possible that Mr. Rowe, on behalf of the Defendant, was arguing that a defence of due diligence has been made out, although it was not entirely clear from his submissions that this was his intention. There was no challenge presented to the remaining elements of the offence or the particulars added to the charge on the Information.

[61] The leading case in this area is R. v. Dillman, [2008] O.J. No. 1120. In that case, at paragraph 11, the court took the view that the section is meant to be interpreted to mean that drivers, before making a turn “… “shall first ensure that the movement can be made in safety” or “ shall first take all reasonable steps to ensure that the movement can be made in safety”, words that don’t suggest a guarantee but rather the exercise of reasonable care: see R. v. Z-H Paper Products Ltd. (1979), 27 O.R. (2d) 570 (Ont. Div. Ct.).” The court also confirmed that there is a “heavy onus” on a turning vehicle to ensure that the turn can be made safely (para 15)

[62] In an appeal against conviction, the Court in R. v. Goldhawk, 2015 ONCJ 626, para 23, has further confirmed this approach to the standard of care expected of drivers making turns under s.142(1):

It is clear from the facts in this case that the operator of the motorcycle Mr. Clark by operating his motorcycle at the speed he was and deciding to pass multiple cars was engaging in conduct that might very well have been a contributing factor to the accident. It is not however within the scope of the inquiry in this case to determine or apportion the degree of fault or liability on the part of each of the drivers relative to the other. Even if Mr. Clark was the primary cause of the accident (I’m not saying that he is) that would not in and of itself absolve Miss Goldhawk from liability for the offence with which she is charged.

[63] These cases make it clear that drivers are held to a high standard when they make their turns. They are expected to make sure they check for other drivers and pedestrians in the area to ensure they can make their turn in safety. Some expectation of there being errors on the part of other users of the road is built into this duty.

Eye Witness Testimony

[64] The witnesses all gave strikingly similar testimony even though only two were known to one another. They all testified to their being nothing in the weather conditions of that day to cause a lack of visibility.

[65] The two witnesses who actually saw the Honda Ridgeline strike the pedestrian, being Ms. Blatchford and Mr. Duggal, both saw the pedestrian go up and then back down.

[66] All three witnesses who saw the pedestrian prior to the accident saw the lady at the intersection waiting properly for the light to indicate she could cross. They all saw her within the crosswalk and not start crossing until her light turned green. Mr. Duggal even saw the pedestrian walking signal for her to cross.

[67] All the civilian witness testimony remained consistent throughout direct and cross-examination, except for one witness, Mr. Gill, and only on the issue of whether he heard the Defendant make the exclamation after hitting the pedestrian or saw him mouth the words. However, even if we excluded all of Mr. Gill’s testimony, which we need not do in my view, the testimony of all the other witnesses was both internally and externally consistent and there was no reason to believe they testified to seeing and hearing anything more than they actually saw and heard. The other witnesses are not known to one another, did not discuss their testimony with one another and did not hear each other’s testimony.

[68] I find Mr. Rowe’s suggestion that all the witnesses except Mr. Duggal were lying or colluding to be groundless. If he wanted to present this theory as any more than mere speculation, he should have put it to the witnesses when they were on the stand. He did not do so and there was nothing in their testimony that supports this view.

Motor Vehicle Collision Report and Police Testimony

[69] The Motor Vehicle Collision Report provided a summary or reconstruction of what happened that day using the physical evidence found at the scene, and examination of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Coroner’s determination of cause of death and the witness reports. The conclusion is one with which I agree based on all of the evidence presented at trial that I have accepted.

[70] The only finding I can make in light of the consistent evidence of the witnesses, and the Collision Report as well as the associated exhibits, is that Mr. Ratnasabapathy made a right turn, not in safety on March 17, 2019 and struck Ms. Grewal, who was properly crossing at the green light facing both her and the Defendant. She died as a result of this collision.

[71] I accept the witnesses’ testimony, supported by the Collision Report, that Ms. Grewal was crossing when she was allowed to and within the pedestrian crosswalk. I agree that Mr. Ratnasabapathy should have been checking for pedestrians and should have stopped to let her cross, but did not, and instead accelerated forward to make his right turn, striking her.

[72] There was nothing that prevented him from seeing Ms. Grewal at the sidewalk and during her crossing, except possibly the items he chose to have hanging in his windshield or possibly the conversation he may have been engaged in on his phone using his Bluetooth at the time. I cannot say for sure what prevented him from seeing Ms. Grewal, but, based on all of the evidence, it is clear that he should have seen her and stopped for her. By not doing so, he did not make his right turn safely. There was nothing in the evidence that raised any doubt about this.

[73] Mr. Rowe put some scenarios to Officer Mooney during cross examination. He asked if Ms. Grewal was not crossing in the crosswalk but was “jaywalking”. Mr. Rowe asked if Ms. Grewal intentionally walked in front of the truck. The Officer disagreed with all of these suggestions and I find no basis for any of these from the evidence. They are unsubstantiated speculation.

[74] Even if Ms. Grewal was not crossing within the crosswalk, the Defendant was still responsible for checking for pedestrians who may not always be crossing exactly within the boundaries of the crosswalk. He would still be responsible for not safely making his right turn by striking her with his vehicle. I rely on the ruling in R. v. Goldhawk, and R. v. Dillman discussed earlier to support this view. There is a heavy onus on drivers who make turns to do so safely even if others are not acting totally safely. In this case, the pedestrian had the right of way, even if she was “jaywalking” and not strictly following the law. Other witnesses who were driving clearly saw her.

[75] Indeed, Mr. Rowe conceded that notwithstanding his view that most of the witnesses presented were not being truthful, he described Mr. Duggal as “the only witness who told the truth.” As discussed earlier, Mr. Duggal testified that he saw the light for the other street turn green and saw a pedestrian on his left side start walking. He said he also saw the white-coloured pedestrian walking sign appear for her before she started walking. He then saw a green-coloured “jeep” that looked like a truck make a right turn and hit her when she was crossing within the crosswalk, about 5 or 6 feet into her crossing. In accepting Mr. Duggal’s testimony as to what happened, the Defence essentially accepted that Mr. Ratnasabapathy did not make his turn in safety and that this caused him to strike Ms. Grewal.

[76] Mr. Rowe also suggested that based on where the Defendant’s truck was found and photographed in comparison to the blood stains, there is no way he could have struck Ms. Grewal if she was crossing within the crosswalk. He also suggested that he could not have stopped in time if Ms. Grewal jumped out into the road. I cannot agree with any of this. The Collision Report and Officer testimony provided an explanation as to why Mr. Ratnasabapathy’s vehicle was so far along into the turn and that is because his stop in response to hitting Ms. Grewal could not be instantaneous. It took time for his vehicle to come to a complete stop. Ms. Grewal herself was thrown some distance forward along the road as a result of being a fairly small person and being hit at the speed the Defendant was determined to be travelling.

[77] In terms of Ms. Grewal jumping into the road unexpectedly, there is nothing in the evidence to support this. There is, however, a great deal of evidence that she properly entered the intersection when it was her turn to cross and did so within the crosswalk.

[78] I do not accept that the defence of due diligence was successful in this case for these reasons.

Identity of the Defendant

[79] Another issue argued by the Defence is that Mr. Ratnasabapathy’s identity was not proven by the Prosecution. With respect, I disagree.

[80] All the civilian witnesses saw the driver of the truck that struck the pedestrian and gave similar descriptions of him. Several saw him in the driver’s seat of the pickup truck after striking the pedestrian and later speak to police at the scene. Ms. Blatchford saw him exit the driver’s seat. Ms. Heer testified that she pointed him out to police after seeing him in the driver’s seat.

[81] All the civilian witnesses’ descriptions of the driver of the Ridgeline matched the Defendant who repeatedly attended court on this matter during the trial at various times in person and by zoom video, visible to the Court.

[82] Their descriptions matched the photo of the Defendant that the police took while they were interviewing him just after the accident after having had him pointed out to them by civilian witnesses (Exhibit 9).

[83] The Prosecutor provided a search by date of the vehicle bearing the Licence Plate and VIN that Officer Mooney obtained from the involved vehicle at the scene of the collision. That document was marked Exhibit 4. In it, the Ministry of Transportation confirmed that the Defendant was the owner of the Honda Ridgeline with the licence plate as indicated on the Information on the date of the offence.

[84] Mr. Rowe said that Ms. Blatchford’s identity testimony was unreliable because she said she told the driver of the vehicle that struck the lady not to touch the lady and described the driver similarly to the other witnesses. However, when Mr. Duggal testified, he said a “white lady” told him not to touch the lady. Therefore, Mr. Rowe concluded that Ms. Blatchford confused the two men. That is not how I see it. Mr. Rowe did not put this theory to any of the witnesses. He never asked Ms. Blatchford or Mr. Duggal if she told only one person not to touch the lady or if it was possible she confused the driver of the truck in question with another person on scene, or if perhaps she was telling anyone who tried to assist the lady not to touch her. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest she ever confused the Defendant with anyone else on the scene. In fact, in her witness statement to police at the time, marked Exhibit 3, and which Mr. Rowe referred her to a number of times during her cross-examination, she states “…she was so mangled up I didn’t let anyone touch her [emphasis added].” This implies she may have told several people not to touch Ms. Grewal.

[85] Officer Jason Henry testified and said that witnesses on scene pointed to a male on the sidewalk as being the driver they saw, and that he was wearing a blue shirt jacket, thicker than a shirt, but not a coat. This matches the description of Mr. Ratnasabapathy in the photo taken that day of the police interview with him (Exhibit 9). The photo matches all the descriptions provided by all witnesses and matches the person the Court saw repeatedly attend on this case as the Defendant named on the Information. Officer Henry confirmed the photo was an accurate image of how the Defendant appeared on the date of the accident, including the earpiece his ear that the witnesses observed the driver to have both in the driver’s seat and after he exited the driver’s seat.

[86] The same person asked Officer Henry if he could go into his vehicle at the scene and get his dashcam out. Officer Henry did not allow him to do so and asked him to sit in the police cruiser, which he did. Then Officer Henry turned him over to Officer Mooney, who spoke to him in the cruiser.

[87] When Officer Mooney spoke to the Defendant who was sitting in officer Henry’s cruiser, he identified the person he was speaking to via his Driver’s Licence, which had the Defendant’s name and date of birth on it. Officer Mooney pointed him out in court during the first day of trial sitting next to his defence Representative as being the same person he spoke to at the scene that he understood to be the driver involved in the collision from the Officer that directed him to the cruiser.

[88] I have no doubt that Mr. Ratnasabapathy was present at the scene of the collision, and was the driver of the Ridgeline that struck Ms. Grewal that day.

Correctness of the Section Used to Charge the Defendant

[89] A final issue argued by the Defence is that the Defendant was charged under the wrong section of the HTA. Mr. Rowe argued that he should have been charged under s. 141. With respect, I disagree. The wording of s.142(1) of the HTA clearly includes within it a requirement that drivers make their turns safely and that is a violation not to do so. Mr. Ratnasabapathy was charged under the correct section.

Conclusion

[90] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the right turn Mr. Ratnasabapathy made on March 17, 2019, was not made in safety and that he did not exercise reasonable care in making the turn. I am satisfied based on the evidence I accepted that the Prosecution has proven all elements and particulars of the matter beyond a reasonable doubt. There will be a conviction entered against Mr. Ratnasabapathy under section 142(1) of the HTA.

Released: September 3, 2024 Signed: Justice of the Peace Natalia Krayzman