ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE DATE: 2024·02·16 NEWMARKET
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
RONALD HUNT
JUDGMENT
Evidence and Submissions Heard: February 15,16, 2024. Delivered: February 16, 2024.
Counsel: Mr. Charles Lamy ................................................................................... counsel for the Crown Mr. Christopher Avery ..................................................................... counsel for the defendant
KENKEL J.:
Introduction
1Mr. Hoard was driving eastbound on Ravenshoe Road in the early evening around 5:00 p.m. He saw a black pickup truck ahead slowing down, then the truck appeared to attempt to turn right southbound onto Kennedy Road. The truck missed the turn and crashed into the opposite ditch, knocking down a stop sign. Mr. Hoard immediately pulled over behind the black truck and stopped. He saw a male exit from the driver’s seat and a female exit the passenger’s seat. He spoke with both of them to make sure they were ok, then he left the scene while calling 911. When the police arrived, Mr. Hunt’s wife Ms. Blackwood told police she had been driving. Subsequent investigation by the York Regional Police led to Mr. Hunt being charged with Impaired Operation and “80+”.
2The sole remaining issue at trial is whether the Crown has proved the identification of the driver beyond a reasonable doubt.
Witnesses – Reliability
3Mr. Hoard, P.C. Lindsay and Ms. Blackwood were all sober at the time of the incident. All three were present at the scene and made direct observations of the events they described. The evidence of P.C. Lindsay was assisted by detailed notes made shortly after her observations. It was still light out when the incident occurred. It was not snowing or raining. There’s nothing that detracts from the reliability of any of those three witnesses.
4Mr. Hunt was heavily intoxicated that day. He left work at noon and went to a nearby bar to drink with friends. He couldn’t remember how much he drank there, but he recalled beer being served in pitchers and they also were having shots of alcohol. He thought there might have been an occasion for the drinking, but he couldn’t remember. He and his friends left the bar and were driven by a sober driver to Keswick. He called his wife to pick him up. He had more beer while waiting.
5Mr. Hunt “can’t remember much” about the incident that led to the crash. He described himself as “spaced out” at the time. He remembered jumping out of the passenger seat, and going to the driver’s side to help his wife, but when asked about minutes later when the police arrived, he testified “I don’t remember much around that time”. In cross-examination he added that he also thinks he had a shot or two of whisky in Keswick in addition to beer.
6Mr. Hunt remembers little of the events of that day except for the moments after the crash where he recalled in detail his actions instantly jumping out of the vehicle and moving to the driver’s side to assist his wife. He also described returning to the driver’s side of the car and his exact positioning “half in/half out”, “half sitting on the seat” where he vomited while trying to get a phone from the centre console. His memory ended there.
7He did not remember the truck that stopped immediately directly behind his vehicle. He did not remember the driver of that truck getting out and walking towards him. He didn’t remember speaking with that driver. He “didn’t remember much” about events after the police arrived.
8The evidence including Mr. Hunt’s testimony shows that he has almost no recollection of the events of that day due to intoxication. His stated memory focused on the minutes right after the crash is completely unreliable in that context and I find I can place no weight on his testimony.
Witnesses – Credibility
9Mr. Hoard does not know Mr. Hunt or his wife. He stopped after the GMC Sierra went off the road to see whether the occupants of the vehicle were injured. His involvement was brief, and he left while calling 911. He was the only neutral witness as between the Crown and defence.
10Mr. Hoard’s work truck as described was somewhat elevated relative to the Kia in front, so he was in a good position to see the circumstances of the accident. He saw the Sierra slow, but he did not see another vehicle cause it to take an evasive manoeuvre.
11He stopped immediately after the Sierra went into the ditch. His description of stopping behind and perpendicular to the angled Sierra was explained in cross-examination and consistent with the photographs taken of the truck. His stopped position gave him a direct view of the driver’s side as well as the passenger side. He saw a male get out of the driver’s seat and a female exit from the passenger side. He walked over and spoke to the male and noticed that person was covered in vomit. He was right by the open driver’s door at the time they spoke so he could see the driver’s side door had vomit on it and there was vomit on the dashboard as well.
12Mr. Hunt and Ms. Blackwood both denied speaking with Mr. Hoard. They did not see him or his truck at the scene. Mr. Hoard stopped seconds after the Sierra drove into the ditch. His evidence as to timing is consistent with his position second behind the Sierra. Neither party had exited the vehicle. That evidence is consistent with the timing of his arrival and the circumstances of the crash.
13Mr. Hoard’s evidence that he was present at the scene is supported by the fact of his 911 call in which he gave the location and a description of the crash. The defence concedes that the evidence shows he was on scene, but the defence submits he never approached the Sierra and never spoke to Mr. Hunt or Ms. Blackwood. He did not identify the driver while speaking with 911.
14Mr. Hoard’s observation of vomit on the driver and vomit in specific locations inside the vehicle were confirmed by the same observations made by P.C. Lindsay. Mr. Hoard could not have made those observations unless he spoke to Mr. Hunt at the driver’s door as he described.
15The defence is correct that Mr. Hoard was not asked by either 911 operator who was driving. The submission that his failure to identify the driver to 911 detracts from his present evidence about seeing Mr. Hunt get out of the driver’s seat is answered in part by the portions of the 911 call where Mr. Hoard refers to the driver several times as “he” where there was only a male and a female in the car. I agree that reference is a small circumstance, but it’s a circumstance consistent with his evidence which tends to contradict the assertion that he didn’t speak to Mr. Hunt and didn’t know the identify of the driver at the time of the call.
16There are no concerns about the reliability of Ms. Blackwood’s evidence, but considering her testimony in the context of all of the evidence I cannot find her testimony credible.
17She was a sober witness so there is no apparent reason she did not see Mr. Hoard’s truck that parked adjacent to their truck immediately after the crash. There’s no reason she didn’t remember Mr. Hoard coming up to the vehicle. There’s no reason she didn’t remember that he spoke with them. Even the two-year gap since the event does not reasonably explain her testimony on these points. Her evidence that denied he was present was not credible given all the credible evidence of Mr. Hoard, P.C. Lindsay and the circumstantial evidence. Mr. Hunt’s evidence suffers from the same problem on that essential point.
18Mr. Hoard had to be present to make the observations at the driver’s door, but if he was present that means he saw who exited the truck and from which side. The time between the crash with deployed air bags and Mr. Hoard stopping immediately doesn’t allow for any of the actions described by Mr. Hunt and Ms. Blackwood. The evidence shows Mr. Hoard was close to the Sierra with a direct view of the driver’s door when he saw Mr. Hunt exit first from that side. Ms. Blackwood exited from the passenger side.
19Other circumstantial evidence, including the fact that Mr. Hoard returned to access the vehicle to obtain identification from the driver’s side and Ms. Blackwood entered the vehicle later to retrieve her wallet and cigarettes from the passenger side are further circumstances consistent with Mr. Hoard’s evidence and inconsistent with the testimony of the defence witnesses.
Conclusion
20This is a not a case of direct in-dock identification. The Crown’s case rests upon direct and circumstantial evidence they say collectively proves Mr. Hunt was driving the Sierra at the time of the crash.
21I’ve considered the evidence of Mr. Hunt in the context of all of the evidence and I find it is neither reliable nor credible. It does not leave a doubt either alone or in combination with other evidence. Considering the evidence as a whole, I find I must reject the evidence of Ms. Blackwood as incredible. On all of the evidence, I can find no credible evidence that reasonably could leave a doubt. The Crown has proved that the only reasonable inference is that Mr. Hunt was driving his vehicle at the time it left the roadway at Ravenshoe and Kennedy Road as alleged.
22Mr. Hunt will be found guilty of impaired driving. The “80+” count will be stayed.
Delivered: February 16, 2024.
Justice Joseph F. Kenkel