ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: R. v. Mehanathan, 2026 ONCJ 12 DATE: 2026-01-09 NEWMARKET
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
THANISH MEHANATHAN
JUDGMENT
Evidence and Submissions Heard: November 27, 28, 2025.
Delivered: January 9, 2026.
Ms. Tharziha Ganeshamoorthy............................................................. counsel for the Crown Mr. David Locke............................................................................... counsel for the defendant
KENKEL J.:
Introduction
1Police responded to a citizen call about an erratic driver who parked by an LCBO. The complainant watching from across the road saw a male and a female exit the car and walk to the liquor store. Constable Lord found the Honda that matched the description and plate number. He spoke to a woman in the back seat, but she said the driver left in an Uber. Officers subsequently spoke to two men who walked towards the car from the Shoppers Drug Mart at the other side of the plaza. Mr. Mehanathan was arrested for Impaired Operation. Breath tests at the station resulted in a further charge of having a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit within 2 hours of operation (80+).
2The evidence and the submissions of counsel identify the following issues for decision:
- Has the Crown proved that Mr. Mehanathan operated the vehicle?
- Charter ss 8,9 – Was the initial detention of Mr. Mehanathan lawful? Were the arrest and the breath demand based on reasonable grounds?
- Charter s 10 – Should Mr. Mehanathan have been advised of his right to counsel during the period of investigative detention? After the arrest, was Mr. Mehanathan advised of his right to counsel without delay?
- Charter s 24(2) – Should the breath test evidence be excluded to remedy any Charter breach?
Identification of the Driver
3The complainant did not directly identify the driver at trial. He had only one opportunity to see the driver at close range. At the intersection of Main Street and Winona Drive in Stouffville, the caller briefly saw the other driver stopped to his right. He described the driver as male, mid to late 20’s, darker skin colour, wearing a toque. He saw there was a person on the passenger side, but he was unable to describe that person.
4When the vehicle stopped near an LCBO store the caller stopped and watched from across the road. He saw two persons leave the car and walk towards the LCBO. He told the 911 operator it might be a white male and a female. In the same call he later referred to the two persons who left the car as “the couple”. He repeatedly identified one of those two parties as female.
5The caller told the 911 operator that the female and the male returned to the car and the male was “jumping around the car”. Thirteen seconds later the 911 audio the operator asked him to confirm that he saw the first officer arrive in the LCBO parking lot.
6The caller’s evidence was internally inconsistent as to whether he had seen the two people return to the car. In cross-examination he said he hadn’t, but on the 911 call he told the operator that he did. The observation of a female and a male jumping around the car was only seconds before the first officer arrived, but by that time there was nobody outside the car. The caller confirmed the officer stopped at the right car. At that point he said, “I don’t know where the couple went”.
7The caller’s evidence was also inconsistent in cross-examination as to whether he was stationary or moving when the police arrived.
8When P.C. Lord arrived, there was nobody outside the vehicle. There was a female passenger in the back seat, but no driver or front passenger. The officer walked into the parking lot to search for the couple. He found Mr. Mehanathan and another male coming towards the car not from the LCBO area, but from the direction of Shoppers Drug Mart which the ICC video showed was further East in the plaza past a few other stores.
9Constable Lord determined that he did not have grounds to arrest any of the three persons as the driver of the suspect vehicle. He phoned the complainant to obtain further information. The call was not recorded, but in over 5 minutes of discussion the officer obtained only one further identifier for the driver. The complainant told him the person had two rings on his left hand. That had not been mentioned to the 911 operator shortly after the observation at Winona.
10Ministry of Transportation records identify Mr. Mehanathan as one of several registered owners of the Honda. Mr. Mehanathan had a Honda key on his person, but the police did not determine whether it operated the vehicle they detained.
11The Crown submits that the direct observations of the caller combined with the circumstantial evidence identifies Mr. Mehanathan as the driver beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence submits that while Mr. Mehanathan is the only one of the final three at the car who had darker skin, the evidence does not prove he was the driver. The observations of the complainant are inconsistent internally and inconsistent with external circumstances. The focus on the rings as a key identifier is weak where there was no evidence as to whether the other two persons detained had rings on their left hands. The evidence as a whole leaves a reasonable doubt.
12Looking at the ICC video of Mr. Mehanathan’s arrest, the one feature that stands out is his full beard. If you were asked to describe him, that would be one of the first things you would mention. Yet the complainant never said that the driver had a beard. The identification was understandably vague given the very brief look the complainant had at Winona, and the distance between him and the vehicle later across the street at the LCBO plaza. After a 5-minute call the only further information provided was that the driver had two rings. That was the basis for the arrest.
13As Mr. Locke pointed out in final submissions, the two rings on the left hand doesn’t uniquely identify Mr. Mehanathan where there is no evidence whether the other two persons also had rings on their left hand. The presence of a significant distinguishing feature that was not mentioned also detracts from the identification.
14The observations at the LCBO are confusing. Two people left the car, a male and a female. Nothing was said about either getting out of a back seat. They were seen to walk towards the LCBO entrance. The complainant said he saw them return to the car and the male was jumping around. But seconds later when the police arrived the male was gone. There was a woman inside the vehicle, but the complainant never said he saw anyone enter back into the Honda. Later Mr. Mehanathan was found walking with a male towards the Honda, coming from the Shoppers Drug Mart not the LCBO. Both Mr. Mehanathan and the other man kept walking towards the officer, and when questioned both immediately stated they weren’t driving. They could not be the white male and female seen by the complainant.
15The Crown’s case does not rest upon the direct observations of the complainant alone. However, considering the evidence as a whole including the circumstantial evidence, I find the Crown has failed to prove identification beyond a reasonable doubt.
Charter ss 8,9 – Detention and Demand
16The constitutional issues do not arise given the failure to prove the identity of the driver. However, in the alternative, if the evidence had proved the identify of the driver to the criminal standard, I would find that the Crown proved the officer did have reasonable suspicion for the investigative detention of Mr. Mehanathan. The accused’s plain intoxication and the evidence available to the officer ultimately provided reasonable grounds for the arrest and approved instrument demand.
Charter s 10 – Right to Counsel on Detention
17Mr. Mehanathan was provided with right to counsel advice in the police car immediately after arrest. He said to the officer, “You were supposed to say this way before”. He was right.
18The in-car-camera video of P.C. Bosnek showed P.C. Lord spoke to Mr. Mehanathan and another male at 1911h. Mr. Mehanathan wasn’t arrested until 1923h. The time in the interim was spent on further investigation including a lengthy 5-minute call to the complainant to determine if there were grounds to take any further steps.
19Driving is a regulated activity and right to counsel advice is reasonably suspended during brief roadside investigations of driver sobriety. However, this investigation was not brief. It’s hard to determine the reason for the delay other than the problems with driver identification. The officer did not record the long discussion with the complainant or make notes beyond the mention of the rings. While I accept that P.C. Lord advised Mr. Mehanathan that he was detained for an impaired driving investigation, even that was not in the officer’s notes.
20In that context, the Crown has little evidence to justify the length of the detention without right to counsel advice. I find the applicant has proved a breach of s 10(b).
Charter s 24(2) – Exclusion of Evidence
21The officer’s failure to read right to counsel advice when the detention became extended was not due to a wilful or reckless disregard for the accused’s Charter rights. P.C. Lord immediately provided right to counsel advice on arrest and otherwise was mindful of Mr. Mehanathan’s rights. It was not provided earlier because the officer didn’t believe he had grounds for arrest and he was investigating a complaint of impaired operation where often that right is briefly suspended. He did advise Mr. Mehanathan of the reason for his detention in compliance with s 10(a) of the Charter. The breach is not a serious one where the officer complied with all other s 10 Charter requirements in a timely way.
22Mr. Mehanathan’s statement when the right to counsel advice was provided showed that he already knew he had a right to call a lawyer and he was aware that the s 10(b) right generally arises upon detention. That does not relieve the officer of the duty to provide that advice, but it shows that the delay in right to counsel advice had a limited impact on the accused’s rights in this case.
23Society reasonably expects that criminal cases will be adjudicated on their merits.
24Balancing all of the factors, I would find the admission of the breath test evidence in these circumstances would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Conclusion
25I find the Crown has failed to prove the charge alleged beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge is dismissed.
Delivered: January 9, 2026.
Justice Joseph F. Kenkel