R. v. Singh, 2026 ONCJ 23

WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(2.1) of the Criminal Code. These subsections and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(2.1), read as follows:

486.4 (2.1) Victim under 18 — Other offences — Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

(2.2) Mandatory order on application — In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order; and

(c) if an order is made, as soon as feasible, inform the victim of the existence of the order and of their right to apply to revoke or vary it.

486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. Singh, 2026 ONCJ 23 DATE: January 15, 2026 COURT FILE No.: 24-15401175

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

JASKIRAT SINGH

Before: Justice C.A. Vanderhooft Heard on: October 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 21, 2025 Reasons for Judgment released on: January 15, 2026

J. Clouston and R. Gill, counsel for the Crown. K. Jones, counsel for the Accused.

Vanderhooft J.:

Overview

1Highway 17 between Kenora and Thunder Bay forms an undivided 486 kilometre stretch of the Trans Canada Highway in Northwestern Ontario. This two-lane undivided portion of Highway 17 contains designated passing zones, where traffic going in one direction has two lanes to allow for safe passing, and one lane moving in the opposite direction.

2On the morning of April 21, 2023, the J. family left Kenora in their Hyundai Pallisade heading to a spring hockey tournament in Thunder Bay. Their 15-year-old daughter had been invited to play in the tournament and her 11-year-old brother sat next to her in the back seat, tagging along for a hockey trip like so many Canadian families do across the country. They stopped in Dryden for a quick break before continuing their journey to Thunder Bay.

3Highway 17 from Thunder Bay to Dryden had been closed the night before due to a significant spring storm that covered the roads in snow, slush, and ice. Jaskirat Singh (Singh) stayed in Thunder Bay due to the road closure and started his journey west on Highway 17 from Thunder Bay early the same morning. Just outside of Dryden, before reaching Wabigoon, the J. family came over a small hill and faced a Dodge Charger driven by the accused coming at them in the oncoming lane. Unable to avoid the collision, the J. vehicle was struck on the passenger side from the front to the back and projected into the oncoming lane of traffic.

4The first collision struck the rear passenger side of their vehicle directly in line with where one of the children sat. The second collision, involving a Freightliner tractor-trailer, struck the rear driver's side of the vehicle directly where the other child sat. Both children were projected from the vehicle after the second collision and died from injuries sustained due to the collisions. Their mother was seriously injured and taken to the Dryden hospital. The accused was not injured, but his car was disabled. He remained on scene until he was transported by attending officers of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) to their Dryden detachment.

5Singh has admitted jurisdiction, identification, causation and the date of the alleged offence. The sole issue before me is whether Singh's driving amounted to criminal negligence or dangerous driving within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

6The accused is charged as follows:

(1) that Jaskirat Singh on or about the 21^st day of April in the year 2023 at the Township of Zealand in the said Region, by criminal negligence did cause the death of C.J., by operating a conveyance in a manner that was dangerous to the public, contrary to Section 220(b) of the Criminal Code

(2) and further that Jaskirat Singh on or about the 21^st day of April in the year 2023 at the Township of Zealand in the said Region, by criminal negligence did cause the death of E.J. by operating a conveyance in a manner that was dangerous to the public, contrary to Section 220(b) of the Criminal Code

(3) and further that Jaskirat Singh on or about the 21^st day of April in the year 2023 at the Township of Zealand in the said Region, did by criminal negligence cause bodily harm to S.J. by operating a conveyance in a manner that was dangerous to the public, contrary to Section 221 of the Criminal Code.

Facts

The Crown's Case

Agreed Statement of Facts

7Two agreed statements of fact were filed as Exhibit 1 in this trial. The first, in summary, contains agreements that the offence happened on April 21, 2023, that jurisdiction was agreed, that video from a FedEx truck on that day can be used for the truth of its contents as accurately depicting the collision scene, and a 911 call was admitted for the truth of its contents.

8Further, the parties agreed that the medical records of all three complainants could be tendered from the Dryden Regional Health Centre. They also agreed on the continuity of the airbag control modules seized by the police and that the Engine Control Module (ECM) from the Freightliner was accurate. They also agreed that two of the OPP officers were qualified experts in collision reconstruction.

9The second agreed statement of fact related to the evidence that would have been offered by a pathologist. Both deceased children suffered significant blunt force trauma that caused their deaths. Causation, in this case, was ultimately admitted by the accused at the conclusion of the trial.

10Despite that admission, there was some discussion in the agreed statement of facts, and during the trial, whether the children were wearing seatbelts. While their parents believed that they were, the evidence does not suggest that to be the case. The accused agreed, however, that the collision is what caused their deaths.

11At the conclusion of the trial, the accused admitted identification.

Civilian Witnesses

S.J.

12The Crown called five civilian witnesses. The first, S.J., was the mother of the E.J. and C.J., and owner of the Hyundai Pallisade the family travelled in that day. S.J. was in the front passenger seat while her husband drove.

13S.J. recounted the details leading up to the collision. The family packed the vehicle and left Kenora around 8:00 a.m. They stopped for some food and to get C.J.'s skates sharpened before getting out on the road. When they arrived in Dryden, the family stopped at a McDonald's on Highway 17. She described the Highway as wet, with snow on the ground, and noted that clean-up trucks (plows) were out.

14S.J. did not recall if it was snowing when they left Dryden, or what speed they were travelling. She recalled that they were on the road for about 10 – 15 minutes and that she had looked back to see the kids sleeping. Her only recollection of the collision is that she remembered things happened very quickly. She said they were coming around a bend or straightening out in the road and there was a vehicle directly in front of them. She also saw a row of westbound vehicles on the other side of the road travelling in the opposite direction.

15S.J. described the vehicle coming at them "head on", and that she could tell the vehicle was going to hit them. Her next memory is waking up in the hospital – she had been knocked unconscious and had multiple bruises and injuries. That is when she learned that her daughter C.J. did not survive the collision, and that hospital staff were working on E.J. S.J. and her husband then spent time with both of their children when it was determined that E.J. would also not survive.

16Her memory of the collision itself, understandably, was not particularly detailed given the injuries she sustained.

C.J.

17C.J. recounted very similar details about the day leading up to the collision. He described the road conditions that day as snow covered due to a winter storm when they left Kenora. By the time they left Dryden to continue the trip, C.J. said that it was partially sunny with no snow falling. He said he was travelling east at 80 – 90 km/hr, and that he was not using cruise control as he was driving according to conditions and it would not have been safe to be on cruise control.

18C.J. described the road outside of Dryden as having a fresh dusting of snow which made the roads wet. He did not pass anyone, and nobody passed him as he left Dryden. About 10-15 minutes east of Dryden, C.J. described"coming up on a line of vehicles, first was a transport truck, I slowed down, as we turned onto the stretch there was a vehicle in our lane travelling westbound."

19C.J. further explained that"as soon as we got on the stretch he was headed in our direction and there was no way to avoid the collision. I tried to drive toward the ditch to avoid it, but by then it was too late, and that's when our cars hit." He believed there were two lanes of travel in that area, one going east, and one going west.

20When asked if he saw how the vehicle entered his lane, C.J. said it was already in his lane, and that when they came across the line of cars onto the stretch it was already there. He estimated seeing the Dodge 50 – 75 yards away, so he tried to turn toward the ditch.

21C.J. said he next remembered was standing on the road, running to his kids, and seeing them on the road. He was yelling for his wife to help, then he layed down with his son trying to wake him up and put a blanket over his daughter. He then tried to get his wife out of the vehicle while other people tried to help him and tried to help the kids.

22When C.J. saw the person, who turned out to be Singh, get out of the car that hit them, he confronted Singh, was yelling at him, and tried to fight him. C.J. was separated from Singh by one of the bystanders. C.J.'s reaction, and the aftermath of the collision were captured by a FedEx truck's dash camera video.

23C.J.'s reaction to the aftermath of the collision makes sense – he knew that Singh was in the oncoming lane, and he knew that the Singh caused the collision. C.J. did nothing wrong, could not have done more, and was obviously upset at the person that caused his children to be ejected from his vehicle and laying on Highway 17. I accept his evidence that the Dodge was in the oncoming lane for a period of time prior to the collision.

Chris Pert

24Chris Pert was driving westbound on Highway 17 from Thunder Bay back to Manitoba in a Sobey's tractor-trailer. He had been driving that route weekly, and left Thunder Bay on April 21 at around 7:30 or 8:00 in the morning. The road conditions were, heading west from Thunder Bay, very slick, snow packed, with visibility reduced, and there had been a good snow storm that day. He said it was snowing throughout the day, and in those conditions, he was driving 40 – 50 km/hr to be safe.

25In describing the collision, Pert said that there was a vehicle that was passing the semis, weaving in and out of semis, that it was a little bit of a distance ahead of him and then it went to pass another semi. That is when the car drove into an oncoming vehicle and they collided. He said it was a Dodge Charger going in the same direction as he was driving.

26Pert said that he first noticed the Charger when it was behind him trying to pass, and once it passed him it continued to do the same thing with other semis ahead of him. He described the Charger tucking back in front of him, and then going out to continue passing more semis. Pert could not, in the area where the collision took place, see the centre line on the Highway as it was buried under snow. When asked about the driving of the Charger, Pert described it as erratic for the conditions.

27Pert described observing the collision about a kilometre ahead of him, going up a hill. He could not see vehicles past the hill, and said that"the Charger was in the oncoming lane. The other vehicle peaked the hill just before the collision." When asked if the Charger stayed in a straight line, Pert said that"just before the collision I assume he hit the brakes because he was sliding after that."

28In observing the collision itself, Pert noted car parts flying everywhere, and when he stopped, he realized another semi had been involved. Pert heard a man going at the driver of the Charger saying that"you killed my kids you killed my kids" while Pert was trying to pull the man away.

29In cross examination, when asked if the Charger was sliding before the collision Pert made it clear that it was not. He said that the Charger was driving straight in the oncoming lane for 5 – 10 seconds, and that he was unable to see the centre lane, or the white lines on the Highway at all. He maintained that the Charger started sliding just before the collision. Since the collision, Mr. Pert has stopped driving long-haul trucks.

Haded Ullah

30Haded Ullah (Ullah) was driving from Thunder Bay to Winnipeg on April 21, 2023. Because the weather conditions were so bad, he parked his semi truck at the Thunder Bay Walmart where he slept the night before. He started driving at 6:00 a.m. on the 21^st, and his ultimate destination was Calgary.

31Ullah described the driving conditions on Highway 17 as"snowing, bad, everyone was slowing to 40 – 50, lots of cars were in a line, and everyone was following each other." When asked about the weather, he described it as slippery and that nobody wanted to take the risk for an accident.

32Ullah said that the Dodge was trying to overtake other vehicles, came out of the line, and then Hyundai, who was in his proper lane was hit head-on. In describing the driving of the Hyundai, Ullah said that the driver tried to avoid the collision but there was no time. He described the Charger hitting the Hyundai very hard, sending it into his lane and hitting him in his lane. He said that the Charger was "overpassing" other cars from the back. When asked what he was thinking when he saw the charging passing, Ullah said"I was thinking he is making big mistake if someone coming on other lane because no room. Right on the hill when I saw the car coming within 5 – 10 seconds."

33In cross examination, Ullah maintained that there were only two lanes of travel, and that he could not see the lines on the road. He said that everyone was following the tracks of other vehicles. Clearly, in his statement, he said there were two westbound lanes in that area, and one eastbound lane. He maintained, however, that the initial collision happened in the eastbound lane. Since the collision Ullah has not been able to work as a transport driver due to the trauma of this incident.

Larry Lundy

34Larry Lundy (Lundy) works for the Government of Ontario and was driving from Thunder Bay to Dryden on April 21, 2023. He has driven that stretch of highway countless times. On that day, he described Highway 17 as varied due to the snow. The conditions were not bad out of Thunder Bay, but from Upsala the conditions became worse, then he had to slow right down near Ignace, it got a bit better, and then it was snowing in Wabigoon onward. He described the traffic leaving Wabigoon as snow covered with a long line of traffic going slow.

35Lundy carefully described the area of the collision. He said that there were two lanes moving west, but the lane furthest to his right was covered in snow so everyone was travelling in what would have been the passing lane. He could only sporadically see the lines on the road. He was essentially following the tire tracks in front of him.

36In his rearview mirror he saw the Dodge pull out and start passing to get ahead of the traffic. As the Dodge passed Lundy and a tractor trailer in front of him, a van came up over the hill, both of them were in the eastbound lane, there was a little bit of swerving and then they made contact.

37According to Lundy, the Charger stayed in the eastbound lane, but it was starting to fishtail. Specifically, he said that"in the beginning it looked like some evasion trying to happen but both vehicles were in the same lane and with the line of traffic there were not a lot of options of where to go. It happened really fast and then they collided."

38Lundy saw the collision, the ejection of the children, and the aftermath of the collision. When asked whether he passed anyone on that stretch of Highway 17, Lundy said he did not as it was too dangerous. When asked whether he would pass if he was unable to see the lines on the road Lundy would not try to pass.

39Lundy described his speed as down to 30 km/hr because the weather was so bad. He also described the hill, saying that he stayed toward the centre because there were no tracks in that lane so everyone was following a single track.

Attending OPP Officers

40When a fatal collision happens on Highway 17 in the Dryden area the OPP deploys various resources to the scene. Sgt. Boss described the general process for collision investigation teams, and how scenes like this get processed.

41Sgt. Boss arrived at the scene just before 3:30 in the afternoon. At the location of the collision, Sgt. Boss described there being one lane travelling east, and two lanes travelling west. The lanes were separated by two solid yellow lines with rumble strips, but he could not see the line until they shovelled the roadway.

42Cst. Kollman was dispatched to attend the scene at 10:48 a.m. and arrived there at 10:59 a.m. She described the roads as having lots of snow covering the road and she recalled taking longer to get to the scene than normal due to the snow and slush. She had some difficulty with traction and had to go much slower than normal travelling east from Dryden to the scene.

43When she arrived at the scene, just east of Aaron Provincial Park, she saw a man on the highway screaming and crying. She also saw two people on the road covered by blankets. She attempted CPR on E.J. as his injuries appears less extensive. She continued doing that until Emergency Medical Service members arrived at 11:04.

44The dash camera video from her police vehicle shows the eastbound Highway 17 road as wet, snow covered, slushy, and ice covered. When she parked near the scene, the roadway was clearly covered in snow.

45Cst. Gauthier received the call about a crash on Highway 17 at 10:52 a.m. and arrived at the collision scene at 11:01 a.m. He described the road conditions on his trip from Dryden to the scene as not good, snowing heavily, cloudy, with the road being wet in spots with slush in the middle of the lanes to completely slush covered. He drove slower than he normally would to an emergency call.

46Sgt. Davis also drove from Dryden to the collision scene. His dash camera video depicts the roadway as bare and wet in some places, and totally snow covered in other areas. Upon approaching the collision scene his video shows the roadway as snow covered. He would normally drive 140-150 km/hr to an emergency call like this but was going between 75 – 100 km/hr that day and felt that it was uncomfortable.

47Cst. Fults received a call about the crash at 10:48 a.m. while he was at the Dryden OPP detachment. He left at 10:50 a.m. and arrived at 11:01 a.m. The dash camera video from his cruiser shows, again, slushy roads, some portions of the highway totally covered, and icy areas, and some portions where the lines on the highway could be seen and others where they were not visible at all.

48Cst. Fults also dealt directly with Singh, leaving him in the back of his cruiser while he tried to help other officers on scene. Cst. Fults made sure Singh was medically cleared, and then took him to the Dryden OPP detachment. Singh was cautioned for dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm along with careless driving. He was given his right to counsel, exercised that right, and declined to provide a statement. He was released without being charged at that time (he was ultimately charged on June 11, 2024).

49Cst. Wright attended the scene after the other officers and was assigned to take a statement from Mr. Ullah. He had no other involvement, and did not speak about the road conditions.

50Cst. Bryck had been an OPP officer for 9 years at the time of the collision. He worked out of the Dryden OPP detachment and noted that driving in bad weather conditions is normal for him. He described the road conditions as terrible that day, with snow covered, ice packed roads that were slushy in spots and overall very poor. After watching his dash camera video, he said that the roads are very dangerous when the snow is soft and slushy, that he could hear the slush and would almost hydro plane on the snow.

51Cst. Ivanovitch arrived at the scene at 2:27 p.m. as a member of the collision reconstruction team. He was assigned to take photographs, drone photos, and to measure roadway evidence and marks on the roadway. He also collected the crash data recorder (CDR) from the Hyundai and the Charger. The evidence collected by Cst. Ivanovitch was later furnished to Cst. Robert who completed the collision reconstruction analysis.

Expert Evidence

Cst. Morris

52Cst. Morris testified as a forensic collision reconstruction expert on consent. He prepared a supplemental reconstruction report based on the Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) information downloaded from the Hyundai and the Charger. From that analysis, Cst. Morris explained the speed of the vehicles prior to and after the collision.

53The Hyundai was travelling at 88 km/hr and reduced to 43 km/hr at the time of the first collision. The throttle was not engaged during this time at all. The Hyundai driver hit the brakes, engaging the anti-lock braking system 4 seconds prior to the first collision. The point of impact was from the right front side of the Hyundai to the left, and the total change in vehicle speed after the first collision was 24 km/hr.

54The first collision and second collision were within milliseconds of each other. The second collision to the Hyundai was from the left side toward the rear right due to being struck by the Freightliner. In the first collision the airbags on the front passenger and rear passenger curtain deployed. In the second collision the front driver airbag and curtain side airbag deployed.

55The Freightliner, at the time of collision, was travelling 55.5 km/hr leading up to the collision, and 56.3 km/hr at the time of collision. No steering input could be gleaned from the Freightliner. From 56.3 km/hr at the point of collision it took the Freightliner 26 seconds to come to a stop. It did not lose any speed due to the collision given its weight.

56The information obtained by Cst. Morris ultimately assisted Cst. Robert, along with the scene measurements and photographs obtained by other officers, in coming to his opinion below.

Cst. Robert:

57Cst. Robert testified as a forensic collision reconstruction expert on consent. His report, along with his supporting documents and photos, were filed on consent (1166 pages in total). He also produced, in Exhibit 20, 3 diagrams plotting the movement of the vehicles during the collision. At the time of his testimony, Cst. Robert had been the lead investigator in 66 fatal or serious collisions and involved in 109 such collisions.

58A complete summary of Cst. Robert's testimony and report is not possible. Given the technology involved in modern vehicles, the scene examination, and the multitude of photographs taken, the reality is that a relatively brief event contains a massive amount of information. Cst. Robert's testimony, and report attempted to distill that information into an understandable reconstruction of this event.

59Cst. Robert testified that the roadway in the area where the collision took place was relatively straight and ran in a southeast – northwest direction, but for our purposes he referred to the directions as east and west. The road elevation was about 1.1 degree uphill from east to west measured from the area of the impact. The straight stretch was in a valley between two hills. For eastbound traffic the straight section was visible for 250 metres west of the area of impact. For westbound traffic, the straight was visible for 400 metres east of the area of impact. The key, however, is that the hill for westbound traffic would not have allowed westbound traffic to see vehicles until they crested the hill.

60The collision took place in an area where there was a single lane travelling eastbound separated by a double solid yellow line containing rumble strips. The westbound lanes contained two lanes of travel (one of the passing lanes on Highway 17) separate by a row of dashed white lines between those lanes, and the same double solid yellow lines with rumble strips separating the oncoming lane from the east.

61The speed limit on Highway 17 at this location was 90 km/h. The weather at the time of the collision was cloudy sky with snow fall, -2.8 to -3.1 degrees Celsius, and wind of 30-32 km/h.

62In his vehicle examination of the Charger, Cst. Robert noted that the damage to the front right passenger side of the vehicle was consistent with striking the Hyundai on its passenger side (pages 16 – 22 of his report). In his review of the damage to the Hyundai, he noted that there was damage to all sides of the vehicle (pages 23 – 34 of his report).

63Cst. Robert determined that, based on the roadway evidence, that the Hyundai was in the eastbound lane travelling at 88 km/h, down a small hill east of Thunder Lake Road. The Dodge's front right side impacted the Hyundai's right side causing damage to the rear right wheel of the Hyundai. The Dodge then entered the eastbound ditch where it remained at final rest.

64The impact of the Dodge caused the Hyundai to rotate clockwise and move laterally toward the north, in the westbound lane creating a scrape mark. The Freightliner was travelling westbound at approximately 56 km/h. After the Dodge hit the Hyundai and caused it to rotate north, the Hyundai was struck by the Freightliner in between lane one and two of the westbound lanes of traffic. The damage to the Freightliner was on the left front side, with a secondary collision to the left of the Freightliner behind the driver's steps near the fuel tank area (pages 35 – 41 of his report).

65The scene evidence, according to Cst. Robert, lead him to conclude that the Dodge struck the Hyundai in the eastbound lane the Dodge being closer to the south ditch thus enabling it to strike the Hyundai on its passenger side.

66Cst. Robert reviewed the FedEx Dash Camera video, noting that the roadway in the area of the collision, immediately after it happened. At 33 seconds into the video, the FedEx truck approached the east Thunder Lake Road entrance approximately 500 metres from the collision scene. The east bound lane was partially covered with two bare and wet wheel tracks from previous traffic. The westbound side was still two lanes of traffic at this point as they did not merge back into two undivided lanes for several metres west of this view.

67Lane one of the westbound lanes (closest to the yellow centre line) from this view was mostly covered by snow and two wide tracks from previous traffic with the track closest to the centre line bare and wet (page 48 of his report). Lane two was completely covered by snow with little to no wheel tracks, indicating most of the traffic remained in lane one when travelling through the area.

68At 57 seconds into the FedEx Dash Camera video the westbound lanes had slightly more snow coverage across the lanes with the centre line partially visible from the tire tracks of previous traffic. In watching the video, four semi trucks passed by the FedEx heading westbound as it approached the collision (one of them did not have a trailer) and appeared to be in lane one.

69At 59 seconds into the FedEx Dash Camera video as the vehicle passed the Freightliner and moved closed to the scene, a set of tire marks were observed moving toward the south and then observed curving toward the north with no overlapping impressions on those tracks (page 49 of his report, Appendix A).

70At 1:08 into the video, the same tire tracks mentioned above appeared to curve to the north that could have been caused by the Hyundai. Traffic in the westbound lanes from the video show the long line of vehicles that appear to be in lane one closest to the yellow centre lines.

71Cst. Robert considered the Airbag Control Module (ACM) information in coming to his conclusions. He said that the Hyundai travelled 102.3 metres during the 6 second time frame recorded by its ACM. The vehicle was decelerating and braking until the first collision (with the Charger). The module showed that the first collision changed the velocity of the Hyundai, showing that the principal direction of force was coming into the right side of the Hyundai. Then the second collision happened .8 seconds after the first which showed a change of velocity coming from the rear driver side. They Hyundai was braking 5 seconds prior to the first collisions, with its anti-locking brake system engaged 4 seconds prior to the collision until it was struck.

72As for the Dodge, it travelled 79.08 metres during the recording on its ACM. Its traction control system was off. Prior to hitting the Hyundai, the speed of the Dodge was dropping slowly from 76 km/h to 41 km/h in the 5 seconds leading up to the collision. The service brake switched on at 4.4 seconds, off at 2.9 seconds, on at 2.1 seconds and remained on until the deployment of the airbags.

73Cst. Robert testified that there was steering input from both the Dodge and the Hyundai prior to the collision. The Hyundai showed steering inputs of zero, then left (north) and then right (south) so that its passenger side was angled in such a way that it could be impacted. He concluded that the Hyundai was turning toward the centre lines and exposing its right side.

74Cst. Robert testified that the Dodge went from steering toward its right (north), then trying to turn to its left (south) and then increasing while it also experienced slippage or fishtailing. He said"so basically he is steering back and forth and hitting brakes and is totally in the wrong lane – fishtailing." At the time of the collision, the Dodge was facing directly west when it hit the Hyundai.

75In cross examination, Cst. Robert agreed that his attempt to plot the movement of the vehicles was not intended to be precise, but that it would be very close to where the vehicles moved in relation to the roadway evidence and the damage on the vehicles. His diagrams in Exhibit 20, and at Appendix A of his report (pages 59 to 64) showed his reliance on the physical evidence along with the drone photographs stitched together in an ortho-mosaic diagram.

The 911 Call from Singh

76Singh called 911 obviously aware of the carnage on Highway 17. When asked, he said that he was travelling toward Dryden and he demanded an ambulance. When asked to tell the operator what happened, he said"Actually, I was passing the truck and one car is coming from front and I, my car out of control." He later said that he was"Yes, actually I was crossing the truck and cars on, from front came, was coming very fast." Further, he said that he was"So, I was passing the trucks…So, uh, due to snow, my car out of control."

77When asked by the operator if he hit another car, he confirmed that he did, and then said that"my car skids and car coming." The Crown tendered the 911 call. Initially, Singh did not agree that was his voice in the call but later admitted he was the caller and admitted identification.

The Legal Framework

78Criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm is, in the context of driving offences, the most difficult to prove on the spectrum of driving offences. That is because the offence itself requires that the driver demonstrated a marked and substantial departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver, and that the driver demonstrated wanton or reckless disregard for the life and safety of others.

79Criminal negligence, unlike impaired driving or dangerous driving, cannot be prosecuted unless there is bodily harm or death.

80Dangerous driving causing death or bodily harm is distinguished from criminal negligence by only requiring a marked departure from the standard of care owed by a reasonably prudent driver in the same circumstances. The legal test for proving dangerous driving is less onerous, but the reality is that the dangerousness must still be proven objectively. A driver can be charged with dangerous driving even where there is no collision at all.

81The legal tests are cold legal questions that must be applied to the facts. The consequences are not determinative of the offence, and judges must take care to consider the driving conduct rather than the tragedy often associated to these cases. I say that because families deserve to know that the legal question is not about their grief and loss, even when that is the most prominent feature of all of this from their perspective. In some situations, a fatal collision can result in no charges at all if it was simply an accident or a momentary lapse of attention. In other situations, charges under the Highway Traffic Act may be appropriate even where a collision caused multiple deaths.

82That is to say, as the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out in R. v. Hundal, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867, at para. 43, that driving offences comprise a continuum of fault – from accidents, to civil negligence, to Highway Traffic Charges, and Criminal Code offences.

83The actus reus for criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm requires the accused to have done or omitted to do anything that it was their legal duty to do, and that the act or omission caused someone's death or bodily harm: Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 219(1), 220, and 221; R. v. Javanmardi 2019 SCC 54, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 3, at paras. 19-21. The fault element requires that the criminal act or omission represented a marked and substantial departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent person in circumstances where they either recognized and ran an obvious and serious risk to the public, or, alternatively, gave no thought to that risk: R. v. J.F. 2008 SCC 60, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 215, at para. 9; and Beatty, at para. 7 (see also R. v. Tabanao, 2024 ONCA 85 at paras. 26 and 42). The fault element of criminal negligence is assessed by the degree to which the accused's conduct departed from that of a reasonable person in the circumstances. The requisite degree of fault is elevated to a "marked and substantial" departure for criminal negligence.

84For criminal negligence, the words "wanton" or "reckless" simply mean heedless of, or without regard to, the consequences (see R. v. Waite, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1436). Criminal negligence requires a higher standard than dangerous driving in two respects. The conduct must be more marked in both the physical and mental elements of the offence. Dangerous driving requires a "marked departure" whereas criminal negligence requires a "marked and substantial" departure from the conduct expected of a reasonable person. Secondly, for criminal negligence, the "marked and substantial departure" must show a "wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others."

85Dangerous driving consists of two components: the prohibited conduct of operating a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner under the circumstances and a required degree of fault being a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person. The Supreme Court of Canada explained these concepts in R. v. Roy, 2012 SCC 26 at para. 1, and further at paras. 32 – 43.

86The Supreme Court in Roy, at para. 36, suggested that the trier of fact consider two questions concerns the mens rea, or mental element:

a. In light of all of the relevant evidence, would a reasonable person have foreseen the risk and taken steps to avoid it if possible? And

b. Was the accused's failure to foresee the risk and take steps to avoid it, if possible, a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the accused's circumstances?

87As to the reasonable person standard, the Supreme Court of Canada commented in R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 60 (S.C.C.) at para. 139 that"The legal standard of care is always the same – what a reasonable person would have done in all the circumstances."

88In this case, Singh did not testify but his statements to the 911 operator were tendered in evidence. Accordingly, in assessing the evidence, I have instructed myself in accordance with the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. As the Court suggested, the inquiry on the question of credibility can be posed along these lines:

First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.

Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in a reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.

Third, even if you are not left in a reasonable doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.

89The test above is not a "magic incantation", but following this analytical framework ensures the correct burden and standard of proof are applied. As noted by Justice Charron, J. in R. v. Dinardo, 2008 SCC 24, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 788 at para. 23:

In a case that turns on credibility…the trial judge must direct his or her mind to the decisive question of whether the accused's evidence, considered in the context of the evidence as a whole, raises a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Put differently, the trial judge must consider whether the evidence as a whole establishes the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Position of the Parties

90The Crown argues that Singh is guilty of criminal negligence by "driving dangerously" in several ways that, together, amount to criminal negligence. To that end, the Crown says that passing in the snowy conditions, on the wrong side of the double solid yellow line, and up a hill, amounts to a marked and substantial departure that also demonstrated a wanton or reckless disregard for the life and safety of others on the road. The Crown's theory is that the decision to pass in the wrong lane of travel up a hill amounts to criminal negligence, but if not certainly amounts to dangerous driving.

91Singh argues that his act of passing where he did, followed by a loss of control, amounted to a momentary lapse and a loss of control that makes him liable under the Highway Traffic Act, but not criminally responsible. He submits that the markings on the road and the steering inputs to his vehicle leave open the possibility that he was simply a driver that tried to pass, and lost control of his vehicle and it was therefore no more than a momentary error and not a criminal offence.

Analysis

92I start by going back to the evidence of C.J., the father and driver of the Hyundai. I accept, wholly, that he came around a bend from left to right, and then over a hill when he saw a line of traffic in the opposite lane. He then saw a vehicle driving at him in the oncoming lane and tried to take evasive action but could not avoid the collision. His evidence is corroborated by the FedEx video, and the OPP dash camera videos that all establish how it is that C.J. would have come over that hill.

93From that evidence alone, I conclude that Singh was driving dangerously – he was driving on the wrong side of the double solid yellow line up a hill in terrible conditions that prevented him from seeing anything beyond that hill. That is the definition of a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver. Anyone observing that situation would realize the risk they posed by passing up a hill at that location.

94C.J.'s evidence, again corroborated by the FedEx dash camera video, shows that he was distraught and went after Singh aggressively – not because he, C.J., was at fault, but because he knew that Singh was coming at him in the wrong lane and that he killed his children. His very real reaction is strong evidence of exactly where Singh was prior to the collision – Singh did not momentarily pop into C.J.'s lane, he was driving at C.J. for several seconds and could not be avoided.

95Adding to the dangerousness of the driving were the observations of Mr. Pert. He saw Singh going in and out of the slow-moving line of traffic and passing vehicles. That Singh did not previously cause a collision is not evidence of his good driving but rather shows his sheer luck in not causing a tragedy sooner. Pert's evidence also corroborates that of C.J. as Pert also saw Singh completely in the eastbound lane for 5-10 seconds prior to the collision.

96Mr. Ullah, who was in front of Singh and in the process of being passed perceived the danger that Singh posed. Unfortunately for Ullah, his worst fear came to pass, and Singh did cause a collision that Ullah could not avoid either. He knew, in his words, that the person passing was making a big mistake. He described the Dodge as passing vehicles behind him in the wrong lane of travel, again corroborating what C.J. saw as he came over the hill into the valley.

97Mr. Lundy had travelled that stretch of highway hundreds of times. He knew, in those circumstances, that the slow traffic travelling in a single set of tracks required caution and care. When he saw the Charger passing, he also knew it was driving dangerously. Again, Lundy knew that Singh was passing in the oncoming lane and that he was following the line of vehicles in a single lane with no tracks in the lane to his right.

98I accept, from the civilian evidence alone, that Singh was passing vehicles prior to the collision, and that he was seen driving by all of the civilians in the eastbound lane of traffic. There is no evidence that he was passing in lane one of the westbound lanes which would have been the passing lane if it were even visible.

99I also accept from the civilians that that the road conditions in the location where the collision occurred between two hills were treacherous. The FedEx Dash Camera video confirms what their eyes could see: the centre lanes dividing east and west traffic were not visible. Passing without being able to see the centre line, up a hill, in snow, slush, ice, and covered roads was patently dangerous.

100Their evidence satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused passed the westbound vehicles approaching a hill where he was unable to see oncoming traffic, in the wrong lane of traffic, and unable to see the double yellow centre lines that indicated not to pass. He tried to steer, and brake, and his car was fishtailing before he collided with the Hyundai.

101Regarding Singh's statements to the 911 operator, I do not believe him that he simply pulled out to pass and lost control. According to all the civilian witnesses, he was passing for 5-10 seconds in the wrong lane of travel. When asked if it was a head on collision, he did not answer. Rather, he again said that because of snow he lost control. I do not believe he lost control because of the snow on the road and I reject his explanation. The ACM data clearly shows he tried to steer and brake at exactly the same time that the Hyundai tried to steer and brake to avoid the collision.

102According to eyewitness evidence, Singh only lost control just before the collision because he was travelling up a hill in the wrong lane of travel. He did not lose control because he was in the correct passing lane and his car merely ended up in front of the Hyundai in a split second and I do not accept that explanation. Rather, it is obvious that C.J. saw the Charger, had time to react, could not avoid the collision, and ended up getting projected into Freightliner by Singh.

103I do not believe Singh's statements to the 911 operator and they do not raise a reasonable doubt. It is clear to me on all of the evidence that the accused evidence, while he admits passing, is otherwise unreliable about losing control. Yes, he lost control, but that only happened when he tried to avoid the collision. That was a situation that he created by passing a long line of vehicles in an area where the lines on the road were not visible and the driving conditions caused everyone to slow to 40 – 50 km/h.

104To answer the questions in Roy,

a. In light of all of the relevant evidence, would a reasonable person have foreseen the risk and taken steps to avoid it if possible? Yes, in my view a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk of passing in this situation and taken steps to avoid it by not attempting to pass.

b. Was the accused's failure to foresee the risk and take steps to avoid it, if possible, a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the accused's circumstances? Yes, in my view the decision to pass a slow-moving line of traffic when in the circumstances that were present at the time was a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable person in the accused's circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.

105Was this an unexpectedly hazardous situation or a momentary lapse in judgment?

106The situation could not have been unexpectedly hazardous as Singh had been driving on Highway 17 since Thunder Bay and was near Dryden. That he passed other vehicles before the collision had more to do with his good luck rather than good management. This was a particularly risky manoeuvre given the weather and road conditions, with blowing snow, icy road surfaces, slush, and slow-moving passenger vehicles in a long line ahead of him. As Ullah noted, he was making a big mistake if someone was coming over that hill. Unfortunately, a whole family was doing just that.

107Unlike, R. v. Evans, 2016 SKQB 180, or Roy, this was not merely a momentary decision with tragic consequences. Singh had been passing vehicles, knew what the road conditions were like, and took the risk to pass up a hill in the oncoming lane of travel. His driving persisted for 5-10 seconds up that hill before encountering the Hyundai and was not simply a mistake.

108I find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that in light of all of the relevant evidence, a reasonable driver in these circumstances would have foreseen the risk of attempting to pass approaching the crest of a hill, and in road conditions and in weather such as in this case and taken steps to avoid it if possible. All Singh had to do was not attempt to pass. The accused's failure to foresee the obvious risk he was taking and to take steps to avoid it by not passing where the lines on the road were not even visible, represented a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances.

109This was dangerous driving.

110I accept, further, that Cst. Robert's opinion that Singh was travelling in the eastbound lane is corroborated by the civilian witnesses and the physical evidence at the scene. I also accept that the Freightliner was in lane one and two, thus explaining the roadway evidence related to the Hyundai leaving a gouge on the road where it was struck by the Freightliner driven by Ullah.

111The path of travel for the Dodge, on page 64 of Exhibit 19, is consistent with the eyewitness evidence. Similarly, the path of travel for the Hyundai is consistent with C.J.'s evidence, and the evidence of everyone else that saw the Hyundai crest the hill (page 63 of Exhibit 19).

112Finally, the Freightliner was travelling in lane one heading westbound and appears to have veered slightly to its north prior to the Hyundai being projected into its lane (see page 62, Exhibit 19).

113The evidence, from the witnesses Ullah, Pert, and Lundy, is that they were all travelling in the same set of tracks going westbound. Lundy was leaning to his left, trying to see down the road. Ullah was seeing Singh come up from behind him. Pert had watched Singh go in and out of traffic, and then drive for 5-10 seconds in the oncoming lane before it started fishtailing just before Singh hit the Hyundai. All of the evidence, together, makes it abundantly clear that Singh was passing in the eastbound lane, had been in that lane for 5-10 seconds, was approaching a hill, and the road conditions were snow packed, slushy, and by all accounts treacherous.

114A reasonable person in those conditions would not have attempted to pass because the risk of a vehicle coming over the hill and not being able to avoid a collision with those road conditions would have been obvious. Further, a reasonable person would not attempt to pass going up a hill without being able to see the lines on the road to know whether they were in a passing zone or not.

115In my view the combination of the passing manoeuvre with the snow and slush covered roads, without being able to see the lines on the road, up a hill, and the possibility of other people travelling in the opposite direction lead me to the conclusion that the manner of Singh's operation of his Dodge Charger constituted a marked departure form the standard of care of a reasonable person in the accused's circumstances.

116Was this criminal negligence?

117The Crown argued that Singh did several dangerous things that add up to criminal negligence. While I understand that position, I must consider the fact that this was still a relatively brief period of driving that led up to the collision – no more than 10 seconds. The speed, while faster than the vehicles he was passing, was still below the speed limit. There was no evidence of alcohol consumption, nor was there evidence that the vehicle Singh was driving was unfit for the road. And while he was clearly passing up a hill, that hill was a 1.1 degree incline.

118As noted earlier, the charges of criminal negligence in this case allege that Singh committed criminal negligence by "operating a conveyance in a manner that was dangerous to the public." I agree that he was driving dangerously within the meaning of the Criminal Code, but unlike the Crown I see the driving here as one continuous event.

119And while I agree that this was a marked departure, I am not satisfied that the driving was a marked and substantial departure as required for criminal negligence. Singh was attempting to pass a long line of traffic in bad driving conditions – it was clearly dangerous driving (see R. v. Singh, 2018 ONSC 386 for a similar dangerous driving situation).

120To constitute criminal negligence, however, Singh must have demonstrated a marked and substantial departure and shown wanton or reckless disregard for the life and safety of others. For example, in R. v. Tabanao, 2024 ONCA 85, the driver was operating a tractor-trailer at 100 km/h on cruise control on Highway 401. Without slowing down, the driver drove into the rear of stopped traffic and did not brake for the 7 seconds leading up to the collision.

121In R. v. Letkeman, 2019 MBQB 124, a police officer intentionally t-boned a vehicle that was stuck on an ATV trail knowing that it was occupied, injuring the passenger sitting in the rear of the car. He had been chasing the vehicle and knew it was occupied, and despite that, showed wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of the passengers.

122The fault requirement for criminal negligence requires more than dangerous driving. If Singh had pulled out into the oncoming lane and immediately saw the Hyundai and still attempted to pass for 5-10 seconds that would amount to a marked and substantial departure. In the facts before me, Singh pulled out to pass, and when the Hyundai was coming toward him, he tried to brake and steer to avoid the collision. His actions were dangerous, but there is no evidence that he was inattentive for a long period of time (Tabanao) or that he saw the risk and intentionally struck the Hyundai anyway.

123While I do not accept Singh's evidence, and it does not raise a reasonable doubt as it relates to dangerous driving, I also do not find that the evidence presented demonstrates a marked and substantial departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the accused's circumstances.

Conclusion

124Given that the accused's dangerous attempt to pass a line of vehicles resulted in the deaths of C.J. and E.J., and injuries to S.J., whose own eastbound vehicle had no chance to avoid the collision with the accused's vehicle because of the driving of the accused, I find that Singh is not guilty of criminal negligence, but guilty of the included offences of dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm on the information.

125Convictions for dangerous driving causing death of C.J., dangerous driving causing the death of E.J., and dangerous driving causing bodily harm to S.J. will be registered on those charges.