ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
ALEXANDER PARTRIDGE
Before Justice B.C. Oldham
Heard on March 18 and 31, 2026 and April 28, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on June 15, 2026
Diana De Novellis counsel for the Crown
Paul Piotrowski counsel for the defendant Alexander Partridge
OLDHAM J.:
1Alexander Partridge stands charged with one count of operation of a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs contrary to section 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (the “Code”).
2The events leading to Mr. Partridge’s arrest occurred at Walmart in Parry Sound on July 11, 2025. Counsel for Mr. Partridge submits that the main issue is identity referencing the frailties of in-dock identifications and that the civilian description of Mr. Partridge was vague and general. For reasons that I will explain, I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Partridge was the individual who was operating the motor vehicle and the individual who was arrested.
3The issue in my view is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Patridge was impaired at the time that he was seen leaving the Walmart parking lot in the White GMC truck. To prove its case, the Crown relies on the evidence of the three civilian witnesses; Anita Ramsey, the customer service manager; Melissa Turner the Assistant Store Manager; and Sushma Nashru, the pharmacist who engaged with Mr. Partridge at the pharmacy at Walmart.
4The Crown also called upon five officers from the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”): Provincial Constable (“PC”) Ryan Graff, PC Peter Hutchinson, PC Melissa McVey; PC Nathan Jeffery; and Seargent Danielle Shank. PC Graff and Hutchinson were the first to officers to arrive at the Walmart. PC McVey arrived shortly after. Sgt Shank was the Drug Recognition Expert (“DRE”) who conducted the DRE testing of Mr. Partridge at the West Parry Sound Detachment. PC Jeffrey assisted by transporting Mr. Partridge to the hospital following the Drug Impairment Evaluation (“DIE”) for the blood draw. The final witness was Christina Watts, the Forensic Scientist from the Centre of Forensic Sciences (“CFS”) who authored the toxicology report on Mr. Partridge’s blood sample.
5While there were issues raised in cross-examination about the grounds to request a Standard Field Sobriety Test (“SFST”) and the grounds for the DIE, Counsel for Mr. Partridge did not bring a Charter application, nor was there a request to exclude the evidence obtained in the DIE or the Toxicology Report.
How Mr. Patridge came to the Attention of the Police
6On July 11, 2025 the police responded to a 911 call regarding a traffic complaint of a motor vehicle leaving the Walmart parking lot and driving towards Bowes Street. The caller was identified as Anita Ramsey, the customer service manager at the Walmart located at 1 Pine Drive in Parry Sound. Mrs. Ramsey testified that she called 911 after observing an individual at the front of the store displaying concerning behaviours. Mrs. Ramsey described seeing a male at the water fountain who was sweating and appeared unwell. She called the store manager, Melissa Turner to come to the front before she approached Mr. Partridge. She provided him with water. He became a little aggressive when she asked if he was okay but ultimately he left the store. Mrs. Ramsay estimated her interaction with Mr. Partridge to be approximately 30 minutes. She did not know Mr. Partridge prior to this incident.
7Melissa Turner testified that she came to the front of the store and observed the male with Mrs. Ramsay and had similar concerns. She followed him out of the store and down the sidewalk. She watched him get into a white GMC pick-up truck that was parked by the Royal Bank section of the parking lot. She obtained the license from the motor vehicle and returned to the store, directing Mrs. Ramsey to call 911. Both explained that they were seeking a wellness check on Mr. Partridge, and neither observed any poor driving behaviour. Mrs. Ramsay did not leave the store but observed Mr. Partridge get into the motor vehicle and drive away from the front doors of the Walmart.
8PC Hutchinson and PC Graff were the first to respond to the 911 call which came in at approximately 5:30 pm on July 11, 2025. PC McVey was also directed to Walmart. PC Hutchinson and PC Graff were in separate police cruisers. PC Hutchinson went to the address of the registered owner of the motor vehicle. He spoke with Mr. Partridge’s father, who confirmed that Mr. Partridge had his truck and was in town. PC Graff attended at the Walmart after receiving an update that Mr. Partridge had returned to the Walmart. He met with PC McVey and went to the pharmacy section of Walmart. This was at approximately 5:44 pm. PC Graff and PC McVey observed Mr. Partridge to be crouched at the end of an aisle staring at the shelf.
9PC McVey knew Mr. Partridge from having attended high school with him. She tried to engage him in conversation but noted that he appeared to be staring straight through her. Both officers made observations which raised concerns about his sobriety.
10PC Graff was the arresting officer and testified that he made a demand for a SFST at 6:04 pm, but that he formed grounds to arrest without conducting the SFST at 6:06 pm. Those grounds included the following:
(a) The 911 caller indicating concern for the wellness of Mr. Partridge;
(b) Observations of Mr. Partridge crouched at the end of the isle staring at the shelves;
(c) Observations of pinpoint eyes;
(d) Observations of slow, lethargic movements;
(e) Pale colouration in his face;
(f) Confusion when read the SFST demand;
(g) Raspy voice; and
(h) Slow and slurred speech.
11PC Graff was asked whether he considered that Mr. Partridge may have just been tired or suffering from medical distress. He was confident that the observations and level of sheer confusion could not be explained as just being sleepy and that his observations were consistent and in his mind, very clear indicators of impairment confirming his grounds.
12It is noteworthy that PC McVey and PC Hutchinson, who also attended to assist, made similar observations. PC McVey described Mr. Partridge as non-responsive and just staring right through her as she tried to engage him. PC Hutchinson did not personally engage Mr. Partridge but observed his interactions with PC McVey and PC Hutchinson. He described Mr. Partridge as being unsteady on his feet, having droopy eyes, a raspy voice, with slow speech. He appeared to be having trouble staying awake and was continually asking PC Graff to restate his directions and was not making full answers to questions posed.
13Sushma Nashru, the Pharmacy Manager at Walmart was an important witness in terms of identification and observations of impairment. Mrs. Nashru met with Mr. Partridge on July 11, 2025 when he attended at the pharmacy to obtain his methadone dose. She confirmed that she knew Mr. Partridge without requiring identification because he had attended at the pharmacy before. Mrs. Nashru testified that she had Mr. Partridge’s identification on file and advised of the need to confirm identity with him each time because of the nature of his prescription. Specifically, Mr. Partridge was a methadone client who typically obtained his dosages from a clinic. Mrs. Nashru learned that Mr. Partridge was off cycle because he was travelling the following day and would not be able to attend at the clinic to get his regular dosage. Mrs. Nashru explained how she was unable to dose Mr. Partridge when he first attended, because he could not identify his dosage and when he had taken his last dose. This is a required confirmation for any methadone prescription. She described how lethal and toxic these drugs can be which requires different and more strict screening. She explained that customers cannot take methadone from the pharmacy in a normal paper bag, like other prescriptions, but rather must bring a lockbox with them. If they are unable to identify their dosage, they cannot be dosed.
14Mrs. Nashru also explained that if the pharmacist has concerns about potential impairment, they will send the customer away and suggest that they come back later. This is not uncommon. In this case, Mrs. Nashru believed that Mr. Partridge was impaired and accordingly would not have dosed him even if he could articulate when he last took his dose and what he was requesting. She did not detail her concerns but just noted that he seemed off. Mrs. Nashru explained how they work as a buddy system in the pharmacy confirming their concerns with a colleague before finalizing a decision on how to care. Mrs. Nashru could not recall who was working as the assistant pharmacist on July 11, 2025, but confirmed that she spoke with the other pharmacist who shared her concerns. Mr. Patridge was turned away and told to come back later.
15Mrs. Nashru confirmed that Mr. Partridge did return later but that she did not dose him as matters escalated when the police arrived.
16Counsel for Mr. Partridge provided the Court with the Ontario Court of Appeal decision, R. v. Jack 2013 ONCA 80 (“Jack”) with respect to the issues around eyewitness identification and the proper and complete instructions that must be provided to a jury to ensure that they are alive to the frailties of such evidence. The facts of that case are very different from those before this Court. In Jack, the court was dealing with two counts of robbery. The assailant, armed with a gun, entered a rental car agency and robbed two men. The encounter was brief – around two minutes. The victims provided a description to a 911 caller and obtained a health card that was on file for the man that they believed robbed them. The assailant was located and arrested two weeks later. Both victims gave an in-dock identification based on a very general description of the male being approximately 5’8” or 5’9”. There was no other corroborating evidence such as fingerprints on the phone that was smashed. The situation was described as brief and highly stressful. While the accused had distinguishing features – two permanent gold front teeth, a 7” scar on his jaw and a 3.5 cm tattoo on his left hand, none of these features were identified by the witnesses.
17The facts before me are very different.
18While both Mrs. Ramsay and Mrs. Turner identified Mr. Partridge in court, this was not simply an in-dock identification. Both spent 20 or 30 minutes observing and engaging with him on July 11, 2025. They both watched him get into the motor vehicle and drive away. They obtained the licence on the motor vehicle. PC Hutchinson confirmed that the motor vehicle was registered to Mr. Partridge’s father. Mr. Partridge’s father confirmed that Mr. Partridge had taken his motor vehicle and was in the Town of Parry Sound. Mrs. Nashru confirmed that Mr. Partridge attended at the pharmacy twice on July 11, 2025 and that she knew him and was able to identify him without any identification.
19Mr. Partridge was arrested and identified when he returned to Walmart for a second time on July 11, 2025.
20Counsel submits that given the vague description it is possible that the person who was seen by Mrs. Ramsay and Mrs. Turner getting into the motor vehicle was someone other than Mr. Partridge. That possibility, if it exists, is extremely remote. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not require 100% certainty. The facts in this case do not raise a reasonable doubt that it was Mr. Partridge who got into the motor vehicle and drove away and that he returned to Walmart and that the person arrested by the pharmacy was the same person. The following facts rule out any doubt:
(1) Each of the witnesses gave the same general description of Mr. Partridge in terms of general appearance, age, height and dress;
(2) Each of the witnesses observed similarly concerning behaviours which they attributed to Mr. Partridge both before and after the arrest. They all observed him within the Walmart which no doubt directed focus on this one individual who attended twice. PC Graff confirmed that efforts were made to escort him out of the store as quickly as possible to mitigate the disturbance in the store.
(3) Mrs. Ramsay called 911 and reported the license of the motor vehicle that he was observed to have entered by both herself and Mrs. Turner;
(4) Mrs. Nashru, who knows Mr. Partridge, confirms that she had sent him away and that he returned and was arrested within moments of his return. She was not sure of the time of day, but the timing is confirmed through the officers and the time of the 911 call. The sequence is consistent. Mr. Partridge is observed by Mrs. Ramsay and Mrs. Turner who provided a licence plate and vehicle description to the 911 operator. Police investigated and upon being advised of the return of the individual they attended and arrested him.
(5) Upon arrest, the individual was confirmed to be Mr. Partridge when he was brought to the detachment.
21I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Mr. Partridge who drove off in the white GMC pick-up. The only issue is whether he was impaired, to any degree, by drugs at the time that he operated the motor vehicle.
Was Mr. Partridge Impaired by Drugs
22In addition to the observations of Mrs. Ramsay, Mrs. Turner and Mrs. Nashru prior to Mr. Partridge departing the store, there are the observations of Mr. Partridge by PC Hutchenson, PC McVey and PC Graff at the time of the arrest.
23Mrs. Ramsay estimated her time with Mr. Partridge to be approximately 30 minutes in total. Her direct engagement with him comprising of approximately 20 of those 30 minutes. The 911 call was made at 17:30. Mr. Partridge was arrested at 18:09. This places his operation of the motor vehicle squarely in the middle of the two sets of observations. Both sets of witnesses, the civilians working in Walmart and the police officers responding to the 911 call, testified that Mr. Partridge did not look well and that he was exhibiting signs consistent with impairment, including, confusion, unsteadiness on his feet, sweating, pale face, droopy eyes, raspy voice and an inability to stay awake.
24Following his arrest, Sgt Shank conducted a 12-step DRE. Sgt Shank is a certified Drug Investigation Evaluator and has been since 2018. She was recertified in 2023 and became an instructor in 2022. Sgt Shank testified that even before she was provided with grounds for the DRE she made observations of Mr. Partridge which raised concerns. She described assisting with the lodging process and observing Mr. Partridge to have a blank stare. She noted that his movements were slow, his speech was deliberate and that he was sweating. She was provided with grounds from PC Graff at18:35 which included the information from the 911 caller and the officer’s own observations.
25The DIE commenced at 19:14 and was completed at 19:56. At the conclusion of the DIE, Sgt Shank was of the opinion that Mr. Partridge was impaired by drugs; specifically, by a central nervous system stimulant, a narcotic analgesic and cannabis. Her observations during the DIE included the following:
(1) Throughout the DIE his speech was very slow and deliberate with long pauses;
(2) He was unable to accurately estimate the time of day believing it to be approximately 5:00 pm when it was 7:16 pm.
(3) His pulse was above the DRE range on all three measurements
(4) While there was no indication of nystagmus, he had difficulty tracking and continued to stare blankly as if not hearing or understanding during this portion of the test;
(5) He was unable to cross his eyes on the convergence test and continued to stare blankly;
(6) On the modified Romberg Balance test his time estimation was not within the +- 5 seconds range. He was observed to be swaying and had notable eyelid tremors;
(7) During the walk and turn test he was unable to keep his balance, stepping off the line and pausing between steps. He did not complete the turn properly, shuffling his feet rather than pivoting as instructed. He took 10 steps instead of 9 as directed on the first pass.
(8) On the one-legged stand he was unable to measure the 30 seconds, putting his foot down at 18 seconds on the right leg and at 6 and 14 seconds on the left leg. He was noted to be swaying throughout and using his arms for balance.
(9) While completing the finger to nose test he touched tip of nose with tip of the finger on five of the six touches. On the sixth he hit side of nose. He had to be coached on each touch to put his hands down in accordance with the initial instructions. He was observed to be swaying with very slow movement. Eyelid tremors were observed when he closed his eyes.
(10) His diastolic blood pressure at 100 mm Hg (mm of mercury) was outside of the DIE range of 70-90 mm Hg.
(11) While his pupil size was within the appropriate range his reaction to light was noted to be slow taking more time than expected to adjust to light.
26At the conclusion of the DIE, a demand for a blood sample was made and Mr. Partridge was escorted to the West Parry Sound Hospital by PC Jeffery. PC Jeffery also made observations consistent with impairment. Mr. Partridge was observed by PC Jeffery to be drowsy, having difficulties staying awake and to have continued confusion requiring repeated explanations and directions.
27The Court also heard expert testimony from Christina Watt, the forensic scientist who completed the toxicology report. The report concludes that there were eight substances present in Mr. Patridge’s blood: carfentanil, fentanyl, fluorofentanyl, methadone, bromazolam, desalkylgidazepam, diazepam and nordiazepam. Carfentanil, bromazolam and desalkylgidazepam are not approved for medical use in humans and the detected blood concentration of fentanyl exceeded a typical therapeutic range. Some of the other drugs found to be present, including methadone and diazepam were detected at levels within therapeutic ranges.
28There were no issues raised with respect to continuity or testing of the blood samples provided by Mr. Partridge. Mr. Partridge travelled to the hospital with PC Jeffery, and the sample was taken, sealed and sent to the CFS for analysis. The sample returned with the necessary and proper labelling.
29Ms. Watt testified with respect to how each of the substances found in Mr. Partridge’s blood may impair one’s ability to operate a motor vehicle. Specifically, the effects include dizziness, incoordination, and varying degrees of reduced consciousness. These effects may result in poor performance on divided attention tasks required when driving. While Ms. Watt could not confirm that the combination of drugs increased Mr. Partridge’s impairment, the combination of multiple drugs in his system increases the likelihood of affects from the drugs because there are more sources.
30Ms. Watt acknowledged and reported that the presence of these drugs in Mr. Partridge is not evidence of impairment at the time of operation as the drug effects can vary and depend on factors such as the dose, concentration in the blood, route of administration, time since administration, pattern of use, tolerance of the individual and the co-administration of other drugs.
31The presence of these drugs in Mr. Partridge’s blood, however, provide corroborating evidence of the observations and concerns raised by each witness in respect of possible impairment at the relevant time.
32The observational evidence, the results of the DIE and the toxicology report provide overwhelming evidence that Mr. Partridge was impaired at the time that he operated the motor vehicle on July 11, 2025. As a result of this finding, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown has proven all of the elements of the offence and that Mr. Partridge is guilty of operating a motor vehicle while he was impaired by drugs on July 11, 2025.
Released: June 15, 2026
Signed: Justice B.C. Oldham