Court File and Parties
Court File No.: London 15-8220 Date: 2016-06-28 Ontario Court of Justice
Between: Her Majesty the Queen
— And —
Anfal Abdullah Jabar
Before: Justice A. Thomas McKay
Heard: May 9, 2016
Reasons for Judgment Released: June 28, 2016
Counsel:
- Mr. P. Rollings, counsel for the Crown
- Mr. A. Prevost, counsel for the defendant Anfal Abdullah Jabar
MCKAY J.:
Introduction
[1] Ms. Jabar was involved in a motor vehicle accident in the City of London at the intersection of Oxford Street and Veterans Memorial Parkway shortly after 2 p.m. on May 5, 2015. She is charged with dangerous driving contrary to section 249(2) of the Criminal Code.
[2] Various witnesses described two cars travelling at high-speed northbound on Veterans Memorial Parkway. From the description, one could infer that the vehicles were racing. Witnesses described speeds in excess of 150 kilometres an hour. Witnesses described the car in the rear position becoming airborne upon entering the intersection and then striking the lead car. That resulted in a loss of control of the second car, which then careened into the southbound lanes and struck a vehicle before coming to rest in a ditch.
[3] Ms. Jabar testified that she was actually the driver of the lead car. She maintained that she was being followed by unknown people in the second vehicle, which was following her and being driven in an aggressive fashion, forcing her to attempt to speed away from the vehicle. Her evidence is that the trailing car struck her vehicle from behind, causing her to lose control and enter the southbound lanes where she struck the other vehicle.
Evidence
Alvaro Correia
[4] Mr. Correia was operating his motor vehicle northbound on Veterans Memorial Parkway approaching the intersection at Oxford Street. At that point, there are two northbound lanes on Veterans Memorial Parkway, and the posted speed limit is 80 kilometres per hour. He was operating his car in the curb lane, with his parents present in the car. He was travelling at a speed of 80 to 85 kilometres per hour.
[5] In the lane to his left was an 18 wheel tractor-trailer unit which was not travelling fast because they were approaching an overpass. Remaining in the curb lane, he passed the tractor-trailer unit. Approximately 60 to 80 metres past the point where he passed the tractor-trailer unit, in his rear view mirror, he observed two cars approaching from behind him. He described them as being side-by-side for 2 to 3 seconds, and indicated that they "came out of nowhere - like they were playing a bumper game".
[6] When the first of those two cars passed him on his left, he estimated its speed to be in excess of 150 kilometres per hour. The second car had to slow momentarily to avoid colliding with his vehicle. It then pulled out and passed him on his left. He testified that both cars passed him in seconds and that they were travelling too close to each other. The first car remained in the left lane, and the second car moved back into the curb lane and continued racing. The cars were travelling at 150 kilometres an hour or more. Both were black in colour, and he was unable to observe who was in either car. After passing him, they continued travelling side-by-side. He watched both vehicles travelling northbound approaching the Oxford Street intersection, which was approximately 300 to 400 metres from the point where the vehicles passed him. After the Oxford Street intersection, the design of Veterans Memorial Parkway changes. There is a left turn lane and a right turn lane at Oxford Street, but the two northbound lanes merge into one northbound lane approximately 150 metres north of the intersection.
[7] One of the black cars was ahead of the other when they reached the bump in the roadway at the intersection of Oxford Street. Mr. Correia is very familiar with the intersection and knew that the bump existed and that if anyone hits the bump travelling at a high rate of speed, they essentially leave the roadway. At the intersection, the first vehicle essentially jumped the bump on the road, and the second vehicle hit the bump and essentially flew into the lead car. The front bumper of the trailing car struck the back bumper of the lead car. The brake lights of the trailing car illuminated for approximately one second. After the impact, a big ball of dirt and dust flew up, and then one of the cars went into the southbound lanes. He was uncertain of which of the two black cars went into the south bound lanes, but assumed that it might have been the car in the lead.
[8] Six or seven seconds after the impact, he went through the intersection and parked his vehicle. The black car which went into the southbound lanes had struck a blue car which was in the southbound lanes. The blue car had major damage to the driver's side door. He went to the blue car to check on a woman who was already outside of the blue car lying on the pavement. She appeared injured. Her husband was with her. The black car was further down from the blue car and had come to rest in the ditch. He remained with the two people from the blue car for approximately 10 minutes. Police and firefighters arrived so he went towards the black vehicle in the ditch. There were civilians tending to a young lady outside of that car. A firefighter arrived to assist them, so he did not go closer to the black car. He spoke with the police and provided a statement.
[9] In cross-examination, Mr. Correia testified that he was checking his speedometer periodically because his mother worries about him speeding because his brother died in a car accident. In addition, there is normally a speed trap around Page Street, which is just before the Oxford Street intersection if one is northbound on Veterans Memorial Parkway. The windows of both black cars had tinted glass. The entire event lasted approximately 20 to 30 seconds. He maintained that two black cars were travelling at double his speed, and that while he was not trying to keep up with them, he was able to witness the entire incident. The lead black car slowed its speed by a fraction at the intersection, and the trailing black car then made contact with it.
Clark Wallace
[10] Mr. Wallace was operating his vehicle northbound on Veterans Memorial Parkway, travelling from his home to his workplace to begin a 2:30 p.m. shift. He is familiar with that roadway because it is part of his normal route to travel to work. He reached the intersection of Oxford Street, and moved into the left turn lane. While waiting to make his left turn he heard the roar of cars coming from behind him. His windows were down. He makes a habit of always checking his rear view mirror and his blind spot. He looked in his mirror, and for a split second saw two dark sedans approaching very quickly from behind. On Veterans Memorial Parkway, at the intersection of Oxford Street, there is one lane for turning left, one lane for turning right and, two lanes northbound. The black sedans were travelling one behind each other and going very fast. The speed limit on the roadway at that point is 60 kilometres per hour. The two black sedans were travelling at a speed which he estimated as well over 120 kilometres per hour, and were very close to each other. When he first became aware of the two dark sedans, they were within 100 feet of his vehicle.
[11] When the two dark sedans reached a point where they were alongside his vehicle, they were northbound travelling in a straight line. His attention was solely on the two dark sedans. Both went through the intersection at high speed. The trailing car lost contact with the roadway once it reached the natural undulation of the intersection. When the trailing car lost contact with the roadway it was in his two o'clock position and the two dark sedans were 10 feet apart. After momentarily losing contact with the roadway, the trailing car's tires returned to the roadway, and then it struck the leading car. He momentarily saw the brake lights illuminated on the trailing car as it was becoming airborne. The braking attempt did not slow the trailing car down. It made contact with the lead car and "punted it". In his view, the lead car absolutely had to know that it had been struck by the trailing car, but the lead car continued on northbound at the same speed, and he lost sight of it.
[12] The driver of the trailing car lost control of the vehicle after the impact and began swerving to attempt to regain control. The trailing car then veered into the southbound traffic lanes and struck a blue Honda Civic which had been rolling up to the intersection. The front of the black car struck the driver's side of the Honda Civic. The impact of the collision spun the Honda Civic into at least a 360 degree turn. The black sedan became airborne, spinning and flipping, and continued its trajectory northbound into the ditch and onto the grassy area off of the roadway past the southbound lanes. He completed his left turn and parked on the shoulder, west of the intersection. Mr. Wallace got out of his car and ran to the blue Civic, arriving at it approximately 10 seconds after the impact with the black sedan. Both occupants of the blue Civic were outside of their vehicle. He told the female to stay still on the ground and waited with her for the emergency response team to arrive. That took several minutes. He remained in line of sight with the black sedan, but did not notice anyone emerging from that vehicle. The police arrived and he provided them with a statement.
[13] In cross-examination he confirmed that he remained in the turning lane throughout the entire incident. The entire incident lasted seconds. He confirmed his estimate that there was 15 feet or less between the two black sedans as they were travelling northbound, and the leading black sedan did not slow down as it went through the intersection. He was certain that it was not the leading black sedan which ended up striking the blue Honda Civic. There is a short median which divides the northbound and southbound lanes on Veterans Memorial Parkway. The trailing black sedan struck the leading black sedan right on the north side of the intersection. It was airborne, and then struck the leading black sedan. The driver swerved back and forth and got through the intersection before striking the blue Honda Civic. He was not certain if the trailing black sedan had gone over the median in order to strike the blue Honda Civic.
John Hasketts
[14] Mr. Hasketts was operating his motor vehicle westbound on Oxford Street approaching the intersection of Veterans Memorial Parkway. The intersection was controlled by a traffic signal which was red. He was approximately 300 to 400 metres from the intersection and observed some cars westbound on Oxford stopped for the traffic signal. He was travelling at a speed of between 40 and 50 kilometres per hour. He observed two dark coloured cars northbound on Veterans Memorial Parkway go through the intersection at a very high rate of speed, which he estimated to be approximately 150 to 160 kilometres per hour. He indicated that essentially they were a blur, given how fast they were going. One car was in the lead, with the trailing vehicle approximately one half a car length behind the lead car. Veterans Memorial Parkway narrows to one northbound lane north of the Oxford intersection.
[15] He noted the two dark cars entered the intersection, and then observed the impact on the north side of Oxford Street as one of the dark coloured cars hit a blue Honda Civic. The impact took place just north of the centre median on Veterans Memorial Parkway. It happened very quickly. He did not see any contact between the two dark sedans. The blue Honda Civic had been travelling southbound and ended up crossways on the road after the impact. The black car bounced off of the blue Honda Civic, became airborne, and then came down in a field on the west side of Veterans Memorial Parkway. At that point, he was still approximately 200 yards away from the intersection. He called 911, and then turned his vehicle north on Veterans Memorial Parkway, parked it and went to assist the woman who had been operating the blue Honda Civic. Other people arrived to assist. He walked over to the shoulder of the road to look at the dark coloured car, which was 75 to 80 feet off of the roadway. People were assisting a female out of that vehicle. First responders arrived on scene quickly. He provided a statement to the police.
[16] In cross-examination, he confirmed that when the impact took place between the dark coloured car and the blue Honda Civic, he was approximately 200 metres away. Everything happened very quickly and he did not observe the events leading up to the collision between the dark coloured car and the blue Civic.
Eva Daligcon
[17] Ms. Daligcon was the operator of the blue Honda Civic. She was travelling southbound on Veterans Memorial Parkway approaching the Oxford Street intersection. When she was approximately 20 to 25 feet from the intersection, from nowhere, a black car came flying at her from the opposite direction and struck her vehicle. Her spouse, David Giesbrecht, was a passenger in her vehicle. The black car struck the driver's side of her vehicle, and then continued onward. She lost consciousness momentarily. When she regained consciousness, she crawled out of her vehicle through the passenger's door. Mr. Giesbrecht was already outside of the vehicle. She did not see where the black car came to rest. She was taken to the hospital.
[18] In cross-examination, she agreed that she told the police that the other car was travelling approximately 60 to 80 kilometres per hour. However, she indicated that she was really unable to guess, she could simply say that the other car was travelling very fast.
David Giesbrecht
[19] Mr. Giesbrecht was the passenger in the blue Honda Civic. They were travelling behind a tractor-trailer unit approaching the intersection at Oxford Street. He heard a sound from his wife, and then saw a dark car coming towards them. The dark car struck their car on the driver's side. The impact spun their car around. When it stopped, he got out of the vehicle, as did his wife. He went to look at the dark car in the ditch. He saw Ms. Jabar crawling out of it. He returned to the location of his wife. Emergency workers arrived and he was transported by ambulance to the hospital with his wife.
[20] In cross-examination, he agreed that he told the police that the dark car was travelling at a speed between 80 and 100 kilometres an hour. He indicated that he was simply guessing at speed, and really could not tell.
Anfal Abdullah Jabar
[21] Ms. Jabar is 23 years of age, and owns an auto detailing shop. On May 5, 2015, she was driving her father's black Infiniti sedan. She had picked up the car, and was driving to a mechanic's shop in order to have an emissions test performed on the car. Another black car came alongside her. The driver said something that she could not make out, and then began following her. She was travelling northbound on Veterans Memorial Parkway from Gore Road. The car that was following her was rotating around her, speeding, and almost struck her vehicle. She began to speed away from the vehicle "a bit". The other vehicle was tailgating her, trying to get her attention. It got really close to her vehicle, so she sped away. The second vehicle clipped her on the back right side of her vehicle, and she sped off in order to get away from the vehicle because it had almost struck her vehicle multiple times. At one point, she checked her speedometer, but later in the incident was too distracted to look again.
[22] Her vehicle was in the lead position. The other car struck the rear of her car and she lost control of the vehicle. Her vehicle ended up in the ditch and people helped her out of her vehicle. She fractured a disc in her spine in the accident. She was taken to the hospital.
[23] In cross-examination, she confirmed that she had driven her father's vehicle before and knew how it handled. She knew the roadway that she was travelling on, and knew the location of the destination. A friend had dropped her off at the Gore Road location to pick up the car. From the location where she picked up the car to her destination was approximately a two minute drive. She first encountered the second vehicle at the intersection of Gore Road and Veterans Memorial Parkway where she was turning left to travel northbound. The second vehicle was stopped at a red light apparently intending to turn right. The driver and the passenger of that vehicle began to make comments to her, but she paid no attention to them. The second vehicle also turned left to travel northbound on Veterans Memorial Parkway.
[24] After making a left turn, she travelled northbound on Veterans Memorial Parkway in the left lane. There was no other traffic around. The other car was behind her following very closely and then moved into the lane to her right, almost striking her vehicle. The second vehicle was driving dangerously, swerving back and forth. They drove side-by-side for a short distance. The second car kept rotating around her vehicle, behind her, beside her and in front of her at different points. There was no other traffic around. She thought about pulling her car over to the side of the road, but did not. The other vehicle was only in front of her for approximately two seconds. Initially, she was travelling at approximately 80 kilometres an hour, but then had to speed away from the other vehicle. She remained in the left lane the entire time that she travelled northbound on Veterans Memorial Parkway. At no point was there a tractor-trailer unit in front of her.
[25] At no point did Ms. Jabar think that she should slow down. She was thinking of getting away from the other vehicle. She agreed that her destination was not very far away from her location. She agreed that she was going faster than the speed limit and that she sped up before reaching the Oxford Street intersection. She maintained that the roads were slippery because of rainfall, and that had she attempted to go into the left turn lane at Oxford Street, she would have crashed. Her intention was to pass the Oxford Street intersection, pull over and telephone the police. She testified that the second vehicle was travelling 40 feet behind her. She was travelling at a speed of approximately 90 to 100 kilometres per hour. She was unable to do anything but speed up or the other vehicle would strike her. She agreed that she could have slowed down when the other vehicle was beside her car, but maintained that she did not know how to react.
[26] Ms. Jabar testified that she could not see whether there were cars in the left-hand turn lane at the Oxford Street intersection. She agreed that she knows that Veterans Memorial Parkway changes to one lane northbound after the Oxford Street intersection. She maintained that had she stopped her car, the other vehicle would have rammed her car. She clarified that there was no contact between her vehicle and the second dark car prior to the Oxford Street intersection. She maintained that she entered the intersection in the lead position travelling at approximately 90 to 100 kilometres per hour. She maintained that she would not have gone faster than that, because to do so would have been dangerous. She also maintained that she turned her four-way flashers on. The second car struck the back right side of her vehicle and her airbag deployed. Her car struck the blue Honda in the southbound lanes and then flipped over. She maintained that just prior to the accident, her car was in the lead position, and not the trailing position; she was not racing, and her car never became airborne prior to striking the Honda Civic. She maintained that there was no bump at the intersection of Oxford Street.
Positions of the Parties
The Crown
[27] The Crown takes the position that three independent witnesses, Mr. Correia, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Hasketts all described Ms. Jabar driving in speeds ranging from 120 kilometres an hour to 160 kilometres per hour on a city street in London. The evidence is consistent with racing with the second vehicle. Quite simply, this was a race and the two cars racing ran out of room as they reached the intersection at Oxford Street where the northbound lanes are reduced to one lane. The evidence of Ms. Jabar as to being forced to drive at high speeds to escape another vehicle makes no sense and should be rejected. The Ontario Court of Appeal held in R. v. Richards, [2003] O.J. No. 1042 that excessive speed alone could form the basis for dangerous driving conviction.
The Defence
[28] The defence takes the position that there is nothing definitive about the estimates of speed of the vehicles involved. This is a case where there is no evidence of erratic driving, simply speed estimates without any precision. The best evidence of speed is the evidence of Ms. Jabar. The Court should accept her evidence that she was operating the lead vehicle. Even if her evidence is rejected, the evidence does not support a conviction for dangerous driving.
Applicable Legal Principles
[29] A conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle requires that an individual be proven to have operated a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that, at the time, is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place. There must be a danger to the public who are either present or who might have been expected to be present. In order to establish the actus reus of the offence, the court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, that, viewed objectively, the accused was operating the vehicle in a manner that was dangerous to the public within the words of section 249 of the Criminal Code.
[30] In R. v. Beatty, 2008 SCC 5, 228 C.C.C. (3d) 225, the Supreme Court of Canada fully considered the requisite mens rea. In order to found a conviction, the court must also be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the objectively dangerous conduct of the accused was accompanied by the required mens rea. The court must be satisfied that, on the basis of all of the evidence, including any evidence related to the actual state of mind of the accused, that the conduct amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the circumstances of the accused. It is only when there is a marked departure from the norm that objectively dangerous behaviour demonstrates sufficient blameworthiness to support a finding of criminal behaviour. If an explanation for the behaviour is offered by the accused, in order to convict, the court must be satisfied that a reasonable person in similar circumstances ought to have been aware of the risk and the danger involved in the behaviour exhibited by the accused. A reasonable person must be put in the circumstances of the accused when the events occurred in order to assess the reasonableness of the conduct of the accused.
[31] In R. v. Roy, 2012 SCC 26, [2012] S.C.J No. 26, the Supreme Court of Canada reminded trial judges that a meaningful inquiry into the manner of driving is required. Proof of the actus reus of the offence without more, cannot support a reasonable inference that the required fault element has been proven. In assessing the mens rea issue, the court indicated the following:
"The focus of the mens rea analysis is on whether the dangerous manner of driving was the result of a marked departure from the standard of care which a reasonable person would have exercised in the same circumstances (Beatty, at para. 48). It is helpful to approach the issue by asking two questions. The first is whether, in light of all of the relevant evidence, a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk and taken steps to avoid it if possible. If so, the second question is whether the accused's failure to foresee the risk and take steps to avoid it, if possible, was a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the accused's circumstances".
Analysis
[32] Given that the accused testified, the principles outlined by the Supreme Court in the W.D. decision provide a framework for analysis. The court can accept all, some, or none of the evidence of any particular witness.
[33] The evidence of Ms. Daligcon is of little assistance in determining the issue. Not surprisingly, she saw very little of what transpired before her vehicle was struck. Similarly, the evidence of Mr. Giesbrecht is of little assistance. Again, as the passenger in the blue Honda Civic, he saw a little of what transpired prior to the accident. In addition, the Court would give little weight to his evidence. Frankly, his behaviour on the witness stand bordered upon bizarre. He was hostile, insulting and argumentative with the Crown during his examination in chief. He accused defence counsel of essentially threatening him outside of the courtroom doors and suggesting that he change his story. When he resumed his testimony after the lunch recess, he maintained that he was followed down the street a block from the courthouse by two "Arabic guys". This is notwithstanding the fact that his evidence was not central to the case, and even if it had been accepted, would have been of virtually no assistance to the Court in determining the issue.
[34] Mr. Correia, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Hasketts were all independent witnesses. They were all in position to observe the events from different vantage points. There is nothing which would negatively impact their ability to observe and recall the events.
[35] I will briefly review some of the critical aspects of the evidence. Mr. Correia, travelling northbound on Veterans Memorial Parkway, was in an ideal position to observe and describe the driving pattern of the two black sedans as they approached the intersection. He was travelling in the curb lane of the roadway and was closely monitoring his speed. He was in the best position to estimate the speed of the cars as they passed him. He described his vehicle passing the tractor-trailer unit and shortly thereafter observing the two cars travelling at high speed, through his rear view mirror. He estimated the speed of the lead vehicle in passing him on his left at 150 kilometres an hour or more. He described the second car slowing momentarily to avoid striking his vehicle, then passing him at a speed similar to the lead car, and then moving back into the curb lane to continue racing side-by-side the other car. At the point of the intersection, one car was ahead of the other. The trailing car became airborne and struck the lead car. After that his vision was obscured somewhat by a ball of dirt and dust. After the impact, one of the cars went into the southbound lanes. He was not certain which car went into the southbound lanes, but assumed that it might have been the lead car.
[36] Mr. Wallace was positioned in the left-hand turn lane at the intersection where the accident took place. He was stationary, and in an ideal position to observe the accident which occurred at the intersection. He initially noted the sound of cars approaching very fast. In his rear view mirror, he observed the two cars approaching very fast, and very close together. He estimated their speed at that point at well over 120 kilometres per hour. When his attention was first drawn to them, they were approximately 100 feet from the intersection. As the two cars travelled through the intersection, they were alongside Mr. Wallace's vehicle. He indicated that the two cars were northbound, one behind the other in a straight line. The trailing car momentarily lost contact with the roadway and then struck the rear bumper of the lead car. He was certain that the lead car then continued northbound, and the trailing car was the car which careened into the southbound lanes, striking the Honda Civic.
[37] Mr. Hasketts was eastbound on Oxford Street approaching the intersection with Veterans Memorial Parkway. He was approximately 200 yards west of the intersection when the accident occurred. His estimate was that the two black cars were travelling at a speed of 100 miles per hour, which translates to 160 kilometres per hour. His evidence is that there was approximately one half car length between the two vehicles. He described the speed of the cars as so fast that they were essentially a blur until he saw one of them strike the blue Honda Civic in the southbound lanes. He did not see contact between the two black cars prior to the collision with the Honda Civic. He was uncertain of what happened between the two dark cars in the intersection because of the speed at which they were travelling.
[38] If there was some credible evidence that the accident occurred as Ms. Jabar was fleeing the pursuit of a second vehicle, it would be necessary for the Court to make findings as to the nature of the driving to determine whether it was objectively dangerous. If it was, the Court would need to determine whether the dangerous manner of driving was a result of a marked departure from the standard of care which a reasonable person would have exercised in the same circumstances. However, there is no credible evidence that the accident occurred within that context. The evidence of Ms. Jabar is tailored and illogical. It is inconsistent with many aspects of the evidence of the independent witnesses. She maintained that there was no other traffic around her, in particular no tractor-trailer unit on Veterans Memorial Parkway. She maintained that her only option was to travel at high speed along Veterans Memorial Parkway until she passed the intersection at Oxford Street, at which point she would pull over to the side of the road and telephone the police. That assertion, in the context of her evidence as a whole in which she indicated that she could not pull over for fear of being rammed by the other vehicle, makes no sense. Ms. Jabar had a ready justification for all aspects of the behaviour which she admitted; evidence which did not fit her justification was simply denied. Her evidence was not believable. Her evidence did not create a reasonable doubt as to how the accident occurred.
[39] With respect to the speed of Ms. Jabar's motor vehicle, the evidence of Mr. Giesbrecht and Ms. Daligcon is not of particular assistance. Both of them only had a momentary glimpse of the vehicle as it was flying towards them. The evidence of Mr. Correia, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Hasketts as to speed is essentially lay opinion evidence. Each had different vantage points. It is noteworthy that Mr. Correia, who was in the best position to estimate speed, estimated it to be at least 150 kilometres per hour. Mr. Wallace, whose vehicle was stationary at the intersection, estimated the speed as well over 120 kilometres per hour. Mr. Hasketts, viewing the vehicles from a different angle, estimated the speed at 160 kilometres per hour.
[40] I make the following findings of fact. Ms. Jabar was operating her motor vehicle northbound on Veterans Memorial Parkway approaching the intersection of Oxford Street at speeds of approximately 150 kilometres an hour. A second vehicle was travelling at the same speed. I infer that the cars were racing. Upon entering the intersection, Ms. Jabar was operating the trailing vehicle. The speed at which she was travelling caused her vehicle to momentarily lose contact with the roadway, and then strike the rear bumper of the car that she was racing with. She then lost control of her car, careened into the southbound lanes, and struck the blue Honda. The speed limit northbound on Veterans Memorial Parkway is 80 kilometres per hour for a portion of the roadway. However, near the Oxford Street intersection, the speed limit is 60 kilometres per hour. At the time of the accident, shortly after 2 p.m., there was other vehicles or traffic on the roadways of the City of London, and in particular, that roadway. A reasonable person would expect there to be significant traffic using the roadways in that location at that time of day.
Conclusions
[41] Given those factual findings, I am satisfied that the manner of driving, from an objective point of view, was dangerous to the public having regard for the circumstances outlined in section 249 of the Criminal Code.
[42] I have rejected Ms. Jabar's evidence as to the circumstances surrounding her driving. Specifically, I have rejected her evidence that she was operating the lead car, and that she was doing so to escape the pursuit of a second car which was driving aggressively and dangerously. I have concluded that she was racing another vehicle at speeds of approximately 150 kilometres per hour within the City of London. In the seconds before the accident, the speed limit on that roadway was 60 kilometres per hour. There was other traffic on the city streets at that location and time. The manner of driving exhibited by Ms. Jabar is a marked departure from the standard of care which a reasonable person would have exercised in the same circumstances.
[43] The Crown has proven all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, and there will be a finding of guilt to the charge of dangerous driving.
Released: June 28, 2016
Signed: "Justice A. Thomas McKay"