Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: January 23, 2017

Court File No.: Newmarket 15-07764

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Peter Lauridsen

Before: Justice Joseph F. Kenkel

Judgment

Evidence heard: 27 June 2016, 23 January 2017

Delivered: January 23, 2017

Counsel:

• Mr. M. Ventola, Mr. D. Moull — counsel for the Crown
• Mr. M. Caroline — counsel for the defendant

KENKEL J.:

Introduction

[1] Mr. Lauridsen was stopped by police for erratic driving and speeding. The driving and the officer's observations at the roadside led to the accused's arrest for impaired driving. When asked to step out of his vehicle, Mr. Lauridsen stepped backwards against the vehicle then fell face down onto the pavement causing injury. Mr. Lauridsen testified that he lost consciousness but not due to alcohol or drug consumption. The sole issue at trial is whether the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate his vehicle was impaired by the consumption of alcohol as alleged.

The Evidence

[2] Constable Dicks was approaching a red light when he saw a truck signal to move into a left turn lane, then stop abruptly as there was a car already in that lane. That drew the officer's attention to the accused's pickup truck. The officer followed the accused's truck and saw that it was driving faster than the speed limit and was tailgating the vehicle in front of it. At one point the truck jerked suddenly to the left, crossing the centre line of the four lane roadway. It crossed into the Northbound lanes but there were no oncoming cars. The truck then corrected back into its own lane.

[3] The car in front of the accused pulled into another lane. The accused's truck then began to drive faster, paced at 90km in a now 70km lane. The erratic driving continued. The accused's truck weaved repeatedly within its lane and crossed the line between lanes periodically. The officer activated his lights but the truck didn't respond. The truck continued to weave over the line numerous times without stopping. The officer activated his siren but the truck still didn't stop. The officer then drove up beside the accused's vehicle and yelled out his window at the accused to stop. The accused finally made a turn and pulled over.

[4] At the roadside Constable Dicks noticed a strong odour of alcohol on the accused's breath and that his eyes were glassy. Mr. Lauridsen was able to respond to questions and was responsive. PC Dicks asked the accused to step out of the vehicle as he intended to place the accused under arrest for impaired driving. When he stepped out, Mr. Lauridsen took a step backwards against his truck then fell face first directly onto the pavement. There was no apparent external cause for the fall. An ambulance was called as the accused appeared not to be conscious after he fell.

[5] The ambulance responded within minutes and the accused was transported to a nearby hospital. At the hospital Constable Dicks noted that the accused's speech was slurred and he had trouble articulating words. Constable Knarr went to the hospital to assist and saw that the accused had balance problems and that there was an odour of alcohol on his breath. It appeared he had urinated himself. The officer's observations led him to conclude that the accused was intoxicated by alcohol.

[6] Mr. Lauridsen testified that he played hockey that day from 1500 to 1600h. He then cleaned up and went to a pub with friends from the team. He estimated that he was at the pub for an hour and a half. During that time he only had one draft beer to drink and that was the only alcohol he consumed that day. He didn't believe that the alcohol had any effect on his driving. He takes two pills in the morning and two at night for arthritis, blood pressure and other issues but he confirmed that they do not affect his ability to drive and none of them come with warnings about driving or combination with alcohol.

[7] Mr. Lauridsen did not recall losing consciousness nor did he give a potential reason why that may have happened. He didn't think he tripped and the video confirms that there was no external cause. He disagreed that he'd been speeding prior to being stopped. He suffered injury in the fall – three lost teeth from his upper plate, a cut on his knees, two black eyes and a broken thumb.

[8] The booking video shows Mr. Lauridsen upon his return to the station, some 7 hours after the time of driving. He had no difficulty walking the few steps to the bench. For five minutes he stood in front of the booking desk without assistance from the officer. He had no difficulty with balance at that point. In another short walk away from the booking area the accused moved unassisted without incident.

Analysis

[9] I've considered the accused's testimony in the context of all of the evidence and I find that it is neither reliable nor credible on the central points. Mr. Lauridsen did not remember why he passed out just after he stepped out of his car. His estimate of his time at the pub prior to that time didn't accord with the driving distance he described. At the time of driving he was apparently unaware of his excess speed, his tailgating and the ongoing weaving and crossing of the lane line and the centre line. He didn't respond to the police lights right behind him and didn't respond to the siren. It's plain that Mr. Lauridsen's ability to perceive his circumstances at the time of driving was seriously deficient and he has little memory of events after he passed out and fell. I must find his evidence is unreliable in that context.

[10] Mr. Lauridsen's evidence as to his alcohol consumption was not credible as his time at the pub was plainly much longer than he described and afterwards in his driving and his blackout at the roadside he showed significant signs of alcohol intoxication.

[11] Constable Dicks was sober at the time and acting in a professional capacity. He testified with the assistance of detailed contemporaneous notes and an in-car video record. The in-car video confirms the officer's evidence for the time it was activated. The erratic driving shown in the video is consistent with the officer's description of the driving prior to that point. The evidence of PC Dicks was logical and internally consistent. His account is consistent with external video record. I find he was a credible witness and I accept his testimony. I also accept the evidence of the other two officers as sober witnesses acting in a professional capacity.

[12] The evidence of the accused's driving shows significant impairment – tailgating, speeding, crossing the centre lane divider, crossing lane lines, ongoing weaving within the lane, failure to respond to police lights and siren. Once stopped at the roadside he lost consciousness immediately after stepping out of his vehicle. There is no apparent external circumstance that explains his blackout. There was no medical reason for the impairment. I accept the accused's evidence that his regular medications would not have impaired his ability to drive either alone or in combination with alcohol.

[13] I agree with the defence that the observation of slurred speech at the hospital could reasonably result from the fall and loss of teeth. The accused's problem with balance was ongoing though at the hospital. Seven hours after the time of driving the accused showed no problem with balance at the station. His significant injuries hadn't gone away so he was still suffering those effects. It's plain that cause of his erratic driving, his blackout and his lack of balance at the hospital had receded over time. This circumstance is consistent with the impairment having been caused by alcohol. It's common experience that the effects of alcohol recede over time as the body eliminates alcohol from the system.

[14] The credible evidence all points to one conclusion - that the accused was significantly intoxicated by alcohol at the time of driving. I can find no evidence that reasonably could leave a reasonable doubt in that regard. I can find no other conclusion that would be reasonably consistent with the evidence.

Conclusion

[15] I find the Crown has proved the charge of Impaired Operation beyond a reasonable doubt. There will be a finding of guilt.

Released: January 23, 2017

Justice Joseph F. Kenkel