Court File and Parties
Date: 2025-10-20
Court File No.: 4840-998-23-10002702-00
Ontario Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King
— and —
Valon Demiri
Before: Justice Peter Scrutton
Heard on: June 26 and September 23, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released: October 20, 2025
Counsel:
- P. Harris for the Crown
- Valon Demiri, self-represented
Overview
[1] Valon Demiri is charged with operating a conveyance while his ability to drive was impaired by alcohol. At the time police pulled him over just before 3:00 a.m. on April 28, 2023, he was driving a pickup truck in the city of Toronto and had rolled through a stop sign. His truck had attracted the attention of the police because it was missing a wheel and driving on three; the friction between the pavement and the metal wheel-well caused loud screeching, sparks, and a fire. Mr. Demiri told the police that he had drunk a couple of beers and was arrested for impaired driving almost immediately.
[2] The key factual issue I must decide is whether the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Demiri's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol. Mr. Demiri represented himself at trial. He admits that he consumed alcohol and was driving that night but disputes that his consumption of alcohol had any effect on his ability to drive. While I acknowledge at the outset how unusual and dangerous it was to drive a vehicle in that condition, what initially appeared to be an overwhelming Crown case was weakened to some extent by Mr. Demiri's successful challenges to some of the potential indicia of impairment that Crown witnesses observed, such that determination of whether the Crown has discharged its burden requires close scrutiny of the evidence.
The Officers' Observations
[3] Police Constable Ankur Patel was on uniformed patrol in the Fort York area of Toronto when he heard a screech and saw a pickup truck with sparks coming from its undercarriage heading north on Queen's Wharf Road, east of Bathurst Street. He watched the truck roll through a stop sign at Fort York Blvd. He and his partner moved their cruiser in front of the truck to pull it over. It was 2:49 a.m. P.C. Ankur's initial concern was that the vehicle was not safe to drive because of the sparks and the rolling stop. He did not see a tire or a wheel when he went to the front passenger side, which was smoking, rusted out, and resting on the roadway.
[4] When P.C. Ankur came back to the driver's side, he saw the driver, Mr. Demiri, speaking to his partner and heard the defendant say that he'd had a few drinks. P.C. Ankur thought Mr. Demiri's speech was slurred and that he appeared to be slightly confused. His eyes appeared to be somewhat glossy. P.C. Ankur did not smell anything immediately but as he got closer he could smell alcohol on Mr. Demiri's breath, a smell that intensified when they were in the cruiser together shortly thereafter. P.C. Ankur arrested the defendant for impaired operation at 2:50 a.m., read him rights to counsel at 2:51 a.m., and gave him the approved instrument demand at 2:53 a.m. Mr. Demiri indicated that he would like to speak to a lawyer. They left for the station, which was a few minutes away.
[5] Body-worn camera footage of Mr. Demiri's arrest shows the pickup truck parked past the stop sign, blocking a pedestrian crosswalk. Part of the truck's undercarriage near where the front passenger wheel should be was on fire; a considerable amount of smoke billowed from it. The passenger side was damaged. Mr. Demiri was asked how much alcohol he'd had to drink and answered "only two beers." P.C. Ankur's partner, who did not testify, appears to be stunned at what he is observing. He made the decision to arrest Mr. Demiri for impaired operation on the spot. Mr. Demiri can be heard slurring something indecipherable about his brakes. He made some unusual facial movements with his lips and mouth as he was being read his rights to counsel.
[6] Mr. Demiri was processed at the station and, after unsuccessful attempts were made to speak to his lawyer, declined to speak to duty counsel. P.C. Sean Robertson, the Qualified Breath Technician who took Mr. Demiri's samples, described him as unsteady on his feet and having slow, slurred speech, droopy eyelids, and a strong odour of alcohol on his breath. Eventually, after some false starts and encouragement, Mr. Demiri provided two samples of breath that resulted in readings of 89 and 81 milligrams of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. He was charged with the offence of over 80 in addition to impaired operation. The Crown did not proceed on the over 80 charge at this trial.
Challenges to the Officers' Testimony
[7] Mr. Demiri asked incisive questions during his cross-examination of both officers that had the effect of neutralizing some of the indicia of impairment they described. P.C. Robertson referenced Mr. Demiri's "very droopy eyelids" in the context of some of the physical signs of impairment he observed but acknowledged that Mr. Demiri appeared to have the same droopy eyelids in court, when there was no suggestion that he was under the influence. P.C. Robertson testified (and noted) that Mr. Demiri was unsteady on his feet but acknowledged that no such unsteadiness was evident in the footage in the breath room; he could not recall whether he had dealt with Mr. Demiri in any other room or the basis for that part of his notes or testimony.
[8] P.C. Ankur admitted that the odour of alcohol he smelled on Mr. Demiri's breath did not in and of itself denote how much alcohol Mr. Demiri had consumed. He maintained that the smell was simply one of the factors he considered in determining that he had grounds to arrest Mr. Demiri. He agreed that it was the condition of the vehicle that initially drew his attention to it, as opposed to its manner of driving. P.C. Ankur acknowledged that the defendant had an accent but disputed that he mistook Mr. Demiri's usual manner of speech for slurring.
The Parties' Positions
[9] The Crown submits that it has proven beyond any doubt that Mr. Demiri was operating a vehicle at the time he was stopped – the only question is whether his ability to do so was impaired by alcohol. The totality of the circumstances prove that Mr. Demiri was impaired. The Crown relies on the fact that Mr. Demiri was driving a truck missing a wheel that was screeching along the pavement, sparking, and literally on fire. Driving a vehicle in this unsafe condition is probative of Mr. Demiri's impaired judgment. The vehicle's condition supports the inference that it had recently been in a collision, which itself is probative of Mr. Demiri's reduced driving skills. The smell of alcohol that both officers described, the slurred speech and glossy eyes that P.C. Ankur described, and the BAC readings, all establish that the cause of Mr. Demiri's impairment was alcohol as opposed to some other intoxicant or physical or mental condition.
[10] Mr. Demiri submits that the Crown has not proved impairment. It is reasonable to infer that he rolled through the stop sign because of the truck's mechanical issues and not because his ability to drive was impaired. Much of the evidence the Crown relies on admits of alternative inferences – the officers mistook his accent for slurring, mistook his natural facial features for drunken ones, and mistook the fact that he smelled like alcohol as probative of his ability to drive. Mr. Demiri also relies on the officers' admission that videos of him at the station do not show any unsteadiness or signs of impairment. Finally (and speciously), he relies on the fact that his breath samples were only slightly above the legal limit as exculpatory evidence which establishes that he was not impaired or is at least capable of raising a reasonable doubt about impairment.
Relevant Legal Principles
[11] Mr. Demiri is presumed innocent of these charges. The burden of proof is on the Crown, who must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of these offences. There is no onus on him to prove anything. The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is an exacting one, much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities. Ultimately, I may only find him guilty if I am sure that his operation of the pickup truck that night was impaired by alcohol.
[12] Mr. Demiri did not testify in this case or otherwise call evidence. Some of his submissions involved factual explanations that were not founded in the evidence. For example, he argued that he did not roll through the stop sign because he was driving poorly but because of the truck's mechanical limitations. In the same vein, he argued that he was not driving the vehicle recklessly, he was simply trying to navigate it to a safe place to park. I will not consider exculpatory explanations that are not founded in the evidence but, in terms of the former example, accept that the condition of the vehicle provides an evidentiary basis upon which to argue that it is possible to infer causes other than impairment explain the rolling stop. I appreciate that doubt can come from the evidence or the absence of evidence and that here, because the Crown must prove impairment circumstantially, Mr. Demiri may only be found guilty if this is the only reasonable inference that the evidence permits. He must be acquitted if the evidence or absence of evidence gives rise to another reasonable inference: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33.
[13] There is no special test for determining impairment. The offence of impaired operation is established by evidence of "any degree of impairment ranging from slight to great": R. v. Stellato (1993), 12 O.R. (3d) 90 (C.A.) at 95, aff'd , [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478; R. v. Ramroop, 2021 ONCA 642 at para. 11.
Factual Findings
[14] I accept the Crown's submission that it has irrefutably proven that Mr. Demiri was driving that night and that he had consumed alcohol. The key issue in this case is impairment. I do not accept P.C. Robertson's testimony about the potential indicia of impairment that he observed, given his inability to explain the basis for his notes and testimony that Mr. Demiri was unsteady on his feet and had slurred speech when they interacted. I accept Mr. Demiri's submission that he does not appear to be unsteady or slurring in the breath room and that his droopy eyelids are not probative of impairment. In rejecting P.C. Robertson's testimony, I do not mean to suggest that it is fabricated or insincere, only that it is not reliable. I will not consider his evidence in my determination of whether the evidence establishes that Mr. Demiri was impaired.
[15] Conversely, I find that P.C. Ankur was a reliable and credible witness. I accept his testimony that Mr. Demiri smelled of alcohol at the roadside, a smell which intensified when they were in the enclosed area of the cruiser. I also accept that Mr. Demiri was slurring his speech in a way that cannot be explained by his accent and usual manner of speech, which is apparent on the body-worn camera footage. It is not clear to me from the video whether Mr. Demiri's eyes are glossy but I accept P.C. Ankur's testimony that he observed glossy eyes in person. Based on my review of the footage, Mr. Demiri was exhibiting a strange affect and demeanour at the roadside that was not apparent later in videos of him at the station.[1] The breath samples the Crown tendered, while not probative of the factual question of impairment because they have not been interpreted by an expert, are probative of the fact that Mr. Demiri consumed alcohol that night, which is in turn partly confirmatory of P.C. Ankur's testimony that he could smell alcohol on him.[2]
[16] When I consider evidence of Mr. Demiri's slurred speech, glossy eyes, the odour of alcohol emanating from him, and his demeanour at the roadside in the context of his rolling stop, the fact that he was operating a vehicle which had recently been in a collision, and the fact that he nonetheless continued to operate that vehicle when it was clearly in no condition to be driven safely, I have no doubt that Mr. Demiri's judgment and ability to drive that night were impaired by alcohol. I find him guilty.
Dated: October 20, 2025
Justice Peter Scrutton
Footnotes
[1] See, for example, Exhibit # 1 at timestamp 2:51:09 and following.