COURT FILE NO.: CR-16-702
DATE: March 8, 2018
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
- and -
KEVIN RANGER
Appellant
Counsel:
Hali Adair for Her Majesty the Queen
Jacob Legault, for the Appellant
DATE HEARD: December 21, 2017
REASONS FOR DECISION
James, J.
[1] The appellant, Kevin Ranger, appeals from his conviction for dangerous driving and criminal harassment before the Honourable Justice R. Selkirk of the Ontario Court of Justice sitting in Pembroke.
[2] He says the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons, misapprehended the evidence and failed to consider relevant evidence. He also says the complainant’s evidence was inconsistent and unreliable.
[3] The dangerous driving conviction arises from a sequence of events on March 19, 2016.
[4] The criminal harassment conviction arises out of the March 19 incident and two other subsequent incidents.
[5] The dangerous driving allegations consisted of the appellant using his vehicle to cut off the complainant’s vehicle on three occasions in close succession. The parties had recently separated following a long term common law relationship. On the day in question the complainant said the appellant was angry and agitated earlier in the day.
[6] The only evidence of what actually happened between the two vehicles came from the complainant. The appellant did not testify and the defence did not call any other evidence so there was no evidence to contradict the complainant’s version of events.
[7] The trial judge correctly observed that the defence did not cross-examine the complainant on the details of the three acts of being cut off by the appellant.
[8] The trial judge referred to a discrepancy in the complainant's statement to the police where she said that the cutting off of her vehicle occurred twice compared to her trial evidence when she said it occurred three times. He described the inconsistencies between the evidence of her friend, Richard Yuill and the complainant as insignificant. Mr. Yuill was not present when the appellant used his vehicle to cut off the complainant and had no evidence to give on the precise circumstances of what happened.
[9] While the appellant may disagree with the trial judge's characterization of the discrepancies between Mr. Yuill's evidence and that of the complainant as insignificant, his views on this are entitled to deference and his comments demonstrate that he recognized and addressed the discrepancies in coming to his conclusions. It is not difficult to follow the judge's reasoning that led him to find the appellant guilty.
[10] The criminal harassment conviction encompassed the events of March 19 referred to above, an early morning incident about two weeks later and a third occurrence in April 2016 after an outing the complainant had with the parties' son.
[11] The second harassment incident took place very early in the morning and the weather was foggy. While the complainant and Mr. Yuill were driving to work, they encountered the appellant on the opposite side of the road. He was standing on the paved portion of the road waving his arms in the air and yelling at them as they drove by. Mr. Yuill's evidence supported that of the complainant regarding the appellant's actions. Where they differed was that the complainant said that Mr. Yuill was driving her car. Mr. Yuill said he was driving his mother's car that particular day because it was better on gas.
[12] About ten minutes later they saw the appellant's company pick-up truck stopped at a controlled intersection on Highway 17 as they went through on the green light. The appellant pulled out behind them and followed them for a few kilometres until Mr. Yuill turned off the highway. In her statement to the police, the complainant placed the appellant's vehicle at a different intersection. At trial, in acknowledging her mistake, said that she was "not good with roads".
[13] The third incident involved the complainant dropping her son off at home at around 7 p.m. after having had dinner together at the mall. She then drove to Mr. Yuill's residence. She said that as she approached Mr. Yuill's house she saw the appellant's vehicle backed into a driveway near Mr. Yuill's place. The lights on the appellant's vehicle flashed on and off as she drove by then he pulled out behind her and followed her for 5 to 7 minutes.
[14] Regarding the criminal harassment conviction, the trial judge explained why he accepted the complainant's evidence that she was afraid of the appellant and identified the factors that supported a finding of guilty.
[15] The appellant does not allege that the elements of the criminal harassment offence were not made out in the evidence.
[16] The trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence.
[17] The appeal is dismissed.
Mr. Justice Martin James
DATE RELEASED: March 8, 2018
COURT FILE NO.: CR-16-702
DATE: March 8, 2018
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and –
KEVIN RANGER
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr. Justice Martin James
DATE RELEASED: March 8, 2018