Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-25-10000183-0000 Date: 2026-03-23 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:

His Majesty the King

– and –

Vikas

Marnie Goldenberg and Heather Lamourie, for the Crown

Vincent Ruscitto, for the Defendant

Heard: February 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and February 23, 2026

Reasons for Judgment

Rhinelander, J.

Overview

[1] On Wednesday, May 25th, 2022, at approximately 11:10 p.m., a collision involving two motor vehicles occurred on Lakeshore Boulevard West, east of British Columbia Road, in the City of Toronto.

[2] This stretch of road consisted of three eastbound lanes and three westbound lanes. The collision occurred near a bend in the roadway. The posted speed limit was 60 kilometres per hour. The collision involved one westbound vehicle and one eastbound vehicle.

[3] The westbound vehicle was driven by Mr. Vikas. He was driving a 2020 Volkswagon Jetta with licence plate CPPP 650. The eastbound vehicle was driven by Mr. Tharmalingam. He was driving a 2016 Hyundai Elantra with licence plate CVJY 541. The drivers were the sole occupants of their respective vehicles.

[4] The westbound VW Jetta was travelling at speeds ranging from 149 km/hr to 192 km/hr. The Hyundai Elantra was travelling at the approximate posted speed limit of 60 km/hr.

[5] Due to the force of the impact caused by the collision, the Hyundai Elantra rotated counterclockwise, mounted the eastbound sidewalk curb before coming to rest primarily on the sidewalk facing in a southwesterly direction. The VW Jetta continued in a westerly direction, rotated approximately three times in a counterclockwise direction. It came to rest facing a southeasterly direction, straddling the eastbound centre and passing lanes.

[6] Both drivers were transported to St. Michael's Hospital with serious life-threatening injuries. Mr. Tharmalingham succumbed to his injuries on May 26, 2022, at 9:59 a.m. The cause of death was "multiple blunt force injuries (multiple trauma)." Mr. Vikas survived the collision with permanent life altering injuries.

[7] On October 1, 2022, Mr. Vikas was charged with one count of dangerous operation of a conveyance causing the death of Kinthusan Tharmalingam, contrary to s. 320.13(3), of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

Summary of the Evidence

[8] An agreed statement of facts was filed with the court identifying Mr. Vikas as the driver of the VW Jetta, Mr. Tharmalingam as the driver of the Hyundai Elantra, a description of the cars, the direction each was travelling on Lakeshore Blvd West, and Mr. Tharmalingam's cause of death as multiple blunt force injures caused by the collision.

[9] The Crown called five witnesses: Ms. Barry, PC Torrano, Mr. Buchana, DC Uchman, and Mr. Pon. The defence called two witnesses: Det. Khooshboi and Sgt. Fowlds. The following is a summary of their evidence. It is discussed in further detail in my analysis.

Chantal Cassima Jade Barry

[10] Ms. Barry is a recently called lawyer. On May 25, 2022, Ms. Barry was parked outside the Liberty Grand facing eastbound. She was seated in the front passenger seat talking to a friend on the phone while waiting for her mother to get off work.

[11] A silver car "driving super fast" caught her attention. Ms. Barry mentioned this to her friend and queried why was the car driving so fast when she heard a "boom". She initially thought the silver car hit a pole due to the sound. Ms. Barry estimated the car was travelling well over 100 km/hr and maybe 120 km/hr. She heard a sound, like the wind as the car drove by, to explain her estimate of its speed. Prior to the "boom", the only car she saw was the silver one. She described the driving as reckless. In cross-examination, Ms. Barry maintained the car was speeding and stated, anyone observing the silver car could tell.

[12] Ms. Barry described the weather as clear. There were streetlights along Lakeshore Boulevard West and where she was parked.

[13] Ms. Barry saw a red car with a heavy-set man inside who was stuck. She called 911. Ms. Barry did not see the red car until after the accident happened.

PC Torrano

[14] PC Torrano has been a member of the Toronto Police Service for seventeen years. On May 25, 2022, he was assigned to Traffic Services and worked in uniform. He was on scene at the collision from 11:30 p.m. until 5:50 a.m. the following morning.

[15] While on scene, he took a statement from a civilian, Ms. Barry, and was tasked with assisting with measurements and commenced the impound forms to secure and transport the two vehicles for impoundment. This latter task was passed on to PC Turkot for completion.

[16] An excerpt from his body worn camera was played and he confirmed it accurately depicted the scene with emergency vehicles including fire, paramedics, and police present. A few observers could be seen on bicycles.

Navindra Buchana

[17] Navindra Buchana was qualified as an expert in the examination of motor vehicles. His expertise enabled him to provide opinions on the cause of damage to a motor vehicle, including any preexisting defects that may have contributed to a collision or whether the defects found are related to the collision-induced damage. His qualifications were accepted by the defence, and a copy of Mr. Buchana's curriculum vitae was filed as an exhibit.

[18] Mr. Buchana examined the 2016 Hyundai Elantra and the 2020 VW Jetta. The purpose was to determine if there were any preexisting defects that might have contributed to the collision or if any visible defects were related to collision damage.

[19] As part of his inspection, Mr. Buchana examined the brakes of both vehicles which included the drums, the discs, the friction material, the hydraulic components, dual system warning, parking brake performance, service brake performance, and the pedal pads. He was unable to examine the left front brake of either vehicle as it was missing due to the collision.

[20] In the opinion of Mr. Buchana, there were no mechanical defects with either vehicle prior to the collision. He acknowledged that there is a limit to what he can inspect in a case where there is considerable damage to the car.

DC Uchman

[21] DC Uchman was qualified as an expert in collision reconstruction in speed determination, in the download and the interpretation of Airbag Control Module Data, alternatively known as Restraint Control Module Data or Event Data Recorders, the analysis of event data recorder evidence, determination of damages, sequence of events and damages, interpretation of roadway evidence and vehicle dynamics. The defence conceded his qualifications and agreed he should be permitted to be qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in these areas. His curriculum vitae was marked as an exhibit.

[22] The collision occurred in the eastbound lanes of Lakeshore Boulevard West, east of British Columbia Road and west of Ontario Drive, in the City of Toronto. The surrounding area was largely an open area comprised of fencing surrounding the Liberty Grand banquet hall to the north. To the south of the roadway, the Martin Goodman Trail, a bicycle and walking path, in addition to a green space bordered by Lake Ontario. The area was well-traveled by both private and commercial motor vehicles in addition to pedestrians and cyclists. Lakeshore Boulevard West was classified as a major arterial roadway according to Toronto Transportation Services Road Classification System.

[23] DC Uchman described the collision scene, the road conditions, and the weather. The incident occurred around 11:12 p.m. The historical weather as reported by the Environment Canada website for Toronto City Centre was 13° C during the 11 p.m. hour. The roadway was dry and in good condition. East and westbound traffic was separated by a painted yellow double line. The collision took place near a bend in the roadway.

[24] DC Uchman observed a debris field 190 metres east of British Columbia Road. The debris field encompassed all six lanes and portions of the Martin Goodman Trail. It measured approximately 124 metres in length and 29 metres in width. He noted three tire marks that travelled in a southwest direction from the westbound passing lane to the eastbound passing lane. Broken vehicles parts extended for approximately 95.9 metres in a westerly direction.

[25] The shattered sunroof from the VW Jetta was located approximately 37.48 metres west of the VW Jetta, in the westbound through lane. The front bumper was located approximately 4.89 metres southeast, of the VW Jetta in the eastbound curb lane, and a VW logo was in the eastbound through lane, approximately 5.49 metres east of the Jetta.

[26] The area of impact was determined utilizing the vehicles' position, debris field, tire marks, gouges, and scrape marks. It was determined to be approximately 11.76 metres south of the north curb of Lake Shore Boulevard West, and approximately 21.66 metres west of Pole #302.

[27] Both vehicles were equipped with Airbag Control Modules.

[28] The VW Jetta was traveling at speeds between 187 km/hr and 192 km/hr as it crossed under the Lakeshore Boulevard West Bailey Bridge. As it neared the bend in the roadway, approximately 64 metres and 1.5 seconds from impact, the vehicle was traveling at approximately 181 km/hr.

[29] At the same time approaching the collision area, the Hyundai Elantra was traveling at speeds between 53 km/hr and 62 km/hr.

[30] Approximately 64 metres prior to impact, the VW Jetta applied its brakes. The VW Jetta's speed reduced to 163 km/hr. At approximately half a second before impact, the speed reduced to 149 km/hr. The VW Jetta was traveling more than the critical curve speed for the bend in the roadway and failed to negotiate the bend. The VW Jetta crossed over the solid yellow double line and entered the eastbound passing lane. At the same time, the eastbound Hyundai Elantra was traveling at approximately 53 km/hr and now in the path of the VW Jetta.

[31] The Hyundai Elantra was struck, at an angle, on the front driver's side corner, as the vehicle turned to the right. The VW Jetta was traveling at approximately 125 km/hr when the air bags deployed. At that point, the vehicles had impacted each other on the driver sides. Due to the impact speed, the Hyundai Elantra was forced backwards, and the offset induced a counterclockwise rotation. The Hyundai Elantra struck the south curb before coming to rest on the sidewalk, facing a southwesterly direction.

[32] After impact, the VW Jetta continued along its trajectory, rotating approximately three times in a counterclockwise direction. The VW Jetta came to rest straddling the eastbound centre and passing lane, facing a southeasterly direction.

[33] Based on the analysis of the downloaded EDR data and the vehicle examinations, neither driver wore a seatbelt.

Dale Pon

[34] Dale Pon is a forensic scientist in toxicology employed at the Centre of Forensic Sciences. He was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination of drugs, including alcohol, in the human body; pharmacological and toxicological effects of alcohol, drugs, and poisons on the human body; analytical techniques for the isolation, detection, and quantitation of alcohol, drugs, and poisons in biological samples; pharmacological and toxicological effects of alcohol, drugs, and poisons on the human body, including their ability to impair an individual's ability to operate a motor vehicle/conveyance; theory and operation of analytical instrumentation including gas chromatography (GC), gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), liquid chromatography (LC), liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), quadrupole time of fight mass spectrometry (QTOF-MS), ultraviolet and visible spectrophotometry (UV-vis), and immunoassay.

[35] Mr. Pon was requested to test blood samples collected from Mr. Tharmalingam at St. Michael's Hospital at 4:56 a.m. and 6:50 a.m. on May 26, 2022, and prepare a report regarding drugs found in his system. Mr. Pon reviewed the medical records from the hospital to determine any administration of drugs.

[36] Mr. Pon concluded the detected blood concentrations of ketamine, norketamine, and midazolam were within ranges associated with therapeutic administration. The detected blood concentration of olanzapine is within or below a range associated with therapeutic administration. Lidocaine was identified by a single test and not confirmed or quantitated by a second test.

[37] Mr. Pon acknowledged there may have been additional hospital administration entries regarding ketamine and midazolam that were not listed in the medical records.

[38] Therapeutic refers to a concentration and he would not expect it to cause ill effects or impair someone's ability significantly.

[39] Mr. Pon could not speak to whether there were any drugs and/or alcohol in Mr. Tharmalingam's system at the time of the accident. The only blood samples he was provided were the two taken several hours after his admission.

Det. Khoshbooi

[40] Det. Khoshbooi has been a police officer for nineteen years. He is currently a detective with the homicide squad but was with Traffic Services in 2022.

[41] On the evening of the accident, he was the on-call detective and attended the scene as DC Lalla was running behind. Upon arrival on the scene, he received information from DC Uchman that a westbound vehicle failed to negotiate the turn on the road and went into the eastbound lanes striking a vehicle on the driver side. Det. Khoshbooi observed damage to the driver side of the Hyundai Elantra and the VW Jetta. A request was made for the vehicles be towed for a mechanical investigation.

[42] Upon the arrival of DC Lalla, Det. Khoshbooi turned the investigation over to him and left the scene.

Sgt. Fowlds

[43] Sgt. Fowlds has been a police officer with Toronto Police Services for thirty-six years. He has been a Sargeant since 2007. At the time of the accident, he had been assigned to Traffic Services for two years. His responsibilities included assisting officers on the road and investigations of collisions, scene maintenance, and ensuring proper manpower and equipment was available. He is responsible for any roads that Toronto is responsible for and to ensure road safety at collision sites.

[44] He arrived on scene at 11:40 p.m. The road was closed to traffic in both directions from British Columbia Drive and Strachan Avenue.

[45] Sgt. Fowlds described Lakeshore Blvd West as a heavily travelled road.

Fundamental Legal Principles

[46] Mr. Vikas is presumed innocent. That presumption remains with him unless and until the Crown establishes his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no obligation on him to prove his innocence. Mr. Vikas remains innocent unless and until the Crown has proven the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

[47] It is not enough for me to believe that Mr. Vikas is possibly or even probably guilty. I must be convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If after a careful consideration of all the evidence, I am not satisfied the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Vikas committed the offence charged, I must find him not guilty.

[48] As in all cases, the court must assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence of the witnesses. To be relied on, a witness's evidence on an issue must be both credible and reliable. The Court may believe some, none, or all the testimony of any witness, including an accused person. Where the trier of fact is unable to decide whom to believe, the person accused is entitled to be found not guilty: R. v. S.(J.H.), 2008 SCC 30, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 152, at paras. 10-12.

[49] Credibility relates to the honesty or veracity of a witness, whether the witness is expressing themselves truthfully to the best of their ability.

[50] Reliability relates to the accuracy of a witness' testimony - whether a witness has a strong recollection and memory of the event, whether they can recount details, and whether they are accurate.

[51] Credibility is not an all or nothing proposition. Nor does it follow from a finding that a witness is credible that his or her testimony is reliable. A finding that a witness is credible does not require a trier of fact to accept the witness' testimony without qualification. Credibility is not co-extensive with proof: R. v. J.L., 2025 ONSC 7122, at para 32.

[52] A witness who fails to tell the truth is not credible and not reliable. However, a witness who tries to tell the truth to the best of their ability, and believes the truth of what they are stating, may be mistaken in their recollection. Witnesses may be convinced they are right but may still be wrong when faced with contradicting extrinsic evidence. A credible witness may give unreliable evidence: R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56. Evidence must be both reliable and credible to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

[53] In assessing the credibility of a witness, I must consider any inconsistencies in their testimony whether internal or with prior statements. Inconsistencies on minor matters may be of less importance and not affect the credibility of a witness. However, inconsistencies that impact material issues can lead to a finding that a witness is not credible or reliable.

[54] The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Kruk, 2024 SCC 7 provides guidance to judges when assessing the credibility and reliability of witnesses. Martin J.A., writing for the majority and reviewing earlier decisions, held that "testimonial assessment requires triers of fact to rely on common-sense assumptions about the evidence": para. 72. This includes relying on reason and common sense, life experience, and logic in assessing credibility.

[55] When assessing credibility, I must examine the internal consistency of a witness' evidence and its consistency with other evidence. The evidence of any witness, including an accused, may be believable standing on its own, but when other evidence is given that is contradictory, or casts doubt on the accuracy or reliability of the witness' evidence, that evidence may no longer be believable, or in the case of an accused, may no longer raise a reasonable doubt: R. v. Hoohing, 2007 ONCA 577, at para.15.

Analysis

[56] Mr. Vikas is charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death. The formal charge reads that he operated the vehicle "in a manner that, having regard to all the circumstances, was dangerous to the public, and as a result, caused the death of Kinthusan Tharmalingam, contrary to section 320.13(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada."

[57] The essential elements of the offence that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt are:

(i) That Mr. Vikas operated a motor vehicle;

(ii) That Mr. Vikas operated a motor vehicle in a manner that was dangerous to the public; and

(iii) That Mr. Vikas' operation of the motor vehicle caused Mr. Tharmalingam's death.

i. Did Mr. Vikas operate a motor vehicle?

[58] It is admitted as part of the agreed statement of fact, that Mr. Vikas was operating a motor vehicle on May 25, 2022, specifically, a silver VW Jetta, with licence plate CPPP 650.

[59] This element of the offence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

ii. Did Mr. Vikas operate a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public?

[60] The parties agree the actus reus for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, is whether Mr. Vikas drove in a manner that was dangerous to the public, viewed on an objective standard, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of such place and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be, at that place: R. v. Beatty, 2008 SCC 5, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49 at para. 43; R. v. Roy, 2012 SCC 26, at para. 28; R. v. Guler, [2018] O.J. No. 1906, at para.39; R. v. Kelly, 2025 ONCA 92 at para.52.

[61] The trier of fact must focus on the risks created by the accused person's manner of driving, not the consequences. There must be a meaningful inquiry into the manner of driving: Roy, at para. 34; Beatty, at para. 46.

[62] The mens rea requires the trier of fact to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt "on the basis of all the evidence, including evidence about the accused's actual state of mind, if any, that the conduct amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the accused's circumstances": Beatty, at para. 43; Roy, at paras. 28 and 36; Kelly, at para. 52.

[63] In R. v. Roy, Cromwell, J. stated the questions to be answered are i) whether a reasonable person, in light of the circumstances, would have foreseen the risk and taken steps to avoid it; and ii) whether the accused person's failure to do so is a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances: at para. 36; Guler, at para. 42.

[64] A marked departure from the norm is where a reasonable person in the position of the accused individual would have been aware of the risk posed by the manner of driving and would not have undertaken the activity: Beatty, at para 37; Roy, at para. 40.

[65] In some cases, evidence of speed alone has been sufficient to establish dangerous driving: R. v. Richards, 2003 CanLII 48437 (ON CA), [2003] O.J. No. 1042 (OCA), at para. 11. The surrounding circumstances must still be assessed when determining whether there has been a marked departure: R. v. St. Pierre, 2005 BCSC 1899, [2005] B.C.J. No. 3131, at para. 22.

[66] Previous decisions make clear that the act of dangerous driving does not have to involve a lengthy period of driving. A few seconds can constitute a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable person: Beatty, at para. 48; R. v. Chung, 2020 SCC 8; R. v. Baker, 2013 ONCA 746; Richards, at paras. 8, 10-11; R. v. Richardson, 2017 ABCA 68; R. v. Gangl, 2010 ABPC 105, [2010] A.J. No. 389; R. v. Badaracco, [2005] O.J. No. 6010 (OCJ); R. v. Burger, 2017 ONCA 101; R. v. Vavryshchuk, 2021 ONSC 2252.

[67] The Defence argued the witnesses called by the Crown were not reliable nor credible and failed to provide answers to what occurred on May 25, 2022.

[68] Regarding Ms. Barry, Mr. Ruscitto pointed to her reference to the term "they" when speaking of the silver car. The term "they" was noted by PC Torrano in his notes when speaking to Ms. Barry. This was never put to Ms. Barry in cross-examination to permit her an opportunity to confirm or deny she used that term when referencing the silver car. Nor was she provided an opportunity to address this issue. It was clear from her evidence she only saw one car which she described as a silver car travelling at very high rate of speed westbound and it caught her attention due to the recklessness of its speed.

[69] I found Ms. Barry to be a credible witness. She does not know either driver and was clear she made no observations of any other vehicles. I found her evidence to be reliable regarding her observations of the only car she saw that night and its manner of driving – the silver car – immediately before the impact.

[70] Mr. Ruscitto asks this court to reject the evidence of Mr. Buchana and argued he was not truthful because he did not acknowledge speaking to any officers prior to conducting the examination of the vehicles. Mr. Buchana testified he did not recall speaking to any officers. He did not deny he did, he just could not remember because it had been over three years since he inspected the cars.

[71] Mr. Ruscitto argued Mr. Buchana received information that influenced his opinion on whether there were any potential pre-existing defects that could have contributed to the accident.

[72] Mr. Buchana was very clear in his evidence. He was unable to inspect the brakes of the front left side of both vehicles due to collision damage. While he checked the boxes on the VW Jetta form confirming the brakes were in working condition, he explained this was only applicable to the three brakes he was able to inspect. A note reflected the left front brake was missing due to collision damage. He made notes of the measurements of the pads and rotors for the right front brake, and the rear brakes of the VW Jetta.

[73] His notes reflected similar findings for the Hyundai Elantra, insofar as the left front pads and rotor were missing.

[74] Mr. Buchana confirmed that his inspections did not find any pre-existing mechanical issues that would have contributed to the collision. He confirmed that vehicles are equipped with a dual warning system and explained that if one caliper or rotor should fail, the other would continue to brake. It would not pull a vehicle to a particular side because the dual braking system is diagonally split. The right front and left rear work together, and the left front and right rear work together. If either one of the brakes fail, the other line will work to stop the vehicle. If the left front brake is missing the right rear will not operate. He agreed there would be less braking power if relying only on one line of the dual braking system.

[75] I understood and accepted Mr. Buchana's explanations for the side notes and the standardized form. I found him to be credible and reliable and understood his duties to provide an objective and unbiased opinion of his examination of the vehicles. Based on his inspection, he was unable to find any pre-existing mechanical issues in either vehicle.

[76] Mr. Ruscitto asked the Court to reject the evidence of DC Uchman and his report. He argued the report of DC Uchman was flawed because he relied upon Mr. Buchana's vehicle mechanical examination reports. For the reasons set out above, I reject this argument.

[77] Mr. Ruscitto questioned DC Uchman regarding the tire marks he observed on the roadway. DC Uchman testified he marked the tire markings with cones prior to taking photographs. Mr. Ruscitto cross-examined DC Uchman extensively on why of the 70 photos introduced by the Crown the tire marks were not visible in any of the photographs. It is clear from the evidence other photographs exist beyond the 70 chosen by the Crown to tender as evidence in this case. Additional photographs were relied upon by DC Uchman in his report.

[78] DC Uchman explained several times that tire marks evaporate over time, and when the cones were placed at the scene, where the tire marks were, they were visible to the naked eye. Mr. Ruscitto refused to accept this.

[79] Mr. Ruscitto pointed to contradictions in the Area of Impact noted in DC Uchman's report and an image that he was asked to mark at trial to reflect the Area of Impact that differed from his report. At the time DC Uchman marked the image at trial, he stated it was not accurate and was much larger because he wanted to ensure Mr. Ruscitto could see it. This trial proceeded as a hybrid proceeding with Mr. Ruscitto participating via Zoom due to his client's medical needs.

[80] I accept DC Uchman's testimony and explanation provided at the time regarding the difference in the circumference of the Area of Impact noted in his report and the image he was asked to draw it on at trial.

[81] Mr. Ruscitto raised concerns regarding the equipment used to take measurements of the scene and create the images of the collision. He argued there was no evidence the equipment was properly calibrated. DC Uchman testified that the equipment was all in working order and he followed all industry standards.

[82] In R. v. Paradisi, 1998 CanLII 1989, at para. 1, the Court of Appeal for Ontario stated, "the onus was on the accused to lead evidence at trial that there was a "high degree of unreliability with respect to the screening device" at the time it was administered to the accused." No evidence was led by Mr. Vikas to establish there was any degree of unreliability on the equipment used in this investigation.

[83] DC Uchman testified in a straightforward manner and explained how he came to his conclusions regarding the collision. He set out the materials reviewed, the measurements, photographs, and calculations used.

[84] DC Uchman was asked about the critical curve and the critical speed formula. He explained in doing the calculations to determine the maximum speed that the bend in the road could be negotiated without a car losing complete control, he tried to give as much benefit to the driver as possible, using as much of the roadway as possible. He did not limit his calculation to the driver being in the passing lane only. Based on this calculation, he determined the maximum speed a vehicle could safely negotiate the curve in the roadway was 125 kilometres per hour.

[85] I found his evidence to be both credible and reliable. He was objective, impartial, and unbiased in his assessment of the evidence and his analysis.

[86] The evidence of the speed of the VW Jetta is derived from the "black box", the photographs, and the testimony of Ms. Jade, and the accident reconstructionist DC Uchman.

[87] The Crown pointed to the following circumstances:

• The evidence from the EDR that showed the speed Mr. Vikas was travelling at between 187 km/hr to 192 km/hr 5 to 2.5 seconds before the collision.
• Mr. Vikas' speed was more than three times the posted speed limit of 60 km/hr.
• Mr. Vikas' pedal compression was at 100% 5 seconds before the collision and until 3 seconds prior to the collision when he was travelling at 191 km/hr.
• His brakes were not engaged until 1.5 seconds prior to the collision.
• At the time of impact, he was travelling at 125 km/hr.
• The speedometer froze at 120 km/hr upon impact which corresponds with the speed from the EDR reading of 125 km/hr.
• Lakeshore Boulevard West is a very busy roadway. It is a major arterial roadway bordered by a walking and cycling path. There is a reasonable expectation that there would be a lot of vehicular / pedestrian traffic.
• The driving conditions were good. It was a clear, dry night with good artificial lighting. The roadway was unobstructed and dry.
• A reasonably prudent driver would not have been driving 192 km/hr as they were approaching a bend in the roadway, or at all.
• Mr. Vikas was nearing the turn at a very high rate of speed and was unable to negotiate the turn. As a result, he went into the eastern lanes and collided with Mr. Tharmalingam's vehicle causing catastrophic damages.
• Driving is inherently dangerous, and drivers are expected to maintain a certain level of care, for their own safety and for the safety of others.
• The dangerous driving was a direct result of intentional choices that Mr. Vikas made. He made a conscious, deliberate, unimpaired decision to drive in the manner he did. He was attentive to his mission to speed and rapidly accelerate by pressing the accelerator down to 100%.

[88] I am satisfied the driving, viewed objectively, was dangerous to the public in all the circumstances. This was a major arterial roadway in Toronto; there is usually a regular flow of traffic; the south side of the road has a bicycle and running/hiking path; the posted speed limit is 60 km/hr. Mr. Vikas was travelling at speeds upwards of three times the posted limit. The evidence of DC Uchman, giving Mr. Vikas the widest amount of latitude, was the bend in the road could not have been negotiated if travelling more than 125 km/hr. There is no doubt, that Mr. Vikas manner of driving endangered the public. He created a risk of damage or injury by his driving.

[89] Mr. Vikas did not testify as is his right. Therefore, I must be satisfied the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Vikas' driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care which a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances.

[90] This is not a situation of simple carelessness or a mere departure from the standard expected of a reasonable person in these circumstances. 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.

[91] A reasonable person would have foreseen the risk that driving at three times the posted speed limit within the city of Toronto, on a major arterial road, accelerating towards a bend in the road, created a very real risk of a collision occurring within seconds. When I say this, it does not necessarily entail a collision with another vehicle – it means a single car collision – on its own, with a pole, or involving pedestrians, cyclists, or other vehicles.

[92] Further, Mr. Vikas applied significant pressure to the gas pedal to the point that it was fully compressed all the way to the floor of the car. Mr. Vikas' failure to foresee the risk or take steps to avoid it was a marked departure from the standard of care.

[93] Considering all the circumstances and the speed with which Mr. Vikas was travelling, I find that Mr. Vikas operated a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public.

[94] I turn now to the issue of causation.

iii. Did Mr. Vikas' operation of the motor vehicle cause Mr. Tharmalingam's death?

[95] The other essential element of the offence of dangerous driving causing death relates to causation. The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the dangerous driving was a significant cause of Mr. Tharmalingam's death. Without proving causation between the actions of the accused and the resulting injury, the offence becomes dangerous driving simpliciter: R. v. Armstrong, 2011 ONCA 709, 22 M.V.R. (6th) 173, at paras. 29-32.

[96] Causation is established in a criminal context when an accused's actions were a significant contributing cause of the resulting death or bodily harm: R. v. Nette, 2001 SCC 78, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 488, at para. 71.

[97] Mr. Ruscitto argued the evidence of Mr. Pon does not provide any insight into whether Mr. Tharmalingam was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the collision. He asks this Court to consider if there could have been drugs in the deceased's bloodstream at the time of the collision that could have contributed to his driving ability.

[98] Mr. Ruscitto suggested there was a possibility that Mr. Tharmalingam crossed the yellow line between the east and westbound traffic causing the accident. This theory runs afoul of all the evidence put before this court.

[99] The Court cannot consider speculative or fanciful ideas not based on the evidence.

[100] DC Uchman concluded that Mr. Vikas traveling in the passing lane at speeds of approximately 181 km/hr as he neared a bend in the roadway. The posted speed limit on Lakeshore Blvd West was 60 km/hr. When Mr. Vikas reached the northwesterly bend in the roadway, he began to apply his vehicles brakes. Due to his speed, he could not safely negotiate the bend. He crossed the solid yellow double line and entered the eastbound lanes, and struck Mr. Tharmalingam, at an angle, on the front driver's side.

[101] This collision could have been avoided had Mr. Vikas not exceeded the posted speed limit of 60 km/hr and not exceeded the roadway's critical curve speed of 125 km/hr at its widest point.

[102] There were no mechanical or pre-existing issues reported with either the VW Jetta or Hyundai Elantra that would have contributed to this collision.

[103] Mr. Vikas operated his motor vehicle at three times the posted speed limit, rapidly accelerated with the gas pedal fully depressed less than three seconds before the collision, and was unable to control his vehicle on the slight bend. He made no effort to slow down until 1.5 seconds before the collision.

[104] The deceased, Mr. Tharmalingam, was driving just under the posted speed limit. The EDR from his vehicle showed he had turned his steering wheel to the right, began to brake, and his speed dropped immediately prior to the collision. A reasonable inference is he tried to avoid a collision with Mr. Vikas' car when it crossed into the eastbound lane.

[105] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Vikas' operation of the motor vehicle caused Mr. Tharmalingam's death.

Disposition

[106] My decision is based solely on a determination of the evidence before the court and not an emotional response to the consequences of the collision.

[107] I find Mr. Vikas guilty of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing the death of Mr. Tharmalingam.

JUSTICE C. RHINELANDER

Released: March 23, 2026