Her Majesty the Queen - v. -, 2019 SKPC 39

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2019 SKPC 39 Date: June 28, 2019 Information: 90174800 Location: Prince Albert _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Shane Colin Morin Appearing: Ms. Mary A. Larson For the Crown Mr. Ronald Piche For the Accused JUDGMENT S.D. SCHIEFNER, J INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Two highway workers were badly injured when a truck slammed into their vehicle while it was parked in a construction zone in the early morning of August 19, 2018. As a result of this collision, Mr.

Morin stands charged with two counts of leaving the scene of an accident (hit and run); two counts of impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing an accident resulting in bodily injuries; and two counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily injuries. [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that Mr. Morin was operating the truck at the time of the collision. I am also satisfied that the two highway workers sustained bodily injuries as a result of the collision. I am further satisfied that Mr. Morin

knowingly walked away from the scene without giving his name or his address or offering assistance to the two injured workers and that he did so for the purpose of escaping civil and/or criminal liability. [ 3 ] As for the balance of the charges, I have insufficient evidence as to Mr. Morin’s drinking pattern in the hours immediately preceding the collision and there were insufficient indices of impairment in the hours after the collision to be satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired at the time of the collision.

Finally, while I have no clear explanation for how this very serious collision occurred, I do not have an evidentiary basis upon which I can conclude it occurred because Mr. Morin was driving the truck in a dangerous manner at the time of the collision. THE FACTS [ 4 ] The facts relevant to this collision began the day before. a. Evidence of Samantha Couillonneur: [ 5 ] Ms. Couillonneur is 34 years of age and lives in Saskatoon. August 18, 2018, was her birthday. At the time, she owned a 2017 Dodge Ram (the “truck”). [ 6 ] At some point, Ms.

Couillonneur agreed to use her vehicle to drive an unnamed woman to Cumberland House (the “woman”) and pick up her son. Arrangements were made, cash paid, and a group of people left from Saskatoon around 10:00 or 11:00 a.m. on August 18, 2018. The group consisted of Ms. Couillonneur and three others: Shane Morin (Ms. Couillonneur’s cousin); the woman; and a person named “Kyle”. [ 7 ] Kyle was the designated driver. The group needed a designated driver for two reasons. Both Ms. Couillonneur and Mr. Morin had been drinking the night before. The group planned on drinking on the way to Cumberland House. [ 8 ] Ms.

Couillonneur testified that she was intoxicated when they left Saskatoon. She also testified she only got a couple of hours sleep the night before. Finally, prior to leaving on their journey, Mr. Morin, the woman and Ms. Couillonneur smoked meth. It was the first time Ms. Couillonneur had tried meth. As a result, she only smoked a small amount – in her words, she just “tried it once”. She did not see how much Mr. Morin smoked. [ 9 ] Ms. Couillonneur and Mr. Morin drank Bud Light beer on the way to Cumberland House. The group got to Cumberland House around 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. Ms.

Couillonneur testified that both she and Mr. Morin were impaired because they both had been drinking all the way to Cumberland House. [ 10 ] Upon arriving at Cumberland House, they picked up the woman’s son (age 15/16) and then drove to a trailer belonging to a couple. Some of the passengers went in the trailer, including Mr. Morin. Others stayed in the vehicle. Ms. Couillonneur went in the trailer and had half a can of beer. [ 11 ] Ms. Couillonneur did not know the couple who owned the trailer. However, some of the women who were there wanted to get some alcohol. Ms. Couillonneur agreed to take them. Ms.

Couillonneur and these women went to the bar at Cumberland House. Mr. Morin did not go to the bar. The women stayed at the bar for about an hour and then returned to the trailer. During this time, Ms. Couillonneur drank one drink. [ 12 ] In total, the group was in Cumberland House for about an hour; maybe a little more. There was no evidence as to what Mr. Morin drank, if anything, while at Cumberland House. [ 13 ] The group then drove to Nipiwan. During this drive, Ms. Couillonneur thinks she drank two cans of Bud Light, which was the last of her beer. There was no evidence as to what Mr.

Morin drank, if anything, on the way to Nipiwan.

[ 14 ] When they got to Nipiwan, it was already dark. They went to a bar and stayed there until it closed. At the bar, Ms. Couillonneur and Mr. Morin were with different groups of people. As a result, there was no evidence as to what Mr. Morin drank while at the bar in Nipiwan. [ 15 ] The bar closed in the early hours of August 19, 2018. Ms. Couillonneur remembers buying a case of Budweiser – probably 18 cans. Ms. Couillonneur candidly admitted that her memory of leaving the bar was poor. She remembers buying beer and then being in the middle of the front seat of her vehicle - but not much else.

She did not remember walking to her vehicle or who was driving when they left the bar. Ms. Couillonneur admitted that this portion of her memory was poor because she was intoxicated. In cross-examination, Ms. Couillonneur acknowledged that she drank well over 10 beers during the course of the day. [ 16 ] The group was heading back to Saskatoon. To do so, they left on Highway 55 driving toward Prince Albert. At this point in the evening, Mr. Morin was driving, Ms. Couillonneur was in the middle of the front seat, and the woman who hired her was on the passenger side of the front seat. [ 17 ] At some point, Ms.

Couillonneur woke up – somewhere outside Nipiwan. When she woke up, Ms. Couillonneur realized that Mr. Morin was driving her truck and not the designated driver. In addition, the woman who hired her started being verbally aggressive with her. As a result, Ms. Couillonneur wanted Mr. Morin to stop the vehicle; but he refused. Ms. Couillonneur testified that the lady continued being verbally aggressive with her to the point that she felt unsafe. [ 18 ] Ms. Couillonneur took out her phone and called her grandmother and spoke with her on the phone. She told her that Mr.

Morin would not stop the vehicle and that she did not feel safe in her vehicle any more. Ms. Couillonneur’s grandmother spoke to Mr. Morin on her phone and told him to stop the vehicle. Mr. Morin complied and when he stopped the vehicle, Ms. Couillonneur told everyone to get out. Everyone did as she requested. [ 19 ] Ms. Couillonneur then drove a little way down the road and stopped. Ms. Couillonneur believes that her grandmother or someone must have called the police because her phone rang while she was alone in the vehicle and it was the police. Ms.

Couillonneur told the police that she was on the road; that she was intoxicated; and that she felt unsafe. The person she spoke to told her to wait in her vehicle and not drive because she was intoxicated. [ 20 ] At about the same time, someone tried to open the passenger door but the door was locked. A couple of minutes later, the driver’s side window broke. Ms. Couillonneur tried to drive away. But before she could, Mr. Morin jumped in and pushed Ms. Couillonneur aside. Mr. Morin told Ms. Couillonneur to get out. He then pushed her out of the truck. [ 21 ] Mr. Morin then drove off with Ms.

Couillonneur’s truck – the 2017 Dodge Ram. Ms. Couillonneur testified that no one else was in the vehicle when Mr. Morin drove off and he was heading down the road toward Prince Albert. [ 22 ] Ms. Couillonneur testified that she was left alone on the side of the road on Highway 55. While standing there, Ms. Couillonneur saw a sledge hammer lying on the side of the road - a hammer that had previously been in the back of her truck. Ms. Couillonneur assumed that Mr. Morin used that hammer to break the driver’s side window and gain access to her truck. [ 23 ] Ms.

Couillonneur testified that she saw the other passengers waiting on the side of the road where she had originally left them. She walked to them and stood with them until the police arrived. The police then took everyone to the Nipiwan detachment. b. Evidence of Matthew Broad and Luke LaPlante : [ 24 ] Mr. Broad and Mr. LaPlante were both working as flagmen on a highway construction crew on August 19, 2018. They were assigned that day to work on a portion of Highway 55 approximately 26 kilometers northeast of Prince Albert on the road to Nipiwan. The area was scheduled for crack sealing.

It was a clear and sunny morning. Road conditions were dry and in good condition. There were no obstructions with good visibility for several kilometers in all directions. There was very little traffic on the highway.

[ 25 ] The two workers arrived on site at approximately 5:20 a.m. in a company truck pulling a large mobile sign (an “arrow board”) on an attached trailer. Mr. LaPlante was driving and Mr. Broad was in the passenger seat. Mr. LaPlante parked off the travelled portion of the highway in the grassy portion of the ditch adjacent to the shoulder of the highway. The truck and trailer were parked parallel to the highway facing east. The truck’s hazard lights were activated, as well as a rotating bubble light on top of the truck. [ 26 ] Soon after arriving, Mr. LaPlante started to get out of the vehicle to have a smoke.

As he did so, Mr. LaPlante saw a truck approaching toward the front of their vehicle. The truck was coming from the east (the direction of Nipawin) and was travelling through the construction zone when it was observed by Mr. LaPlante. Having observed the truck, Mr. LaPlante did not think anything of it. It was not weaving and it did not appear to be speeding. [ 27 ] Satisfied that it was safe to get out of his vehicle, Mr. LaPlante got out, closed the door and went to the back of his truck by the hitch. His plan was to have a smoke and then unhitch the trailer. At about the same time, Mr.

Broad was getting out of the passenger side of their vehicle to start setting up for the day. Mr. Broad did not see the approaching truck. c. The Collision : [ 28 ] For reasons not clear, the approaching truck – which was Ms. Couillonneur’s 2017 Dodge Ram – drifted out of its lane, drove across the oncoming lane, across the shoulder of the highway and drove into the ditch were Mr. Broad and Mr. LaPlante’s work truck was parked. The approaching truck hit the front of the parked highway truck. The point of collision was on the front of each vehicle with more damage apparent on the driver’s side of each vehicle.

There is no evidence that the brakes on the approaching truck were applied prior to the collision. The force of the impact was sufficient to violently push the parked highway vehicle backwards and spin it and the attached trailer around on the highway. [ 29 ] Both Mr. LaPlante and Mr. Broad were struck by their own vehicle as it was violently pushed and spun around. Both Mr. LaPlante and Mr. Broad sustained injuries from the force of the impact. d. After the Collision: [ 30 ] After the collision and before anyone got there to help, there were just the two heavily damaged vehicles on the road.

The other construction workers were some distance away. [ 31 ] Immediately after the accident, Mr. Broad found himself lying on the ground. He was bleeding from the mouth and his back and left side were hurting. He tried to stand but fell back to the ground. Mr. Broad saw a man get out of the passenger side of the truck and fall to the ground near the front tire of the other truck. Mr. Broad did not get a good look at this man other than to observe that he was male, that he had short hair, and that he was wearing blue pants. [ 32 ] Immediately after the accident, Mr. LaPlante found himself lying on the ground.

The force of the impact was such that Mr. LaPlante could not find his glasses (for seeing things in the distance). He got up soon after he hit the ground. The first thing he did was to go check on Mr. Broad who was lying on the ground. Mr. LaPlante also observed a man lying beside the other truck. When Mr. LaPlante first saw this man, he was already out of the truck and lying on the ground. [ 33 ] Mr. LaPlante went to assist Mr. Broad first. Mr. Broad had blood on this face but was alive. Mr. LaPlante then went to check on the man lying by the other vehicle. Mr.

LaPlante did not see any blood on him and he seemed to be okay. [ 34 ] While the man was lying on the ground, he said to Mr. Broad and Mr. LaPlante “I’m sorry! I’m sorry!” Not being in the mood for an apology, Mr. Broad yelled “Screw you!” Worried he might exacerbate his injuries, Mr. LaPlante told Mr. Broad to “calm down”. Soon after, a vehicle came down the highway. [ 35 ] Mr. LaPlante flagged down the approaching vehicle, which stopped. Mr. LaPlante asked the man and woman in the vehicle to phone for help. Apparently, the man had some first aid training and he offered to assist Mr. Broad. Mr.

LaPlante got a first aid kit from the work truck. While this man was providing aid to Mr. Broad, Mr. LaPlante went back to check on the man from the other vehicle. He

was gone. [ 36 ] Mr. LaPlante testified that he interacted with the man from the other vehicle for less than a minute – probably only for 15 seconds. The person was on the ground that whole time and Mr. LaPlante was approximately two to three meters away. Mr. LaPlante described the man as young, having brown hair, and wearing jeans and a dark blue t-shirt. Mr. LaPlante testified that he recognized Mr. Morin in court and “his gut feeling” was that he was the same person he saw on the ground after the collision. Mr. LaPlante testified that Mr.

Morin looked similar to the person he saw but was unable to articulate the basis of his belief. Mr. Morin was in the prisoner box at the time. [ 37 ] Mr. Broad did not see anyone else get out of the other vehicle other than the man he saw lying on the ground after the collision. However, Mr. Broad was lying on the ground most of the time. Mr. LaPlante was able to move around and looked inside the other vehicle. He did not see anyone else in or around the other vehicle. In cross-examination, Mr.

LaPlante acknowledged that someone could have got out of the driver’s side of the vehicle before he got up or while he was dealing with Mr. Broad on the ground. [ 38 ] An ambulance was on the scene very quickly. Both Mr. Broad and Mr. LaPlante believe they were inside the ambulance at approximately 5:35 a.m. Mr. Broad and Mr. LaPlante were transported to hospital. Mr. Broad had a broken tooth and was badly bruised on both sides of his body. His hip and back were both sore long after the collision. Mr. LaPlante experienced whiplash and was bruised on his back and his hips.

Neither man had any broken bones or internal injuries. Both men were discharged from hospital later that day. Mr. Broad was off work approximately one week. Mr. LaPlante was off work much longer. e. Testimony of Constables Taylor and Link: [ 39 ] At the time of the collision, Constable Taylor was a relatively new officer with the RCMP. She arrived at the scene at approximately 6:00 a.m. She saw the two damaged trucks. The ambulance was still present and Mr. Broad and Mr. LaPlante were inside. Constable Taylor went to the 2017 Dodge Ram and looked inside. Inside the officer found a wallet containing Mr.

Morin’s driver’s licence. [ 40 ] Constable Link is a ten year veteran of the RCMP. He arrived at the scene of the collision at approximately 6:02 a.m. Just as Constable Taylor had, he saw the two heavily damaged trucks. The ambulance was present and Mr. Broad and Mr. LaPlante were both inside. Constable Link took photographs of the scene of the accident, including the two vehicles as they looked after the collision. [ 41 ] Constable Link searched the plates on his computer and was told by dispatch that the 2017 Dodge Ram was reported stolen earlier that morning and that Mr.

Morin was a person of interest in the alleged theft. In addition, because of the wallet that had been found and the information that someone had left the scene, information was communicated to dispatch indicating that Mr. Morin was a person of interest for a hit and run. A general description of Mr. Morin was provided over the police radio. [ 42 ] Both Constable Taylor and Constable Link searched the immediate vicinity for occupants of Ms. Couillonneur’s truck as well as Mr. Morin. They did not see anyone. The officers called in other officers to assist in a more thorough search of the area.

The police dog service was also brought in. The adjacent farmland, pasture land and nearby buildings were searched. Neither the officers nor the dog team were able to locate anyone. The search was abandoned and the officers left the scene at approximately 8:15 a.m. f. Evidence of Constables Burns and Carreau : [ 43 ] Constables Burns and Carreau are both members of the RCMP and were working together on another call on the morning of August 19, 2018. On returning from that call, they were driving East on White Star road toward Highway 55. At approximately 8:50 a.m., the officers came upon Mr.

Morin walking west down that road. Mr. Morin was approximately two kilometers from Highway 55. He was wearing a winter jacket and boot liners on his feet. His shoes were in a plastic bag and all of his clothing was wet. He was wearing jogging pants. [ 44 ] Both officers testified as to their belief that Mr. Morin was impaired when they were dealing with him. They both said he smelt of alcohol, that his eyes were red and bloodshot, and that he had other unspecified physical signs consistent with impairment. In addition, Constable Carreau observed a small cut on Mr. Morin’s hand.

[ 45 ] The officers transported Mr. Morin to their detachment. g. Evidence from the Detachment: [ 46 ] On August 20, 2019, Constable Taylor conducted an interview of Mr. Morin while he was in RCMP custody. At that time, he was wearing grey sweat pants and a red t-shirt. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS [ 47 ] Mr. Morin stands charged with two counts of leaving the scene of an accident (hit and run); two counts of impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing an accident resulting in bodily injuries; and two counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily injuries. a. Hit and Run: [ 48 ]

Section 252 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence for any person who has care, charge or control of a motor vehicle that is involved in an accident with another person or vehicle, to fail to stop at the scene of the accident. The person who is involved in such an accident must stop and stay at the scene to give his/her name and address and, if there are injuries, must offer assistance.

An element of the offence is that the person involved in the accident must have failed to stop and/or stay at the scene to avoid civil or criminal prosecution. [ 49 ] In the present case, there is no dispute that there was a collision and that people were injured. The issues I must determine are as follows: 1. Whether or not Mr. Morin had care and control of Ms. Couillonneur’s truck at the time of the collision? 2. If so, whether or not the Crown has proven the requisite mens rea ; namely that Mr.

Morin was aware of the accident and injuries and then left the scene of the collision for the purpose of escaping criminal or civil liability? (

i) Did Mr. Morin have Care and Control of the Subject Vehicle? [ 50 ] The Crown’s evidence that Mr. Morin was driving Mr. Couillonneur’s truck at the time of the collision is circumstantial and based on a constellation of facts. First, Ms. Couillonneur’s testimony that some hours prior to the incident, Mr. Morin left in her truck heading east on Highway 55 toward Prince Albert and that he was the only person in the vehicle at that time. Second, the evidence of Mr. LaPlante who observed Ms. Couillonneur’s truck coming down Highway 55 from the direction of Nipiwan at approximately 5:20 a.m.

The combined evidence of Mr. Broad and Mr. LaPlante that only one person got out of Ms. Couillonneur’s vehicle after the collision. The evidence of Mr. LaPlante that Mr. Morin looks like the person he saw on the ground after the collision. Third, the photographs taken by Constable Link of Ms. Couillonneur’s truck after the collision and the suggested inference from these photographs that the driver-side door of that vehicle was never opened. Fourth, the evidence of Constables Link and Taylor that they did not observe Mr. Morin or anyone else present at the scene approximately 30 minutes after the accident.

Fifth, the evidence of Constables Burns and Carreau that they found Mr. Morin walking on a grid road approximately two kilometers from the collision approximately 3 hours and 20 minutes later. [ 51 ] Defence counsel argues that this circumstantial evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Morin was in Ms. Couillonneur’s truck at the time of the collision, let alone driving it. Defence counsel points to the evidence that Ms. Couillonneur was intoxicated at the time Mr.

Morin left with her vehicle on August 18, 2018, sufficiently so that this court should doubt the reliability of her evidence (that Mr. Morin was alone in the vehicle). Defence counsel points to the evidence of Mr. LaPlante that he said he was knocked unconscious by the force of the impact and that someone could have left the scene of the accident before he regained consciousness or while he was distracted dealing with Mr. Broad’s injuries. The caution of defence counsel that Mr. LaPlante’s identification of Mr. Morin was based on a very short interaction with someone he had never met before and that Mr.

Morin was in the prisoner box when he was identified by Mr. LaPlante.

[ 52 ] Where proof of one or more element of an offence depends solely or largely on circumstantial evidence, I must caution myself regarding the nature of circumstantial evidence and the requirement on the Crown to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, I must be careful to not inadvertently “jump to conclusion” and overlook reasonable alternative explanations for the evidence. See. R v Villaroman , 2016 SCC 33 , [2016] 1 SCR 1000 [ Villaroman ].

Rather, I must be satisfied, after considering all the evidence, as well as the absence of evidence and after considering the frailties of the evidence I have, that the only reasonable inference I may draw from the evidence is that Mr. Morin was the only person in Ms. Couillonneur’s vehicle at the time of the collision. If there are reasonable and plausible alternative explanations for the evidence which is inconsistent with guilty, I must acquit. See: Villaroman at para 30 . On the other hand, reasonable doubt must be based on something more than mere speculation.

For example, an alternative explanation that, while theoretically possible, but not reasonable or plausible when assessed in the light of human experience and common sense, should not form the basis of reasonable doubt. See: Villaroman at para 41 . Finally, reasonable doubt is a state of mind – it describes a degree of persuasion. It does not require proof to an absolute certainty. See: Villaroman at para 28 . [ 53 ] In the present case, I am satisfied that Mr. Morin was the only person in Ms. Couillonneur’s truck at the time of the collision and I am satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt. First, while Ms.

Couillonneur was intoxicated during the early hours of August 19, 2018, she experienced a traumatic violent event at the hands of her cousin. While I must approach Ms. Couillonneur’s evidence with caution because of her state of intoxication, her conduct at the relevant time was very rational. She found herself in a situation which made her feel uncomfortable. She phoned her grandmother. She spoke on the phone with police and understood and followed their instructions – namely, to stay in the vehicle, leave the doors locked and not to drive.

Furthermore, the act of someone smashing through the window of your vehicle on the side of the road in the middle of the night would have been a “sobering experience” for anyone. Finally, the details relevant to these proceedings are not complicated; namely, Mr. Morin was driving and he was alone in the vehicle. In all the circumstances, I accept Ms. Couillonneur’s evidence on both of these points. Her testimony regarding these facts was clear, cogent and compelling. [ 54 ] Counsel for Mr. Morin cautions this Court that Mr.

LaPlante testified that he was unconscious immediately after the collision and, that during this period of time a person other than Mr. Morin could have left from the truck. While Mr. LaPlante did use the word “unconscious” to describe his state immediately after the collision, he also said he “woke up” when he hit the ground. Because of the fact that Mr. LaPlante is not dead, I infer that the duration of time he was “in the air” and thus “unconscious” was very short – only a few seconds. Mr. LaPlante testified that he immediately got up to check on his co-worker. Observing that Mr.

Broad was not in immediate peril, Mr. LaPlante then went to check on the other person lying on the ground nearby. At the same time, Mr. LaPlante looked at and in the vehicle. Only the passenger door was open and no one else was in the vehicle. I am satisfied that there was insufficient time for anyone else to exit the vehicle and not be observed by either Mr. LaPlante or Mr. Broad. The overwhelming and singular conclusion from this evidence is that the person lying on the ground was the driver. [ 55 ] Defence counsel cautions that no weight should be given to Mr. LaPlante’s eye-witness identification of Mr.

Morin based on his short opportunity to observe the driver and the fact that Mr. Morin was in the prisoner box. In this regard, Mr. Morin relies on R v Bigsky , 2006 SKCA 145 , 289 Sask R 179. With all due respect, I disagree. First, I am aware of the frailties of eyewitness identification; especially when the person being identified is in the prisoner box. Mr. LaPlante was aware of the frailties of his own ability to identify Mr. Morin. Mr. LaPlante’s evidence was that Mr. Morin looked like the person he saw on the ground. Second, Mr. LaPlante’s partial identification of Mr. Morin is corroborated by Ms.

Couillonneur’s evidence placing Mr. Morin alone in her truck driving in the direction of the collision just a few hours prior. Mr. LaPlante’s evidence is also corroborated by the evidence of Constables Burns and Carreau who placed Mr. Morin within two kilometers of the collision approximately 3 hours and 20 minutes after it occurred. [ 56 ] Finally, defence counsel cautions that the description of clothing provided by Mr.

LaPlante of the person on the ground (namely, blue jeans and dark blue coloured t-shirt) does not match the clothing he was wearing when observed by Constables Burns and Carreau or by Constable Taylor at the detachment (namely, grey sweats and red coloured t-shirt). Defence askes that I infer from this evidence that Mr. Morin was not in Ms. Couillonneur’s truck prior to the collision. With all due respect, this inference is improbable in the extreme and not supported by the evidence. It would mean that a person other than Mr. Morin was driving; that, at some point prior to the collision, Mr.

Morin got out of the truck; that someone else then drove the truck in the same direction that Mr. Morin was heading; and that Mr. Morin coincidentally end up walking in the area soon after the collision. [ 57 ] Rather, having considered the evidence, I find that Mr. Morin was the sole occupant of Ms. Couillonneur’s truck at the time of the collision and that he was driving. Ms. Couillonneur’s evidence was clear, cogent and compelling that Mr. Morin was the sole occupant of her truck and was driving toward Prince Albert when he left her on Highway 55 in the early hours of August 19, 2019. Mr.

LaPlante’s evidence was that the person lying on the ground looked similar to Mr. Morin and the compelling inference from the combined evidence of Mr. LaPlante, Mr. Broad, Constable Taylor and Constable Link was that only one person got out of Ms. Couillonneur’s truck after the collision. This evidence is corroborated by Mr. Morin being found close to the collision both in distance (two kilometers) and time (3 hours and 20 minutes). This evidence is further corroborated by the state of Mr.

Morin’s clothing when found by police which was entirely consistent with a person having hidden in and traveled through the bush to avoid detection. Simply put, there is no plausible alternative explanation for all of these facts.

(ii) Did Mr. Morin have the Requisite Mens Rea? [58] To obtain a conviction pursuant to s. 252, the Crown must also establish (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Mr. Morin wasaware that an accident occurred on August 19, 2018; that people were injured as a result of that accident; and that he failed to remain atthe scene of that accident in order to escape or avoid civil or criminal liability. [59] Mr. Morin’s knowledge of the occurrence of the accident and the resulting injuries can be inferred from the apology he spoketo Mr. Broad and Mr.

LaPlante. [60] In many cases involving hit and run, the issue of intent (to avoid civil or criminal liability) is determined by the simpleapplication of ss. 252(2). This provision provides that, absent evidence to the contrary, failure of a person to offer assistance where anyperson has been injured or appears to require assistance and give his/her name is proof of the intent to escape liability. In the presentcase, the Crown is able to, but need not, rely on the statutory presumption. [61] Officers Taylor and Link were on the scene of the collision within approximately 35 minutes.

They conducted a thoroughsearch of the area. Mr. Morin could only have avoided detection by running and hiding. This conclusion is corroborated by the state ofMr. Morin’s clothing when he was found by police 3 hours and 20 minutes later. His clothing was entirely consistent with a personhaving hidden in and travelled through a wet terrain. Since neither the area around the collision nor Highway 55 nor any of the adjacentroads were wet, he must have been in the forested area adjacent to Highway 55. [62] I am mindful that post-offence conduct is circumstantial evidence and, like most circumstantial evidence, Mr.

Morin’sconduct after the accident may give rise to a range of possible inferences. See: R v Calnen, 2019 SCC 6 [Calnen], at paras 111 & 112. Italso involves a retrospective chain of reasoning and thus its admissibility must be assessed by the court. See: Calnen at para 110. In thepresent case, I am satisfied that the inferences I may draw from the evidence as to Mr. Morin’s state of clothing are relevant, material andwould not offend any exclusionary rule of evidence. See: Calnen at para 107.

For example, the probative value of the inference that Mr.Morin was hiding in the bush to avoid detection by police far exceeds any prejudicial effect – particularly so, when one considers thatthis is the only rational inference based on the evidence, the compelling nature of that inference, and the consistency of this inferencewith the totality of other evidence. [63] Defence counsel argues that Mr. Broad’s hostile attitude toward Mr. Morin is “evidence to the contrary”. In other words, itwould be open to the court to infer that Mr.

Morin did not leave the scene to avoid responsibility – rather, that he left the scene to avoid aconfrontation with Mr. Broad. With all due respect, the argument is not persuasive. First, Mr. Broad was in no condition to threatenanyone. He was lying on the ground and could not stand up. Second, Mr. Morin did not need to hide in the bush and walk over twokilometers to avoid a confrontation with Mr. Broad. Waiting on the other side of the road would have been more than sufficient.

I am notsatisfied that there is any evidence to the contrary and thus the Crown may rely on the presumption set forth in s. 252(2) of the CriminalCode. (iii) Conclusion: [64] For the foregoing reasons, I find Mr. Morin guilty of counts (1) and (2) of Information ending 800 – having care of a vehiclethat was involved in an accident on August 19, 2018 near Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, that he failed to stop and stay at the scene of thataccident to provide the required information and to offer assistance to Matthew Broad and Luke LaPlante, both of whom were injured asa result of that accident. b.

Impaired Operation of Motor Vehicle Causing Accident/Bodily Injury: [65] To obtain a conviction on counts (3) and (4) of Information 90174800, the Crown must prove, inter alia, that Mr. Morin’sability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by either alcohol or drugs or combination thereof at the time of the collision. TheCriminal Code does not prescribe any special test for determining impairment. Simply put, if the evidence establishes any degree ofimpairment (of the ability to operate a motor vehicle) ranging from slight to great, the offence is made out.

On the other hand, if theevidence of impairment is frail or inconclusive such that the trial judge is left with a reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted.See: R v Stellato, (SCC), [1994] 2 SCR 478. See also: R v A.L.E., 2009 SKCA 65, 256 CCC (3d) 476.

[ 66 ] The Crown argues that Mr. Morin was impaired based on various evidence. First, the evidence of Ms. Couillonneur that she and Mr. Morin started their journey by consuming meth; that she and Mr. Morin drank on the road to Cumberland House; and that Mr. Morin was impaired when they arrived at Cumberland House at approximately 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. on August 18, 2018. Second, his aggressive act of breaking into and stealing his cousin’s truck and then leaving her and everyone else on the side of the road outside Nipawin in the early hours of August 19, 2018.

Third, the volume of empty and full beer cans that were inside the cab of the truck following the collision. Fourth, the unexplained collision. Fifth, the indices of impairment observed by Officers Burns and Carreau, 3 hours and 20 minutes after the accident. [ 67 ] With all due respect, the evidence of Mr. Morin’s state of impairment falls short of the high evidentiary standard expected of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. While I have compelling evidence that Mr. Morin was impaired when the group arrived at Cumberland House, this was 12 hours prior to the collision. I do not have evidence of Mr.

Morin’s drinking pattern in the hours immediately preceding the collision. There is little doubt that Mr. Morin’s conduct in the early hours of August 19, 2018, was violent and aggressive. However, it would be unsafe for this Court to infer that this conduct was because he was impaired. Certainly, many people commit acts of violence and aggression toward family and friends while sober. Similarly, it would be unsafe for this Court to assume that Mr. Morin must have been impaired because an accident occurred or because beer cans were in the cab.

Finally, the indices of impairment described by Officers Burns and Carreau left considerable room for reasonable doubt. [ 68 ] Having considered the evidence in these proceedings, I am left with a reasonable doubt that Mr. Morin’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired at the time of the collision. As a result, I find him not guilty of Counts (3) and (4) of Information 90174800. c. Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Injury : [ 69 ] The actus reus and mens rea of dangerous driving were set out in R v Beatty , 2008 SCC 5 , [2008] 1 SCR 49 [ Beatty ]. See also: R v Alves , 2014 SKCA 82 , 442 Sask R 69.

They are as follows: The Actus Reus: The trier of fact must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that, viewed objectively, the accused was, in the words of the section, driving in a manner that was “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”.

The Mens Rea: The trier of fact must also be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused’s objectively dangerous conduct was accompanied by the required mens rea . In making the objective assessment, the trier of fact should be satisfied 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.

Moreover, if an explanation is offered by the accused, then in order to convict, the trier of fact must be satisfied that a reasonable person in similar circumstances ought to have been aware of the risk and of the danger involved in the conduct manifested by the accused. [ 70 ] I do not know how this accident happened. Mr. LaPlante saw the truck coming down the road just prior to the collision. Although his period of observation was short, he did not see it weave or exit its lane and he did not think that it was speeding. Simply put, he did not observe anything that made him feel unsafe.

Having observed an approaching vehicle, Mr. LaPlante felt it was safe to get out of his vehicle. On the other hand, the vehicle Mr. Morin was operating drifted out of its lane, crossed the center line of the highway and struck a parked vehicle in the ditch on other side of the road. [ 71 ] Irrespective of the cause of the accident, there can be no dispute that Mr. Morin’s failure to confine his vehicle to his own lane of traffic was dangerous to other users of the highway. However, as noted by the Court in Beatty , this conclusion only answers the actus reus of the offence.

The more difficult question is whether Mr. Morin had the necessary mens rea . [ 72 ] In my opinion, the limited evidence that is available does not support the inference that Mr. Morin deliberately intended to create a danger to the public by speeding or driving erratically over a prolonged period of time. On the other hand, the mental element in dangerous operation does not require that Mr. Morin’s actual state of mind was to create a danger. The offence can be made out if the Crown can establish a marked departure from the standard expected of a reasonable prudent person in the circumstances that Mr.

Morin found himself during the early hours of August 19, 2018.

[ 73 ] In R v Roy , 2012 SCC 26 , [2012] 2 SCR 60, the Supreme Court of Canada established a two-step approach for a trier of fact to conduct an analysis for mental element of dangerous driving. First, I must ask whether in light of all relevant evidence, a reasonable person would have foreseen the risks and taken steps to avoid them if possible. Second, I must ask whether Morin’s failure to foresee these risks and take steps to avoid them, if possible, represented a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person in Mr. Morin’s circumstances.

As noted by the Court in Beatty , mere negligence is not sufficient to attract penal consequences for dangerous driving. Furthermore, it is important to remember that it is the “manner” in which Mr. Morin was driving the vehicle; not the consequences of the driving that is at issue. While the consequences may assist in assessing the risk involved, it does not answer the question of whether or not the truck was being operated in a dangerous manner prior to the collision. See: Beatty at para 46 . [ 74 ] Based on the limited evidence available with respect to Mr.

Morin’s operation of the truck prior to the collision the compelling inference is that he was driving appropriately prior to the collision but fell asleep or otherwise experienced a temporary lapse of attention. As noted by the court in Beatty , a momentary lapse of attention without more does not establish a marked departure from the norm required. [ 75 ] It is possible, as suggested by the Crown, that Mr. Morin feel asleep because he had been awake for an extended period of time, first in Saskatoon celebrating Ms. Couillonneur’s birthday and then on a drug/alcohol-fueled road trip to Cumberland House and back.

Was a lack of sleep, together with Mr. Morin’s voluntary consumption of alcohol and drugs, a contributing factor to Mr. Morin’s lack of attention and thus the accident? If so, are these additional risk elements sufficient to establish gross negligence on his part – did Mr. Morin embark on or continue operating the truck in circumstances which he knew or ought to have known were dangerous because there was a real risk that he would fall asleep at the wheel? See: R v Jiang , 2007 BCCA 270 . [ 76 ] As I have already indicated, I have no evidence as to Mr.

Morin’s consumption of intoxicants in the 12 hour period prior to the accident. I also have no evidence as to Mr. Morin’s sleep pattern for a relevant period prior to the accident. Finally, I have no direct evidence of Mr. Morin’s driving other than in the few seconds prior to the collision. While it is possible that a lack of sleep and the voluntary consumption of intoxicants contributed to Mr. Morin’s lapse of attention, an evidentiary foundation for this conclusion is missing. [ 77 ] The Criminal Code does not allow the Court to draw conclusions and apply criminal sanctions in the absence of cogent evidence.

Absent an evidentiary foundation for lack of sleep or the presence of intoxicants, I do not get past the first step of the Roy analysis of mens rea . [ 78 ] As a consequence and on the limited evidence available, I am not satisfied – certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt - that Mr. Morin had the requisite mens rea . Simply put, the evidence is insufficient to meet the high standard required to sustain a conviction for dangerous driving within the meaning of the Criminal Code . [ 79 ] As a result, I find him not guilty of Counts (5) and (6) of Information 90174800.

Dated this 28 th day of June, A.D. 2019, at the City of Prince Albert, in the Province of Saskatchewan. __________________________ S.D. SCHIEFNER, J