R v. RUTH STAUGHTON, 2017 QCCQ 53

Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions c. Staughton 2017 QCCQ 53 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL TOWN OF MONTREAL Criminal and Penal Division No: 500-61-428559-158 DATE: JANUARY 10, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ BY PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE PEACE SERGE CIMON ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL AND PENAL PROSECUTIONS PROSECUTOR v.

RUTH STAUGHTON DEFENDANT ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Defendant is charged with neglecting to stop her motor vehicle at the request of a police officer, committing an offence to

Section 636 of the Highway Safety Code (‘HSC’) [1] . The Defendant contests this offence and pleads that she made a mistake of fact because she never realized that the other car was a police patrol car and she believed to be a road rage victim. THE QUESTION IN ISSUE [ 2 ] Did the Defendant establish that she made a reasonable mistake of fact? THE FACTS [ 3 ] As evidence, the Prosecutor files the statement of offence and the offence report made by police officer Langlois. In addition, officer Langlois testifies that on February 24, 2015, he was patrolling on Highway 40.

He was driving a black semi-marked Dodge Charger with the Sûreté du Québec logo displayed on both sides of the car. [ 4 ] At 15:50, near the Morgan overpass area, he saw the Defendant’s vehicle, a blue Hyundai Tucson, traveling eastbound in the left lane of Highway 40, seemingly for no particular reason. He decided to intercept the Defendant’s vehicle for an offence to

Section 324 of the HSC. [ 5 ] He positioned himself right behind the Defendant’s vehicle and activated the blue and red revolving lights of his car, located over the front window of his car. There was no reaction on the part of the Defendant, even though no other cars were around them. [ 6 ] Approximatively 300 meters after the Morgan overpass, he activated the patrol car siren.

After a few seconds, the Defendant moved into the middle lane but kept on driving even though there was a shoulder all along the right side of the road. [ 7 ] Using the loud speaker of the patrol car, he said in French and English: “ This is the police, just pull over” . Again, there was no reaction on the part of the Defendant. In fact, the Defendant continued to drive her vehicle at the same speed. [ 8 ] Soon after, he pulled up at the same level as the Defendant’s vehicle and established eye contact with her.

With his finger, he motioned her to pull over on the shoulder, but the Defendant looked at him as if to ask: “ What do you want? ” He then showed her that he was wearing a police uniform with the crest of the SQ. Afterwards, he moved back behind the Defendant’s vehicle. Seeing no reaction, he repeated this maneuver. Realizing that these maneuvers had no effect, he moved back behind the Defendant’s vehicle and asked for the help of a marked patrol car. [ 9 ] Afterwards, the Defendant finally moved towards the right lane, took the St-Charles exit and pulled into a Petro-Canada

gas station. The officer then parked his car near the Defendant’s vehicle. [ 10 ] In his testimony, officer Langlois testifies that he followed the Defendant’s vehicle on a distance of 5.5 kilometers. He added that it was a sunny day and that the windows of both cars were not tinted. [ 11 ] The Defendant admits that she drove her vehicle in the left lane of Highway 40 East and she never realized that she stayed in that lane so long. She never saw the patrol car coming behind her. She noticed for the first time the patrol car only when he suddenly pulled up beside her and stayed parallel with her car.

She then glanced over and saw a very large man staring at her. She tried to ignore him and she didn’t want to look at the car because she thought that if you engage with strangers on the road, they will cut you off further on. [ 12 ] The patrol car stayed parallel with her car for a while before tailgating her. She presumed that it was road rage and was frightened. She continued to drive using the left lane, looking only at the road ahead. The patrol car pulled up beside her again and then moved back behind her.

At that moment, she was afraid to move into the middle lane and that it’s why she remained in the left lane. [ 13 ] Between Morgan overpass and St-Charles exit, she noticed lights behind her. At that moment, she thought that perhaps it was a patrol car but she was still a little bit confused because, to her knowledge, she had not done anything wrong. With her blinker lights on, she slowly moved into the center lane and afterwards into the far right lane. [ 14 ] Also, she took the decision to pull over only at a place where she felt safe.

That’s why she waited until St-Charles exit to pull over because she knew there was a gas station there. She states that, even then, she had no indication that it was a patrol car and she never heard any sounds over a loud speaker. She adds it was impossible for her to see the police uniform worn by the police officer sitting at the wheel of his vehicle. [ 15 ] Finally, she repeats that because she didn’t do anything wrong she was more skeptical that it was a police car. It is only when officer Langlois got out of his car and came before her, she realized he was a police officer.

During her cross-examination, she states that she doesn’t recall if she heard the siren although it’s possible, but she remembers the lights. It only took her a minute to move over and reach the gas station. THE LAW [ 16 ]

Section 636 of the HSC empowers a police officer identifiable as such at first sight, in the performance of his duties under the HSC, to require the driver of a vehicle to stop his vehicle. The driver must comply. This

section authorizes a police officer to stop a vehicle, even in the absence of any reasonable grounds to believe that an offence is being committed against the HSC [2] . [ 17 ] A person who refuses to stop his vehicle when required to do so, commits a strict liability offence. Which means that, once the material elements of the offence are proven by the Prosecutor, there is a presumption of guilt.

To be found not guilty, a Defendant must then convince the Court, by balance of probabilities [3] , that he took all reasonable steps to avoid committing the prohibited act, or that he reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts which, if true, would render the act or omission innocent [4] . This mistake must be honest and reasonable [5] . It must also be invincible, that is any other reasonable person would have done the same mistake [6] . THE ANALYSIS [ 18 ] In this case, the Court is convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the elements of the offence are indeed proven by the Prosecutor.

That being said, the Court cannot accept the defence of a reasonable mistake of fact alleged by the Defendant. [ 19 ] While she may have a sincere belief that it was road rage, the Court must be convinced, by balance of probabilities, that this is the case. It is insufficient to only make that kind of assertion. [ 20 ] In this case, the Defendant presumed, right from the start, that she was a victim of road rage, but she never made any inquiry or verification [7] to ascertain her belief. She never made any reasonable effort to know the accuracy of the situation [8] .

She simply decided to remain voluntarily ignorant [9] of the facts, chose to put the question aside and keep on driving her vehicle. [ 21 ] Also, the Defendant testifies that she never took the time to look at the patrol car. Although she had some indications that it was a patrol car, she never actively took the time to check out the vehicle and verify if it was in fact a patrol car [10] . [ 22 ] Through these actions, or lack of them, she was negligent [11] and this is what we call willful blindness [12] .

Any other reasonable or diligent driver would not have acted like the Defendant did and made such a mistake. [ 23 ] Instead, the Defendant voluntarily decided not to stop her vehicle on the shoulder of the road, but rather go to a gas station located further. According to the evidence, it took a full minute and more than three kilometers for the Defendant to finally stop her vehicle. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: FINDS the Defendant guilty of the offence held against her; SENTENCES her to the minimum fine of 300 $, plus costs and contribution fees; GRANTS her a delay of three months to pay.

__________________________________ Presiding Justice of the Peace Me Amélie JOANNETTE Attorney for the prosecutor Date of hearing: NOVEMBER 7, 2016