R. v. Haines, 2021 BCPC 3

Citation: R. v. Haines 2021 BCPC 3 Date: 20210105 File No: 36832-1 Registry: Williams Lake IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. ROYCE DOMINIC HAINES REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE P.D. WHYTE Counsel for the Crown: J. Dufour Counsel for the Defendant: R. Kaiser Place of Hearing: Williams Lake , B.C.

Date of Hearing: November 9, 2020 Date of Judgment: January 5, 2021 [ 1 ] Royce Dominic Haines (the “Accused”) stands charged that on or about May 9, 2020, at or near Big Creek in the province of British Columbia, while operating a motor vehicle being pursued by a peace officer, he did fail, without reasonable excuse, to stop the motor vehicle as soon as was reasonable in the circumstances, contrary to s. 320.17 of the Criminal Code .

[ 2 ] The Accused is also charged on the same date, and at the same location, with driving a motor vehicle while suspended, contrary to s. 234(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act . [ 3 ] The only matter at issue in this trial is the identity of the person who was driving the vehicle in question on May 9, 2020.

It is admitted the Accused was a suspended driver on May 9, 2020; and whoever operated the vehicle in question on that day failed without reasonable excuse to stop for a peace officer as soon as it was reasonable to do so. [ 4 ] The Crown submits that the evidence has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the Accused was driving the motor vehicle. The defence argues there is a reasonable doubt as to the identity of the driver, and therefore the Accused is entitled to an acquittal. [ 5 ] The Crown called three witnesses. The Accused testified in his own defence, and was the only defence witness.

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE Cst. Joshua Owen [ 6 ] Cst. Joshua Owen is a member of the Alexis Creek RCMP detachment. He was on duty on May 9, 2020. Around 6:35 p.m., he was advised by his dispatch that Royce HAINES was seen driving recklessly north bound, just outside of Alexis Creek. The vehicle allegedly driven by the Accused was described as a grey pickup truck with a distinctive red stripe down the side (the “Pickup”). The initial report was that the Pickup did not have a license plate, and that it had failed to stop at a COVID-19 checkpoint set up by the Stone (Yunesitin) FN Reserve. [ 7 ] Cst.

Owen proceeded east on Highway 20 to the Big Creek Road junction, and down Big Creek Road, which turned into Taseko Lake Road. He was advised by dispatch that the pickup was seen heading northbound on Taseko Lake Road. [ 8 ] Taseko Lake Road crosses the Chilcoltin River. As the officer proceeded along this bridge crossing, he noticed a vehicle matching the description of the Pickup in a turnoff area adjacent to the road. As he approached, the officer saw a distinctive horizontal red stripe on the truck. The truck was described as a “lifted,” which I understood to mean modified to increase its height. [ 9 ] Cst.

Owen said he was familiar with this vehicle. Aside from its colour combination, the truck had various modifications, including muffler upgrades and the distinctive lift system. [ 10 ] As Cst. Owen drew closer to the vehicle, he noted two passengers: an Indigenous male driver with short hair and wearing a white muscle shirt; and a female passenger wearing sunglasses. At the time of first sighting, Cst. Owen said he was unable to identify the driver. [ 11 ] Cst. Owen placed his police car parallel to the vehicle and activated his emergency lights. He said the driver turned and faced toward him, making eye contact.

At that time, he recognized the driver as the Accused. Cst. Owen stated he was somewhere between 25 and 40 metres away when he made this identification. [ 12 ] The vehicle began moving backwards. Cst. Owen also reversed, as he believed the vehicle would try to back out of the turn off. As the vehicle moved backward, Cst. Owen continued to look at the driver, and stated he was “very, very confident” of his identification of the Accused as the driver. He did not recognize the passenger at that time. [ 13 ] Cst. Owen testified he had met the Accused on two previous occasions.

One of those occasions was within a few months of May 9, 2020. He said he spoke with the Accused for about 30 minutes. At that time, he said he and the Accused discussed the Accused’s distinctive grey pickup truck, and specifically the modifications the Accused had made to it. [ 14 ] On the second occasion, Cst. Owen said he had a brief interaction with the Accused, lasting less than five minutes. [ 15 ] The vehicle began to move forward, and exited the pullout. As Cst. Owen was by himself, he decided it was safer to allow the vehicle to exit. He followed it as it drove across the bridge.

When it failed to pull over, Cst. Owen activated his emergency siren. In response, the vehicle increased its speed to over 80 km/hr. The vehicle’s tires were kicking up loose dirt and gravel, and creating a dust cloud. Cst. Owen was able to confirm the vehicle did not have a license plate. [ 16 ] Recognizing the vehicle was not going to stop, Cst. Owen discontinued his pursuit, as he felt it was unsafe. He believed he had identified the driver, and was satisfied this was the same vehicle that had failed to stop at the checkpoint. Upon ending the active pursuit, Cst.

Owen lost sight of the vehicle as it entered a variety of road switch backs, heading in the direction of the Yunesitin FN Reserve. [ 17 ] Cst. Owen attended the Accused’s residence in the early morning hours of May 10, 2020, with the intention of arresting him for the offences from the day before. He estimated it was six hours and 20 minutes later when he arrested the Accused. At that time, he said the Accused was wearing a black t-shirt. Otherwise, he said the Accused matched the description of the individual he saw driving the grey pickup truck earlier in the day. [ 18 ] In cross examination, Cst.

Owen confirmed his belief that the vehicle he saw on May 9, 2020, was the same vehicle that was with the Accused when the two of them had their 30 minute discussion a month or two prior to the May 9 incident. He acknowledged the vehicle was not registered to the Accused, but rather to a Russel Cooper. Cst. Owen said that, following the Accused’s arrest, he issued to the Accused tickets and a tow notice for a grey pickup with a red stripe. [ 19 ] Cst. Owen stated that his view of the driver of the vehicle in the pullout was through the passenger side window, at a distance of 25-40 metres.

He confirmed that his driver’s side window was rolled up. Despite the distance, the officer stated his view of the driver was not impeded, and there were no environmental factors that interfered with his identification of the Accused as the driver. [ 20 ] Cst. Owen stated that the driver of the pickup looked over in his direction on more than one occasion during the interaction at the

pullout. He said that he was absolutely sure the Accused was driving the distinctive grey pickup truck with the red stripe when he came across it at the pullout. [ 21 ] Cst. Owen said he believed the passenger in the vehicle at the pullout was Lancie Char, but he was unable to positively identify her at the time. He noted, however, that Ms. Char was present when he attended the Accused’s residence in the early morning hours of May 10, 2020. Ashley Quilt [ 22 ] Ashley Quilt is a member of the Yunesitin FN Reserve.

On May 9, 2020, and at various other times, she was tasked with operating a checkpoint to the reserve. During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Yunesitin FN Reserve set up a checkpoint to keep anyone other than first responders out of the reserve lands. Additionally, as part of their duties, checkpoint operators kept track of when Reserve residents left, and when they returned. [ 23 ] Ashley Quilt has worked for the Yunesitin FN in various capacities, including as a Youth Worker, Community Liaison, and for the Band office.

During the pandemic, she went door to door providing information to Reserve members. Her work gave her a broad knowledge of the residents of the Reserve, and where they lived. [ 24 ] Ms. Quilt worked the checkpoint on a regular basis in April and May 2020. She said she knew the Accused from living on the reserve. She recognized him as the driver of the Pickup when it approached the checkpoint. While she was imprecise regarding the specific date that the Accused drove the Pickup to the checkpoint, she said it was particularly memorable for her, because she had not seen the Accused driving before.

She believed he did not possess a driver’s license, and he had always been the passenger in any vehicle that had approached the checkpoint previously. Additionally, she said the Pickup was distinctive, and different from all other vehicles on the reserve. It was a big grey truck with very loud mufflers. [ 25 ] Ms. Quilt said she had called the RCMP on a number of occasions to report the same vehicle driving around the reserve at high speed at night, when she believed the driver was intoxicated. [ 26 ] On this particular occasion, Ms.

Quilt said she recognized the Accused as the driver, and Lancie Char as the passenger. She said the Pickup failed to come to a complete stop. As the vehicle rolled through the checkpoint, Ms. Quilt said Ms. Char told her they were going to “Carla’s.” [ 27 ] Ms. Quilt said she was standing on the passenger side of the Pickup when Ms. Char said this. She knew Carla to live in the direction of Big Creek, but she noted that the Pickup did not drive in that direction. Ms. Quilt also noted that the Pickup did not have a license plate. For these reasons, Ms.

Quilt said she and her colleague, Pascal Quilt, determined it was appropriate to alert the RCMP. [ 28 ] Ms. Quilt said she saw the Accused was wearing a “muscle shirt,” but was unable to identify Ms. Char’s clothing. [ 29 ] Ms. Quilt confirmed in cross examination that she could not say with precision when she encountered the Accused and Ms. Char at the checkpoint. She said it was a Friday or Saturday, and likely in April or May 2020. [ 30 ] Regarding her familiarity with the Accused, Ms. Quilt said she knew everyone who resided on the Reserve.

She said she had interacted with the Accused at the Band office; during her survey work; and at the checkpoint. [ 31 ] Ms. Quilt could not say how many times she had seen the Accused pass through the checkpoint, but estimated around 50 times. She recalled only a single incident when he was driving; the vehicle had no plates; and the vehicle had not come to a full stop. [ 32 ] Ms. Quilt said her shift at the checkpoint was on Fridays and Saturdays from 12 noon to midnight for two weeks, followed by a two week period from midnight to 12 noon.

She confirmed her belief that the incident with the Accused occurred during one of her noon to midnight shifts, and on a weekend. Pascal Quilt [ 33 ] Pascal Quilt is a member of Yunesitin FN. He and Ms. Quilt routinely operated the checkpoint together on weekends. Part of his job was to mark down the license plates of vehicles that came to the checkpoint; turn away visitors and make note of who was entering and leaving the Reserve lands. Mr. Quilt described the Yunesitin FN as a small community wherein “we know everybody.” As regards to the Accused and Ms. Char, Mr. Quilt said he had known them “all my life.” Mr.

Quilt said that he had worked with the Accused for over a year doing carpentry work. [ 34 ] Mr. Quilt confirmed that he and Ms. Quilt were working together on the day when the Accused and Ms. Char attended in a dark grey pickup truck with a red stripe and no license plate. He also said Ms. Char told them they were going to “Carla’s.” He said he was on the driver’s side of the vehicle when it approached the checkpoint. [ 35 ] In cross examination. Mr. Quilt confirmed that his shifts at the checkpoint were 12 hours, either from noon to midnight, or midnight to noon.

He said the incident with the Accused occurred roughly around dinner time, and that there was still daylight. As with Ms. Quilt, Mr. Quilt could not be more precise regarding the particular date when he interacted with the Accused at the checkpoint, but stated it was the only time he recalled seeing the Accused driving a vehicle. During all other encounters, he said the Accused was a passenger. It appeared that the incident in question when the Accused was driving stood out in his memory. [ 36 ] Mr. Quilt said that when he approached the driver’s side of the vehicle, Ms.

Quilt remained close by sitting in a lawn chair approximately nine feet away. He also said the vehicle came to a full stop, rather than moving forward without stopping as described by Ms. Quilt. He said the vehicle did not stop upon its return to Yunesitin, but did stop when leaving. Royce Haines

[37] The Accused testified in his own defence. He acknowledged a prior criminal history, for which he had been incarcerated in thepast. He said his history caused him to be in conflict with various other members of the Yunesitin FN, including family members. [38] The Accused testified that he had lived on the Yunesitin FN Reserve for 10 years. He lives with his common-law spouse, LancieChar, and his nephew Frances. [39] The Accused said he does not own a grey pickup truck with a red stripe. Nor was he driving such a vehicle on May 9, 2020. Hesaid that he was at home on this date, and that Ms.

Char would say the same thing. While he acknowledged travelling through thecheckpoint at various times, he said his uncle drove him to Williams Lake to buy groceries. He denied travelling through the checkpointat all between April and May, 2020. [40] In cross examination, the Accused agreed that Yunesitin was a small community, comprised of approximately 210 people livingin 42 inhabitable houses. He noted that, while he and Ms. Quilt’s family do not get along, he had no issues with Mr. Quilt. [41] The Accused acknowledged he had been working on a grey truck with a red stripe, and that he had met Cst.

Owen at that time.He agreed he and Cst. Owen discussed some of the modifications to the truck. However, the Accused stated it was not his truck, butrather that it belonged to his cousin Russel Cooper. He said at one point that Mr. Cooper picked up the truck from him, and sold it tosomeone else living on the Reserve. [42] It was put to the Accused that Mr. Cooper would not have been able to enter or leave the Reserve during the COVID-19restrictions, as he was not a resident. The Accused stated that the checkpoint was only in place from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m.

Later, he stated thegates were open from 7 a.m. to midnight during the week. [43] The Accused stated he had a good memory of May 9, 2020, because he had been at home working on his niece’s car. He said hechanged the oil and the brake rotors, tires, and wheel bearings. During the day, he said various people came by, including his youngerbrother and some friends, to borrow tools. [44] After working on his niece’s vehicle, the Accused said he washed up and put his tools away.

As he had no money, he stayed in,had dinner and watched television before going to bed around 11:00 p.m. [45] It was put to the Accused that he couldn’t have gone to bed at 11:00 p.m. when he was outside being arrested in the earlymorning hours of May 10. The Accused then recalled that a number of his friends had attended his house around midnight to drinkalcohol around a bonfire.

He recalled as many as 15 people coming over to hang out. [46] Finally, when pressed on the fact that a police officer and two fellow Yunesitin Reserve members had identified him as the driverof the Pickup on May 9, 2020, the Accused stated the police officer did not know him, and did not know what he was talking about. THE LAW [47] In this case, the Crown’s witnesses and the Accused provided the court with different versions of the events of May 9, 2020. Assuch, the case engages the issue of credibility, and involves the application of the presumption of innocence. This presumption,enshrined in s. 11(

d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, requires that an accused cannot be convicted unless eachessential element of the offence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. [48] It is acknowledged that the only matter at issue in this trial is the identity of the driver of the Pickup.

If the Crown has provenbeyond a reasonable doubt that person was the Accused, then the gravamen of the offences is made out. [49] In circumstances where the Accused testifies, it is improper to assess the Accused’s evidence against the other witnesses,determine who appears more believable, and render judgment on that basis. A criminal trial is, in all cases, a determination of whetherthe Crown has proven the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there is reasonable doubt, the accused isentitled to an acquittal. [50] As noted by both the Crown and the defence, this case engages the analysis discussed in paragraphs 28 and 29 of R. v. W.(D.), (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. In accordance with W.(D.), I instruct myself, in reference to this particular case, on thefollowing basis: FIRST, if I believe the evidence of the accused, I must acquit. SECOND, if I do not believe the testimony of the accused but am left in reasonable doubt by it, I must acquit.

THIRD, even if I am not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, I must ask myself whether, on the basis of the evidence which I doaccept, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused. Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses [51] As noted in R. v. Kishayinew, 2019 SKCA 127, honesty should not always be equated with reliability (at paragraph 59): …it is important to understand the distinction between credibility and reliability because the assessment of credibility is a separateconsideration from the assessment of reliability.

It is the difference between the witness’s willingness to testify truthfully (credibility)and the accuracy of the witness’s testimony (reliability). Finding a witness to be credible does not equate to finding a witness’s testimonyto be reliable. While a non-credible witness’s testimony will not be reliable, a credible witness’s testimony is not necessarily reliable: seeR. v. Pelletier, 2019 SCKA 113 at paras 138–139. [52] It is thus necessary to assess the credibility and reliability of the witnesses who testified at trial.

The Alibi Evidence [ 53 ] In this case, the Accused offered in his testimony what amounted to an alibi. He said he could not have been the driver of the Pickup truck, at the checkpoint or at the pullout, because he was at home all day and all night on May 9, 2020. [ 54 ] Mr. Kaiser acknowledged that he provided the Crown late notice of this alibi evidence, indeed very late notice. He said he did not tell the Crown about it until the morning of the trial. Ms.

Dufour for the Crown argued that the Court ought to place little to no weight on the Accused’s alibi evidence because the late notice made it impossible for the police to investigate. In response to my request for submissions on how I should consider the alibi evidence in the circumstances, Ms. Dufour referred me to R. v. Cleghorn , [1995] 3 S.C.R. 75 (“ Cleghorn ”) . [ 55 ] Disclosure of an alibi must be both timely and adequate in terms of information so as to permit the police to conduct a meaningful investigation of the validity of the alibi before trial.

Failure to meet either of these requirements can result in the trier of fact drawing an adverse inference when weighing the evidence heard at trial, but improper disclosure of an alibi can only weaken the alibi evidence , it cannot exclude the alibi (see Cleghorn at para. 4. [ 56 ] Alibi evidence, if accepted, negates the actus reus of the offence. An accepted alibi cannot co-exist with guilt, as it is confirmation that the accused could not have committed the crime because he or she was elsewhere ( see R. v.

Allen , 2017 MBCA 88 at para. 8 ). [ 57 ] Once the defence of alibi is evidentially raised, the Crown bears the "legal or persuasive burden" of disproving the defence beyond a reasonable doubt or the accused person is entitled to be acquitted. [ 58 ] An alibi that is disbelieved by the trier of fact has no evidentiary value. It cannot be used to determine whether or not the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If an alibi is found to have been fabricated by the accused person, the trier of fact may draw an inference of consciousness of guilt ( see R. v. Hibbert , 2002 SCC 39 at paragraph 67 ).

ANALYSIS Alibi Evidence [ 59 ] I find the late notice of the alibi evidence has the effect of weakening its overall veracity. It could not be investigated by police, and the Crown was unable to call other witnesses to challenge it. [ 60 ] The Accused testified that he was home all day on May 9, 2020, and therefore could not have been the driver of the Pickup, or of the vehicle that sped away from Cst. Owen.

This evidence is directly contested by three Crown witnesses, all of whom testified to 1). knowing the Accused sufficiently to be able to recognize him without any doubt as to his identity; 2) seeing the accused driving the distinctive modified gray pickup with the red stripe and no license plate; and 3). recognizing the passenger as his common-law spouse, Lancie Char. [ 61 ] The Accused did not call other witnesses to corroborate the alibi, despite stating in his evidence that Ms.

Char would testify for that specific purpose. [ 62 ] The court is left with an alibi tendered on the day of trial, unsupported by any other evidence. [ 63 ] Additionally, the alibi, in its original form, did not account for the circumstances surrounding the Accused’s arrest. The Accused testified in chief that he went to bed around 11:00 p.m. on May 9, 2020.

It was not until it was put to him in cross examination that his evidence did not account for his arrest at approximately 12:50 a.m. the next morning that he mentioned a bonfire on his property, attended by approximately 15 people. [ 64 ] Having considered the alibi evidence in its entirety, I find that I disbelieve it. My conclusion in this regard is largely informed by the manner in which the Accused testified.

In particular, he left out a key detail that explained his presence outside the house at the time of his arrest, until he was asked in cross examination to explain how he could be arrested outside at 12:50 a.m. when he went to bed at 11:00 p.m. Additionally, the alibi was not corroborated by any of the other witnesses who might account for the Accused’s whereabouts before, during, or after the time when Cst. Owen confronted the driver of the Pickup. [ 65 ] I ultimately find that the Accused’s alibi evidence lacks an air of reality. As such, the alibi has no evidentiary value.

The Crown must still prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused was driving the vehicle in question that eluded Cst. Owen.

The Accused’s Evidence [ 66 ] It is appropriate to comment upon the nature of the Accused’s evidence, and the manner in which it was delivered to the court. [ 67 ] As previously stated, the Accused failed to mention that as many as 15 people attended his residence after he had gone to bed at 11:00 p.m., until he was called upon to account for the circumstances surrounding his arrest nearly two hours after he testified that he had gone to bed. [ 68 ] Additionally, the Accused’s evidence regarding the times when the COVID-19 checkpoint was manned was simply unbelievable.

The Accused provided differing accounts of when the checkpoint was staffed: at one point, he said it was staffed between 7 a.m. and 12 p.m.; then later he said it was staffed from 7 a.m. to midnight. This conflicted with the evidence of both Ashley Quilt and Pascal Quilt, who indicated that the checkpoint was staffed 24 hours a day. [ 69 ] Further, assuming the purpose of the checkpoint was to bar visitors to the community, it would make no sense to only record persons entering or exiting the community for part of the day.

[ 70 ] As a general observation, I found the Accused to be imprecise with much of his evidence. There were frequent pauses that led me to question his ability to recollect the events of May 9, 2020. Eye Witness Evidence [ 71 ] Many court decisions have commented on the notoriously unreliable nature of eyewitness identification. The possibility of “false positives,” and the ramifications that follow are such that courts must carefully consider the nature of this evidence. [ 72 ] A trier of fact must take into account the frailties inherent in eyewitness identification.

In particular, consideration must be given to issues such as whether the suspect was known to the witness; the circumstances surrounding the contact between witness and suspect (including whether the opportunity to see the suspect was lengthy or fleeting); and whether the circumstances surrounding the opportunity to observe the suspect were stressful: R. v. Gough , 2013 ONCA 137 at paras. 35-36 . [ 73 ] Two of the Crown’s witnesses were operating a COVID-19 checkpoint, at a time when the Yunesitin FN was controlling movement into and out of Reserve lands.

They were tasked with cataloging all individuals who either entered or exited the Yunesitin FN Reserve. They recorded the occupants of each vehicle; the time they arrived at the checkpoint; and the make and colour of vehicles. This placed them in a state of focused attention whenever anyone approached the checkpoint, as they had to make and record these observations. [ 74 ] This was not a circumstance where an eye witnesses catches a glimpse of an unexpected event.

These were two people whose role was to observe and record individuals as they traversed the checkpoint. [ 75 ] Additionally, Pascal and Ashley Quilt each testified to being very familiar with the Accused. Both had resided in the same small community inhabited by the Accused. Each interacted with the Accused regularly. Pascal Quilt in particular said he had known the Accused “all my life,” and had worked with him for over a year.

Ashley Quilt was in a unique position, as a Community Liaison, to be familiar with all of the Reserve’s occupants. [ 76 ] There were some differences in the testimony of Ashely Quilt and Pascal Quilt. In particular, they diverged on whether the Pickup came to a full stop at the checkpoint, and where Ms. Quilt was located at the time the Pickup approached the checkpoint.

I find these differences do not detract from the reliability of their evidence regarding the identity of the Accused as the driver of the Pickup on May 9, 2020. [ 77 ] For these reasons, I place a good deal of weight upon the identification evidence of Pascal and Ashley Quilt. I found them to be both credible and reliable witnesses. [ 78 ] Cst. Owen for his part testified in a straight forward, credible manner. He appropriately conceded limitations in his evidence, and thoroughly explained his interaction with the Accused prior to May, 2020.

I accept that he met with the Accused on two occasions prior to May 9, 2020. On one of those occasions, he talked with him for about 30 minutes. Cst. Owen’s recognition of the Accused was bolstered, in my view, by the fact that he had previously linked the Accused to the distinctive, modified pickup truck that the Accused was alleged to have driven on May 9, 2020. [ 79 ] The accepted evidence regarding the identity of the driver of the vehicle that fled from Cst. Owen can be summarized as follows: 1.

Two civilian witnesses identified the Accused as the driver of a distinctively coloured, modified pickup truck without a license plate that attended the COVID-19 checkpoint. This was the only time the witnesses had seen the Accused driving, and the vehicle he was driving was unique. I accept that the witnesses identified the Accused as the driver of the vehicle on May 9, 2020, despite the fact that neither was precise as to the date of the incident. 2. Each civilian witness knew the Accused for years as a fellow member of a small, rural FN reserve comprised of some 210 people. 3.

Each corroborated the other’s testimony, and each was certain that they had identified the Accused as the driver of the Pickup. 4. Each also identified the passenger in the Pickup as Lancie Char, the Accused’s common-law spouse. 5. A short time later, an RCMP officer also identified the Accused as the driver of a distinctively coloured, modified pickup truck, without a license plate. Further, at the time of the Accused’s arrest some six hours later, the officer identified the female passenger as the Accused’s common-law spouse, who was present at that time. 6.

The officer was familiar with both the Accused and the Pickup, having spent upwards of 30 minutes talking face to face with the Accused about the Pickup, and the modifications the Accused had made to it. [ 80 ] I consider the evidence of the Crown’s witnesses regarding the identity of the driver of the Pickup to be largely consistent with one another.

I find the Crown’s witnesses to be both reliable and credible. [ 81 ] In order for me to accept the Accused’s evidence, or be left in reasonable doubt by it, I would have to conclude that on May 9, 2020, another person resembling the Accused happened to be driving a distinctive vehicle linked to him (or a vehicle similar to one linked to him), with a person appearing to be his common-law spouse in the passenger seat.

The possibility of this occurring stretches the limits of imagination, and does not rise beyond the level of pure, unsupported speculation. [ 82 ] By necessity, I reject the Accused’s evidence where it conflicts with the evidence I do accept. Further, I find I am not left in reasonable doubt by the whole of the evidence of identity of the driver of the Pickup that I do accept. That is to say, the Accused’s denial that he was the driver of the Pickup failed to raise a reasonable doubt: see R. v.

R.E.M ., 2008 SCC 51 at para. 66 . [ 83 ] For these reasons, I find the Accused guilty of counts 1 and 2 of information 36832-1.

__________________________ The Honourable Peter D. Whyte Provincial Court Judge