2016 QCCQ 2357, 2016 QCCQ 2357

Director of Public Prosecution c. Prpkos 2016 QCCQ 2357 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF LAVAL TOWN OF LAVAL (Criminal and penal division) No: 540-61-072946-152 DATE: April, 8 th 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE GEORGES BENOIT JPM ______________________________________________________________________ Director of public prosecution Plaintiff v. PRPKOS, ANDREW Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The defendant is accused of a hit and run offence contrary to

section 171 of the Highway Safety Act. ( Q.R.S. , chap. 24.2) 170. The driver of a road vehicle involved in an accident must give to the peace officer called to the scene of the accident or to the person having sustained injury or damage, his name and address, the number of his licence, the name and address of the owner entered on the registration certificate of the vehicle, the certificate of insurance or of financial responsibility provided for in the Automobile Insurance Act (chapter A-25 ), and the number appearing on the registration plate of the vehicle. 1986, c. 91, s. 170. 171 .

The driver of a road vehicle who is involved in an accident involving an animal weighing over 25 kg, an unattended road vehicle or any other inanimate object must, if the owner of the damaged property or a person representing him cannot be found at the scene of the accident or nearby, communicate immediately with the nearest police station to report the accident and furnish the information provided for in

section 170. [ 2 ] The defendant was travelling west on highway 440. He lost control of his vehicle. He tried to regain control of his vehicle but he was not able to keep his vehicle on the road after a 360 manoeuvre. He ended up on the shoulder of the road and then his car hit the guardrail. His car was heavely dammaged. Altought his car was almost totally wrecked, he was able to put it back in gear and drive few hundreds meters away from the scene of the accident.

He took the exiting ramp Curé Labelle, but he was forced to stop not to far from the accident spot in a parking lot on the service road.. [ 3 ] The officer Catanzaro testified that he was on patrol on highway 440. He received at 16h01 from the QPF dispatch a call reported that an accident has just occurred close to the Chomedy boulevard ramp. At that time, he was close to that area. A few minutes later he arrived on the premises. He noticed right away that the fence had been damaged but there was no car at the scene of the accident. He decided to drive up and down that

section of the highway 440 but he was unable to locate the vehicle involved in the accident. [ 4 ] At 16h24, he was informed that the defendant wished to see a police officer concerning a car accident. So he met the defendant in the parking lot of a store close by the spot where the car crash took place. [ 5 ] The father of the defendant M. Anathasios Prokos approched the police officer. He filed a complaint about a hit and run. He explains that he was driving west on the 440. He ran into an accident with another car. He said that he was the driver and his son was a passenger.

He also added that he was hit by a dark colored car perhaps a Nissan Maxima or Altima. The driver of the other car did not stop after the crash. Even his car was wrecked he managed to drive few hundreds meters more until he reached the parking lot. [ 6 ] The officer explains that as he was investigating a hit and run offence, he asked his partner officer Breton to write down the plaintiff’s statement. [ 7 ] At 16h40, officer Catanzaro talked on the radio to Madame Bourassa, a witness of the accident.

She said that there was only one car involved in the accident and the driver was a male, caucasan, in his mid-twenties, wearing dark clothes, perhaps a redish shirt. She also said that there driver was alone in the car. [ 8 ] The officer interviewed the defendant. He was advised of his right to counsel under

section 10

b) of the Charter of Rights and also of the matter for what he was interviewed. On the Voir-dire to determine the admissibly of the statement made by the defendant, I held that the admission came freely.

[ 9 ] In a first instance of his interview, the defendant stated that he was not the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. The officer did not believe him and informed the defendant that he had received reliable information that he was the driver. The defendant wished to consult an attorney and he was allowed to privately get in touch with his counsel. [ 10 ] The defendant agreed to give a statement.

He admited that he was the driver but stuck to the hit and run story. [ 11 ] Madame, Chantal Bourassa took the stand on the behalf of the prosecution, She stated that she was driving on the 440 at the limit. She saw an incommig car travelling in the right lane. The car passed her at a high speed and, suddenly, the driver lost control of his vehicle. The witness said that it was rainny and that puddles of water coverred the pavement. The car started doing a 360 and ended up hitting the rail. The driver did not stop. It continued toward the Curé Labelle exit. She was able to get the licence number.

Once she arrived at home, she called the police to report the accident that she had witnessed. [ 12 ] After reviewing the evidence, I am ready to make a finding of facts. I am satisfied that the evidence tendered by prosecution proved beyond a reasonnable doubt that the defendant was the driver of the car. He gave a false statement to the police when he reported the accident. [ 13 ] The

section 171 of the Highway Safety Act prescribes that the driver of a vehicle who is involved in a accident must as soon as possible communicate with a police station to report the occurrence. The defendant did communicate in a short delay with the police but he did not comply with all the conditions spelled out in

section 170. He failed to report that he was the driver of the vehicle. Even if the officer had otherwise acquired the information it does not excuse the defendant from complying with the law. [ 14 ] The offence under

section 171 is a strict liability offence that allows a defence of due diligence or reasonnable mistake of facts. The defendant explained that he had heard his father say that he was the driver of the car when the accident happened. He believed that he could not contradict his own father. This explication is not a valid defence in law. [ 15 ] The evidence tendered by the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had made a false statement when he reported the accident. It appears to me that the defendant’s testimony is merely a fabricated explanation to escape his liability.

FOR THOSE REASONS , THE COURT; DECLARES the defendant guilty as charged ORDERING a fine of 200.00$ the cost , 90 days __________________________________ GEORGES BENOIT, J.P.M. Me Jéromine Lorrie-Dejoie Attorney for Prosecution El Turbany Ramy Counsel for the defendant Date of hearing: 2016-03-31