2024 QCCQ 353, 2024 QCCQ 353

Director of Criminel and Penal Prosecution c. Stafylakis 2024 QCCQ 353 COUR OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL LOCALITY OF MONTRÉAL « Criminal and penal division » N°: 500-61-564199-223 DATE: January 10 th , 2024 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE GENEVIEVE CLAUDE PARAYRE PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE PEACE ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF CRIMINEL AND PENAL PROSECUTION Prosecution v.

ELIAS STAFYLAKIS Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] In the evening of April 4, 2023, Officer Savard parks his vehicle on the right-hand shoulder of the Henri-Bourassa exit on highway 13 north to conduct a speeding operation. His attention is drawn to Mr. Stafylakis’ vehicle in the center-right lane, which overtakes at full speed another one in the center-left lane.

At 206.4 meters from his position, using his laser cinemometer, he records a speed of 160 km/h. [ 2 ] Near boulevard Gouin, Officer Savard catches up with the vehicle who’s now travelling at 100 km/h and sees Mr. Stafylakis pulling out his hand and making a thumbs-up gesture. He intercepted him at the Samson exit and serves him with a statement of offense for driving at 160 km/h in a 100 km/h zone. [ 3 ] Mr. Stafylakis denies this infraction. That evening, as he enters Highway 13 north from the 520, he sees a blue Volkswagen and a gray Audi traveling very slowly at what he estimates to be between 30 and 40 km/h.

One is in the left lane and the other in the center-left lane. The way the vehicles position themselves and roar their engines gives him the impression that they’re getting ready to race. [ 4 ] He passes them, proceeds to get up to speed, moves into the middle left lane and enters an underpass. As he is exiting it, he sees in his rear-view mirror the two cars approaching rapidly from their same respective lines. The one directly behind starts to tailgate him, while the other overtakes him on his left and pulls in front of him and starts to break check [1] . [ 5 ] Judging their behaviour to be dangerous, Mr.

Stafylakis decides to get away from them as quickly as possible by pulling into the center-right lane and stepping on the gas pedal. A few seconds later, he sees a police vehicle parked at a freeway exit some 250-300 metres ahead. He looks at his speedometer, which shows 150 km/h, and begin to slow down. As he is now entering a bridge, he waves to the officer and pulls over at the next exit. [ 6 ] Mr. Stafylakis believes that he presents credible and reliable evidence to the contrary, and that he should be found guilty of driving at 150 km/h.

The prosecution disagrees and considers his testimony lacks credibility and reliability and he should be found guilty of the infraction as charged. [ 7 ] Mr. Stafylakis specifies that he is not presenting a defence of necessity. Consequently, the only issue is whether Mr. Stafylakis has presented evidence to the contrary that tends to raise a reasonable doubt. GENERAL PRINCIPLES [ 8 ] It is recognized that when a cinemometer is properly tested and used by a qualified operator, the speed captured by the device is prima facie evidence of its accuracy.

Against this, a defendant can present evidence to the contrary, tending to show that the measurement taken is not accurate [2] . A defendant does not have to provide a perfect match between the moment the odometer is read, and the moment speed is captured [3] . The evidence must, however, be reliable and sufficiently precise [4] . [ 9 ] The rule of evidence is that of reasonable doubt. The evaluation must therefore respect the guidelines set out by our Supreme Court in R . v. W. (D.) [5] , which can be summarized as follows.

[ 10 ] First, if the Court believes the defendant’s testimony, it must acquit him. Second, even if Court concludes negatively to the previous question, if his testimony, evaluated with all the evidence or the absence of evidence, leaves a reasonable doubt, it must also acquit him. Finally, if the evidence submitted leaves no reasonable doubt, the Court must evaluate the evidence to determine whether it is strong enough to convince, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant’s guilt in relation to the offence. [ 11 ] The assessment of the defendant’s testimony cannot be done in a vacuum.

Rather, the Court must consider all the evidence presented. Moreover, the Court must always assess testimony in terms of its credibility and reliability. These are two distinct notions. On the one hand, credibility refers to a person’s willingness to relate the facts truthfully, honestly, and correctly. On the other hand, reliability refers to the ability to use one’s memory and to relate the facts with sufficient detail and precision [6] .

In its evaluation, the Court must not dissect each sentence uttered, but rather examine the whole testimony. [ 12 ] With these concepts in mind, it is now time to move on to the proper analysis. ANALYSIS [ 13 ] Analysis of Mr. Stafylakis’ testimony reveals adjustments and inconsistencies that affect its credibility and reliability. These don’t just concern secondary or collateral aspects, but also, and above all, the description of the events at the heart of his defence. [ 14 ] Here are a few non-exhaustive examples. [ 15 ] Mr.

Stafylakis says he accelerated quickly to escape a situation he considered dangerous due to the behaviour of two vehicles. Yet, when questioned on the subject, Mr. Stafylakis initially indicated that he did not look in the rear-view mirror to see what was happening to these vehicles. He then changed his answer, saying that he could see the vehicles in the distance, but then indicated that, because of the darkness, he couldn’t really tell what was happening to them. [ 16 ] In support of the claim that he is between 250 and 300 meters from the officer when he notices his presence, Mr.

Stafylakis says he’s good with numbers and that his current training at construction school involves knowing measurements. However, he is unable to say how far it is from his entrance on the highway to the bridge leading to Laval. [ 17 ] Mr. Stafylakis states that he knows exactly where he is on the highway when he sees the officer. However, he is unable to provide any further details, explaining that he cannot describe the area around his position because of the darkness. However, the darkness doesn’t prevent Mr.

Stafylakis from being able to describe the brand of vehicles he observes as he enters Highway 13 north, or even from observing a police vehicle parked 250-300 meters ahead. [ 18 ] He indicates that the distance of 250 to 300 metres is an estimate to the best of his knowledge and being confident of his answer. However, when questioned about this in cross-examination, his answer varies, and he then indicates that the assessment is a rough estimate. [ 19 ] These few examples demonstrate that Mr.

Stafylakis’ testimony is neither reliable nor sufficiently precise to constitute evidence to the contrary. [ 20 ] After careful analysis, the Court concludes that nothing in the evidence is susceptible to raises any reasonable doubt. As our Supreme Court states: “ reasonable doubt is not a far-fetched or frivolous doubt. It is a doubt based on reason and common sense that logically arises from the evidence, the lack of evidence or absence of reliable evidence [7] .” [ 21 ] The evidence shows that Officer Savard is a qualified operator, that he used a properly calibrated cinemometer, that he visually estimated Mr.

Stafylakis’ speed and that he captured him at 160 km/h in a 100 km/h zone. His account of the events is detailed and precise, and there is no reason for the Court to conclude that it is neither credible nor reliable.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 22 ] DECLARES Elias Stafylakis guilty of driving at a speed of 160 km/h in a 100 km/h zone. [ 23 ] IMPOSES a fine of $630.00 and, in the absence of specific representations on or before January 12, 2024, imposes cost and contribution. [ 24 ] GRANTS , in the absence of specific representations on or before January 12, 2024, a delay of 6 months to pay this amount. __________________________________ Honourable Geneviève Claude Parayre Presiding Justice of the Peace Me Louis-Philippe Trochu Director of penal and criminal prosecution For the prosecution Me Michael Zatylny Ticket911.ca inc.

For the defendant Hearing date: November 20, 2023