HIS MAJESTY THE KING - v. –, 2023 SKKB 1

KING’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2023 SKKB 1 Date: 2023 01 03 Docket: CRM-BF-00011-2021 Judicial Centre: Battleford BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING - and – CHRISTOPHER GEORGE WRIGHT Counsel: David A. Pich e for the Crown Katherine J. Pocha for the defence ___________________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT HILDEBRANDT J.

January 3, 2023 ___________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] “Who is it?” is the query heard on the dashcam recording of the events of the evening of January 12, 2021, which events gave rise to the two-count indictment against Christopher George Wright [Mr. Wright]. This video recording, marked as Exhibit P3, portrays the conduct of the driver and sole occupant of a truck at the pertinent time, and the question voiced by the constable underscores the central issue in this trial. [ 2 ] Mr.

Wright, born February 5, 1972, is charged that, on January 12, 2021, at Moosomin First Nation, Cochin District, Saskatchewan, he did: Count 1: Operate a motor vehicle while being pursued by a peace officer and fail, without reasonable excuse to stop the motor vehicle as soon as is reasonable in the circumstances contrary to

Section 320.17 of the Criminal Code . Count 2: And further that on or about the 12 th day of January, A.D. 2021 at Moosomin First Nation in the Province of Saskatchewan did operate a conveyance while prohibited from doing so by an order made under this Act, contrary to

Section 320.18 of the Criminal Code .

[ 3 ] Mr. Wright’s trial commenced Monday, November 14, 2022 and continued through Wednesday, November 16, 2022. It was conducted as a blended voir dire . On the evening of November 15, 2022, I delivered my written ruling on the voir dire , which has been marked as Exhibit C1. I determined that the recording of a 911 call made on the morning of January 11, 2021, by Ina McAdam [Ms. McAdam], was not admissible at trial under the res gestae , or spontaneous utterance, exception to the hearsay rule. [ 4 ] Following my ruling, the Crown closed its case, having called three witnesses: Cst. Colby Melnechenko, Cst.

Justin Blacklock, and Cst. Stephen Lee Gaetz, all three of whom I found to be forthright and credible and their testimony reliable. No witnesses were called on behalf of the defence. Both counsel confirmed, however, that, apart from the recording of the 911 call, marked as Exhibit P1 on the voir dire , all other exhibits and evidence proffered in the blended voir dire are to be considered on the trial proper. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCES OTHER THAN IDENTITY [ 5 ] As mentioned, the element of identity is the key issue in this case.

The onus is on the Crown to prove each of the elements of the two offences beyond a reasonable doubt, recognizing the presumption of innocence with which Mr. Wright is cloaked. During her closing argument, defence counsel focussed on the identity issue and frankly indicated that she did not intend to address the remaining elements of either count of the indictment. In relation to Count 2, the driving prohibition to which Mr. Wright was subject at the time was admitted in evidence with the consent of the defence, as Exhibit P1. With respect to Count 1, in response to a question from the court, Ms.

Pocha noted that she did not have instructions to admit the remaining elements but there was “not strenuous argument” to be made in relation thereto. Beyond this comment, no submissions were made by defence on elements other than identity.

Nonetheless, it is prudent for this court to consider whether all the elements have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 6 ] The first count of the indictment is based on s. 320.17 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 , which states: 320.17 Everyone commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel while being pursued by a peace officer and who fails, without reasonable excuse, to stop the motor vehicle or vessel as soon as is reasonable in the circumstances. [ 7 ] The date referenced in the indictment has been established through both the testimony of the Crown witnesses as well as the date and time stamp on the dashcam recording, marked as Exhibit P3, indicating “202101122018”, which references January 12, 2021, at 8:18 p.m., using the 24-hour clock.

Likewise, the location, on Moosomin First Nation, Saskatchewan, was also clearly indicated in the testimony, with the driver of the truck failing to stop on the long driveway to house 220 on Moosomin First Nation. [ 8 ] Constables Melnechenko and Blacklock have 7½ and 6½ years respectively as officers with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP]. Cst. Blacklock was the driver and Cst. Melnechenko the passenger in what Cst. Melnechenko confirmed was a marked police vehicle. These officers were on patrol on Moosomin First Nation on the evening of January 12, 2021, looking for individuals on outstanding warrants.

Cst. Gaetz, in a second police vehicle, was performing a similar task on another part of Moosomin First Nation. [ 9 ] When Constables Melnechenko and Blacklock observed a truck which they initially believed was a dark- coloured Ford 150, associated with an individual on warrant status, they attempted to stop the vehicle. Exhibit P3, the dashcam recording from the police vehicle occupied by Cst. Blacklock and Cst. Melnechenko, demonstrates that the police emergency lights were engaged.

As such, it would have been clearly evident to the driver of the truck that the police were endeavouring to stop him. [ 10 ] Initially the truck was coming toward the police vehicle, on the long driveway to the residence. The driver drove past the police vehicle toward house 220. The officers then drove toward house 220, to see if the driver was intending to run into the house.

However, the truck did not stop at the house but came back toward them, moved off the shoulder, and fled down the driveway toward the grid road. [ 11 ] Although the police officers sped up, endeavouring to catch the driver of the truck, it became evident very quickly that the vehicle was not going to stop for them. They elected not to give further chase at that point and turned off the emergency lights.

The actions of the officers clearly constituted pursuit, as was described in R v Briltz , 2016 SKCA 2 at paras 42-44 , 331 CCC (3d) 338 , which dealt with s. 249.1, the predecessor to s. 320.17 of the Criminal Code . At para. 45 the Court of Appeal concluded: [45] . . .

The evidence before the trial judge in respect of each of these incidents may be summarised as this: Constable Ash targeted and decided to stop a vehicle and he engaged his cruiser’s emergency lights and siren to signal that intention; but, when the targeted vehicle did not comply, he followed it with the intention of trying to make it stop, all the while continuing to indicate his intention to do so with his cruiser’s siren and emergency lights.

That is sufficient to constitute a pursuit within the meaning of s. 249.1(1) of the Criminal Code . [ 12 ] It is readily apparent from the dashcam recording, and through the testimony of both Cst. Melnechenko and Cst. Blacklock, that the driver of the truck was being pursued by peace officers and he failed, without reasonable excuse, to stop the motor vehicle as soon as was reasonable in the circumstances. Indeed, he evaded the RCMP officers and fled to the grid road. [ 13 ] The element of identity will be discussed further below.

However, the Crown has established all other elements of the offence alleged in Count 1 of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 14 ] Regarding Count 2 of the indictment, the pertinent provisions of the Criminal Code are found in ss. 320.18(1) (a): 320.18(1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance while prohibited from doing so (

a) by an order made under this Act; . . . [ 15 ] Admitted into evidence with the consent of defence is the order of driving prohibition, marked as Exhibit P1. It was a one-year driving prohibition ordered by Provincial Court Judge M.L. Pelletier on September 17, 2020 following Mr. Wright’s

conviction that he: on or about the 7 th day of August, 2020 at or near Saulteaux FN, Cochin District, Saskatchewan . . . [had] a blood alcohol concentration that is equal to or exceeds 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood within two hours after ceasing to operate a conveyance, contrary to

section 320.14(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . [ 16 ] The driving prohibition further states that “Due to Covid-19 restrictions the subject was not available to sign”. However, there was not even a hint of a suggestion that Mr. Wright was not aware of either the conviction or the driving prohibition as, again, Exhibit P1 was put in evidence by consent. [ 17 ] The order of driving prohibition was still in effect on the date in question. If the driver of the truck which Constables Melnechenko and Blacklock encountered on January 12, 2021 was indeed Mr.

Wright, which will be considered further below, all the elements of the offence of driving while prohibited from doing so, as alleged in Count 2 of the indictment, have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 18 ] Although all other elements of both counts of the indictment have been established, and were uncontested, the crucial issue of identity must be addressed. I turn now to a consideration of whether identity has also been proven by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt. THE ELEMENT OF IDENTITY [ 19 ] As noted above, it was Cst. Melnechenko and Cst.

Blacklock who observed the driver of the truck on the long driveway to house 220 on Moosomin First Nation. During the trial, it was made clear that this was not a situation where the Crown was tendering recognition or opinion evidence by either of these constables, as considered in R v John, 2021 SKCA 83 , 405 CCC (3d) 184 . As such, no voir dire on the recognition issue was required.

Rather, each of these witnesses provided eyewitness testimony and outlined the investigative process undertaken to identify the accused. [ 20 ] In reviewing the evidence concerning the element of identity, I am mindful of, and have instructed myself regarding, the frailties of eyewitness testimony and the need to assess its reliability. I am also very cognizant of the presumption of innocence in relation to Mr. Wright and the onus on the Crown to prove each element of an offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

These principles were underscored in R v Bigsky, 2006 SKCA 145 , 217 CCC (3d) 441 [ Bigsky ] , on which both Crown and defence counsel relied, at paras. 41-43: [41] In the judge-alone cases, when a court of appeal will intervene depends on a variety of factors: (

i) whether the trial judge can be taken to have instructed himself or herself regarding the frailties of eyewitness testimony and the need to test its reliability; (ii) the extent to which the trial judge has reviewed the evidence with such an instruction in mind; (iii) the extent to which proof of the Crown’s case depends on the eyewitness’s testimony or, in other words, the presence or absence of other evidence that can be considered in determining whether a court of appeal should intervene; (iv) the nature of the eyewitness observation including such matters as whether the eyewitness had previously known the accused and the length and quality of the observation; and (

v) whether there is other evidence which may tend to make the evidence unreliable, i.e., the witness's evidence has been strengthened by inappropriate police or other procedures between the time of the eyewitness observation and the time of testimony. [42] In those judge-alone cases where a conviction based on eyewitness testimony has been upheld, the court of appeal found that the trial judge has instructed himself or herself properly on the appropriate standard of proof and the frailties of eyewitness testimony and applied those standards in the analysis; the eyewitness has either known the accused; or the evidence formed a part only of evidence of guilt; and there has been no suggestion that the eyewitness identification has been contaminated or weakened by some sighting after the incident.

It is also relevant, in the appellate context, whether the accused testified. [43] Where courts of appeal have found error, the reasons have been insufficient, the eyewitness identification rests on a “fleeting glance” or some improper procedure took place after the incident which may have inappropriately strengthened the witness’s testimony. [ 21 ] Although defence counsel has emphasized, and the dashcam recording confirms, the opportunities the constables had to view the driver of the truck were not extensive, they were certainly more than a mere “fleeting glance”.

Further, these constables were intent on identifying the individual as they had been specifically looking for someone else. As such, they took efforts to focus on the driver’s face and detect distinguishing features. Indeed, the constables were able to provide such a clear description of the individual that Cst. Gaetz “immediately thought of Christopher Wright as fitting that description”. [ 22 ] The circumstances are distinguishable from those in Bigsky . There, as noted at para. 4 of the decision: [4] Two officers, at two different times and in two different locations, observed the truck’s driver.

On the first occasion, the truck sped by the officer, who was admittedly fearful for his life. He was able to say only that the driver was an aboriginal male wearing a white baseball cap. The second officer also saw the driver only fleetingly, at which time he thought the driver was wearing a black hat with a visor, . . . [ 23 ] In this case, Cst. Melnechenko testified that, on January 12, 2021, he and Cst. Blacklock had been looking for someone on an outstanding warrant and had gone to house 220 on Moosomin First Nation. While exiting down the long driveway from that residence, they saw what Cst.

Melnechenko initially thought was a dark-coloured Ford F150 truck coming toward them. The

constables had also been looking for such a Ford F150 truck. Accordingly, they attempted to stop the vehicle, as noted earlier. In his testimony, Cst. Melnechenko also explained that the Ford F150 truck has the same body as a Lincoln truck, although the chrome on the front grill is different. [ 24 ] This was not a high-speed situation. The dashcam video shows that the truck was initially at a standstill in front of another set of headlights as the police vehicle slowly approached and the constables turned on the emergency lights. Cst. Melnechenko also shone his flashlight to get a better view of the driver. Cst.

Melnechenko testified that, at about the 32-second mark in the dashcam video, he was attempting to identify the driver. He noted a First Nations male, in his forties, with a big moustache, and wearing a hat. [ 25 ] Cst. Blacklock similarly testified that he and Cst. Melnechenko had stopped at house 220 looking for an individual on warrant status. As they were departing down the driveway, a dark truck pulled up toward them. As it was initially thought this vehicle was connected with another individual on warrant status, the constables turned on the emergency lights.

The vehicle then rolled slowly by and the driver’s “face illuminated up”. Cst. Blacklock observed the driver had a darker complexion, a baseball cap, and a handlebar-style moustache. [ 26 ] Cst. Blacklock testified that he was aware there was no exit by house 220 other than the driveway they were on. As such, they had turned and followed the truck toward the house. Cst. Blacklock had thought the driver would stop at house 220. However, the driver turned and came toward them on the driveway, passing by them again, as noted on the dashcam. By this time, Cst.

Blacklock testified that the constables knew the vehicle was a Lincoln truck and not a Ford F150. [ 27 ] At para. 30 of R v Zurowski, 2003 ABCA 315 , 339 AR 233 [ Zurowski ] , the concurring decision of C ô t é J.A. considers R v Atfield , 1983 ABCA 44 , 42 AR 294 , and notes that “unfavourable circumstances” involve “fleeting glances or observations under pressure, fear, haste, etc”. These were not present in Zurowski , and they are not operative in this situation either. In the case at hand, there are two experienced constables actively seeking to identify the driver of the vehicle.

They did not have mere fleeting glances of the driver, but both had two opportunities to observe him, with the assistance of the emergency lights and, at least on the first occasion, the added illumination from Cst. Melnechenko’s flashlight and the headlights from the vehicle at the end of the driveway. [ 28 ] In this regard, defence counsel, in both cross-examination of the Crown witnesses as well as closing argument, raised the suggestion of poor lighting. The events in question did occur in the evening and this was not an urban setting with streetlights.

However, again, emergency lights were engaged, which are bright, and Cst. Melnechenko used his flashlight for a closer examination of the driver’s face. Additionally, headlights from another vehicle assisted in lighting the cab of the Lincoln when the constables first encountered the truck’s driver. [ 29 ] As can be heard from the dashcam recording, Constables Melnechenko and Blacklock were in contact with Cst. Gaetz during their encounter with the truck and its driver. Cst. Gaetz was in his own vehicle, also conducting warrant searches, on another part of Moosomin First Nation.

He travelled a few minutes to join them as they continued to look for the Lincoln truck. [ 30 ] Cst. Gaetz testified that he was told by Cst. Melnechenko and Cst. Blacklock that the truck driver they had observed was “a male, later forties, with a very distinctive dark-coloured moustache”. With a date of birth of February 5, 1972, Mr. Wright was just shy of 49 years of age on January 12, 2021, confirming that both Cst. Melnechenko and Cst.

Blacklock had had a sufficiently good look at the driver’s face that they were able to assess his skin tone and age, along with the uniquely styled moustache. [ 31 ] Under cross-examination, Cst. Melnechenko was asked if he had seen any tattoos on the driver of the truck. In his response, the constable indicated that he had not seen any tattoos but that if they had been on the driver’s face, he would have been able to see and identify them. This again confirms that Cst. Melnechenko had a good look at the driver’s face. Further, although Mr.

Wright has a tattoo on the right side of his neck, as indicated in the photos in Exhibit P2, there was no facial tattoo apparent at trial. Given the January date of the offence, and winter temperatures, it is a reasonable inference that the neck tattoo would not have been visible above the driver’s outerwear. [ 32 ] This description provided by the constables goes beyond merely “an aboriginal male”, which was the descriptor in Bigsky .

Defence counsel, in her cross-examinations of the Crown witnesses, attempted to suggest that, as the events occurred on Moosomin First Nation, most people there would be Indigenous and have a darker complexion, darker features, and darker hair and, thus, the individual observed by the constables merely fit this general portrayal. However, the constables were specific and precise in their observations, and their description reliably pointed other officers to one individual, not a sector of the population. [ 33 ] So precise was the description that Cst. Gaetz immediately thought of Mr.

Wright, an individual with whom he had dealt on previous unrelated investigations. Cst. Gaetz therefore requested that the RCMP supervisor forward a picture of Mr. Wright to the constables. The photos, marked as Exhibit P2, were sent and both Cst. Melnechenko and Cst. Blacklock promptly confirmed Mr. Wright was the driver they had observed. [ 34 ] Cst. Melnechenko testified that when the photos of Mr. Wright were forwarded to him, he “could say that was the driver that fled from us”. As to why he was so clear on this point, Cst.

Melnechenko explained it was the visual he had had on the driveway, with the vehicles not moving very quickly; the flashlight enabling him to have a good look at the driver; and the distinctive moustache he had observed which matched the photos. Cst. Melnechenko said, “I was 100% certain” of the identification. [ 35 ] Cst. Blacklock also testified that he and Cst. Melnechenko had described the individual they had seen, including the style of moustache, and photos were sent in response to their description. Cst.

Blacklock noted that, because of the headlights and police lights, he “was able to see [the driver’s] face when he went by” and was, as the Crown termed it, “locked in on” the truck driver’s face for a second or two and had observed the dark complexion and distinctive moustache. He testified, “I knew once I looked at that picture” that it was Mr. Wright. [ 36 ] In her closing submissions, in response to a question from the court, defence counsel indicated that she did not consider a moustache as a distinguishing feature. I do not agree with this contention, particularly when one considers the distinct style of

the moustache sported by Mr. Wright. Indeed, under cross-examination, Cst. Blacklock testified, “in six years, I have never seen a moredistinctive moustache in that area”. [37] While it is true that facial hair can change, as Cst. Blacklock conceded in cross-examination, and, notsurprisingly, Mr. Wright was clean-shaven at trial, the moustache appears to have been his signature look for quite some time. Exhibit P2includes two photos of Mr. Wright, which Cst. Gaetz had looked into and confirmed were taken June 3, 2016 and April 25, 2019,respectively.

The moustache was of the same style in each year and photo. [38] Regarding use of the photos, defence counsel has suggested that photos of only one individual have tainted orshaded the eyewitness identification. However, the situation here is, for instance, different from those which raised concern in Zurowski.In that case, among other concerns, it was noted, at para. 8: [8] The positive identification of Mr. Zurowski made by the witnesses Rose Boyes and Shaun Merritt was attacked by the defence.Boyes, six weeks after the crime, noticed the appellant’s name in a newspaper account. The account included Mr.

Zurowski’s picture.She showed the account, including the picture, to the witness Merritt, her fellow employee. They agreed that it showed the man with thecut forehead who had been in the accident. In addition, the witness Merritt was shown an isolated photograph of Mr. Zurowski a fewdays after the accident. The witnesses Boyes and Merritt had discussed the case while waiting to give their testimony at trial. [39] In Mr. Wright’s case, the photos were sent in response to a precise description provided by trained constableswho were focussed on observing the driver in order to identify him.

The photos were also remitted promptly, while their observationswere fresh in the memories of the constables. As Crown counsel aptly noted, there was no opportunity for contamination and nointervening distraction to weaken the identification made by the constables. Indeed, in the circumstances, it cannot be said that there wasany improper procedure that inappropriately strengthened the testimony of the constables. Again, it was their own precise descriptionswhich enabled others to recognize Mr.

Wright as the likely driver. [40] The current case is also distinct from that of R v Brand (1995), (ON CA), 98 CCC (3d) 477(Ont CA) [Brand], where a new trial was ordered following conviction by a jury on a charge of trafficking in cocaine in circumstanceswhere: None of the officers observed or reported any distinctive physical or facial characteristics in their descriptions of the traffickers.

Two weeks later the two undercover officers each picked the appellant's photograph from a display of photographs in a photo line up.The appellant was arrested fifteen months later. [41] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Brand added: The appellant gave evidence. He denied being in the area where the trafficking took place at the material time. He denied owning orwearing clothes similar to the clothing described by all of the officers. He had scars on his face that were distinctive marks.

The appellant submits that the trial judge erred in not charging the jury on the dangers inherent in eyewitness identification, and inemphasizing the deliberateness of the viewing by police officers who are trained observers. We agree with this submission.

As is clearfrom the above, the identification by each officer was made under difficult circumstances, and in each instance for just a few seconds.Even though the two undercover officers each saw the trafficker face to face, if he was the appellant, as trained observers they failed tosee the distinctive scars that were there to be seen. . . . [42] Constables Melnechenko and Blacklock did not fail to recognize the truck driver’s most distinguishing feature,his thick uniquely-shaped moustache.

As mentioned previously, they were also able to assess skin tone and accurately estimate thedriver’s age as well as his First Nations heritage. If the driver had had facial tattoos—which Mr. Wright did not—Cst. Melnechenko wasconfident that he would have been able to see them. [43] On reviewing their evidence, together with that of Cst. Gaetz, I accept that Constables Melnechenko andBlacklock have both accurately and reliably identified Mr. Wright as the driver and sole occupant of the truck which evaded them andfailed to stop for them on the evening of January 12, 2021.

I further find that the provision of the photos of Mr. Wright to the constablesin the circumstances did not taint their observations. [44] Along with the clear and direct observations of Constables Melnechenko and Blacklock, there is additionalevidence available for my consideration which demonstrates Mr. Wright’s association with the particular area and persons within theFirst Nation where the events of January 12, 2021 occurred, thereby supporting the identification made by the RCMP. As mentionedpreviously, Cst. Blacklock had “never seen a more distinctive moustache in that area”. Mr.

Wright was certainly known to be in the area. [45] For example, Exhibit P1, the order of driving prohibition, references a conviction for an occurrence on August7, 2020 “at or near Saulteaux FN, Cochin District, Saskatchewan” which is located adjacent to Moosomin First Nation, just to thenorthwest. [46] House 220, at which Constables Melnechenko and Blacklock had been attending and observed the driver of thetruck, is a residence with which Mr. Wright has some connection.

It is the approved residence indicated in the release order dated just sixweeks after the events in question, February 23, 2021, and filed as Exhibit P7. Cst. Melnechenko testified that he believed house 220 isMr. Wright’s father’s house. Cst. Gaetz also referred to house 220 as belonging to George Wright, and indicated George Wright was Mr.Wright’s father in both the constable’s testimony and the diagram he drew which was marked as Exhibit P8. George Wright was also aman with whom Cst. Gaetz had spoken on previous occasions regarding Mr. Wright’s warrant status.

This connection providescircumstantial support for the view that Mr. Wright was indeed the driver of the truck along the driveway toward house 220 on theevening in question.

[ 47 ] Constables Melnechenko and Blacklock elected not to engage in a high-speed chase on narrow roads. As Cst. Blacklock testified, however, they did watch in what direction the black Lincoln truck was headed and, despite losing sight of it for a brief period, followed the trail where they believed the truck had gone. The truck had travelled south and then turned left on a trail. When the constables were just about to give up the search, which had not been lengthy, Cst. Melnechenko spotted the Lincoln truck in between the fence line, approximately half a mile east of the grid road, on what Cst.

Melnechenko described as a “turkey trail” and Cst. Gaetz called a “goat trail”. It was not a well-used or well-maintained road and the Lincoln truck was stuck in a deep mound of snow. Its location is depicted on the diagram drawn by Cst. Gaetz, marked as Exhibit P8. Photos of the Lincoln stuck in the snow are found at Exhibit P4. [ 48 ] Given the brief period between the failure on the part of the truck driver to stop for the constables on the driveway to house 220 and the discovery of the Lincoln truck in the snow, the observations of the constables as to the route taken by the truck, and Cst.

Melnechenko’s comment that this was not a high traffic area of Moosomin First Nation, it is reasonable to infer that the black Lincoln truck located in the snow was the same as that observed by the constables earlier. Further, there had been only one occupant of the truck near house 220 and there would similarly have been only one occupant when it became stuck in the snow. In this regard, Cst. Gaetz had joined the other two constables by the time the truck was located and, like them, he observed a single set of footprints leaving the driver’s side of the Lincoln truck and going into the bush.

Finally, the photos in Exhibit P4 show a truck which matches that shown in Exhibit P3, the dashcam recording. Thus, like the constables, I am confident the Lincoln stuck in the snow was one and the same as that which fled from them along the driveway of house 220. [ 49 ] The closest residence to the stranded truck was house 110, located about 500 metres away, with the next closest house being that of one Bradley Wright, who Cst. Gaetz could not say with certainty was related to the accused. Cst. Gaetz described house 110 as Ms.

McAdam’s residence and testified that he had previously spoken with her there on at least three occasions, “on warrant attempts for Christopher Wright”. When asked concerning his understanding of whether there was any association between Ms. McAdam and Mr. Wright, Cst. Gaetz said that from 2016 onward she was described as Mr. Wright’s common law spouse. [ 50 ] This relationship status is also inferred by the release order marked as Exhibit P7, which references arranging for child access. Mr. Wright’s connection with his child(ren) would give him further cause to be on Moosomin First Nation. [ 51 ] Cst.

Blacklock testified that they “ran the licence plate” for the Lincoln truck and learned it was registered to Ms. McAdam. Cst. Melnechenko said he spoke with Ms. McAdam personally, advising her of the location of her truck and that it was stuck in the snow. Under cross-examination, Cst. Melnechenko agreed that when they attended at the house nearby to where the truck was stuck—which would be house 110—no one by the name of Christopher Wright was there at the time. [ 52 ] Nonetheless, an association with Ms.

McAdam on the part of the accused has been demonstrated by the evidence, thus substantially increasing the likelihood that Mr. Wright was the driver of her Lincoln truck. That association between Ms. McAdam and Mr. Wright apparently continued as Cst. Gaetz testified that, on February 11, 2021, while on patrol in North Battleford, Saskatchewan, he observed a lime green Kia Soul, which he knew also belonged to Ms. McAdam, with a male in the driver’s seat, as well as a passenger. Cst. Gaetz was aware that Mr. Wright was on warrant status so approached the driver’s side of the vehicle and saw Mr. Wright. Cst.

Gaetz then arrested Mr. Wright on the charges of flight from police and driving while prohibited. [ 53 ] Cst. Gaetz also testified that he was certain of the identity of Mr. Wright in the courtroom, having outlined the confirmation process in relation to the photos and noting the tattoo on the right side of Mr. Wright’s neck, which is also present in the photos marked as Exhibit P2. [ 54 ] On the issue of identification, in addition to the strong observations of both Cst. Melnechenko and Cst. Blacklock, which were untainted, it is evident that Mr.

Wright was known to be associated with the area in which the offences occurred and with persons in the area, including his father, his child(ren), and Ms. McAdam, the owner of the black Lincoln truck. Accordingly, considering all the evidence, I am satisfied that the Crown has proven the element of identity beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 55 ] With this final element having been established, which relates to both counts of the indictment, the Crown has proven all the elements of both Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt.

CONCLUSION [ 56 ] For the reasons discussed in the foregoing, on both Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment, I find Mr. Wright guilty. J. B.R. HILDEBRANDT