R. v. Kanakalingam, 2017 ONCJ 820

CITATION: R. v. Kanakalingam, 2017 ONCJ 820 DATE: November 29, 2017 COURT FILE No.: Toronto 15 – 45009084 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — AND — KUNA KANAKALINGAM Before Justice Paul H.

Reinhardt Heard on 13 February, 20 November 2017 Reasons for Judgment released on 29 November 2017 Christina Jabbour ...................................................................................................... for the Crown Boris Bytensky ........................................................................................................ for the accused REINHARDT J.: [ 1 ] Kuna Kanakalingam is charged that he did, on or about 17 November 2015, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region, did:

(1) While his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol, have the care or control of a motor vehicle and thereby commit an offence under

Section 253, subsection (1), clause (

a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. [ 2 ] In this proceeding I heard evidence from:

(1) Ms. Santhiradevi Nallamthamey;

(2) P. C. Nikolaj Mozolev, Badge #9798 33 Division;

(3) P. C. Samir Patil, Badge #9581 Traffic Services;

(4) Christopher Chung, retired, formerly of 33 Division;

(5) Kuna Kanakalingam; and

(6) Logakrishnan Muthukumaru. Exhibits [ 3 ] As part of the evidence, the following exhibits were filed:

(1) Exhibits 1 to 4, 6, 7 & 9 are Google Map views of the scene where the alleged offence took place;

(2) Exhibit 5 is the police “In-car” video, depicting Mr. Kanakalingam, at the scene, after his arrest;

(3) Exhibits 6, 7 & 9 are more Google Map views of the scene;

(4) Exhibit 8 is a letter from CN Brampton Intermodal Terminal confirming that the witness, Muthukumaru was on Bereavement Leave from 16 – 19 November 2015. [ 4 ] I have reviewed the evidence and concluded that the Crown has not made out its case against Mr. Kanakalingam to the Criminal standard. Let me explain how I have reached this conclusion.

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE [ 5 ] On 17 November 2015, shortly after 6:00 PM, Mrs. Santhiradevi Nallamthamey, the wife of the accused called the Toronto Police Services 911 phone line from her place of employment, Rogers Cable, 855 York Mills Road, North York, where she is employed as a dispatcher, and reported that her husband was driving to her employment to pick her up, and from the phone call she received from him, she believed he had been drinking. [ 6 ] At 18:35, officers Mozolev and Chung arrived at the scene and spoke to the complainant, Mrs.

Nallamthamey. [ 7 ] Shortly thereafter, at 18:40, the officers observed a Dark Gray Honda Odyssey Van on the south side of York Mills Road, in the front of the Roger’s building, facing east, where they located Mr. Kanakalingam. [ 8 ] Based on the information received from Mrs. Nallamthamey, their own observations, and Mr. Kanakalingam’s admissions that he had been drinking that day, at 18:45 they requested a roadside screening device to be brought to their location, and made an Alert Screening Device, (“ASD”) demand. [ 9 ] At 18:50, an ASD arrived, was administered, and Mr.

Kanakalingam registered a “Fail”. [ 10 ] On the basis of the officers’ observations, and the failed ASD test, Mr. Kanakalingam was arrested and charged with “Over 80” and Impaired “Care & Control”. [ 11 ] Mr. Kanakalingam took the witness stand, and told the court that he had been driven in his van to the scene by a relative, Mr.

Muthukumaru, and was outside the van, waiting for the arrival of his wife, when he initially was approached by police. [ 12 ] He testified that because of his consumption of alcohol, he did not, and never intended to drive the van that evening, and expected that his wife would drive the van back to their residence. [ 13 ] Mr. Muthukumaru testified in the trial and stated that, on the day of the incident he was on bereavement leave from his work, and, after receiving a phone call from his cousin, Mr. Kanakalingam, he had, himself, arranged to be driven to Mr.

Kanakalingam’s residence, by a friend of his, with whom he was shopping, named Lloyd. [ 14 ] Mr. Muthukumaru testified that he came to Mr. Kanakalingam’s residence, and with his friend Lloyd following in a separate vehicle, Mr. Muthukumaru drove Mr. Kanakalingam’s van, with Mr. Kanakalingam as his passenger, to the Rogers Cable offices. [ 15 ] Mr. Muthukumaru testified that he himself, after dropping off Mr. Kanakalingam, and Mr. Kanakalingam’s van, drove away from the Rogers Cable Offices, with his friend, Lloyd, to continue his errands, leaving Mr. Kanakalingam in the passenger seat of the car.

ISSUES IN DISPUTE Defence [ 16 ] The defence submits that on the evidence called at trial, the Court should be left with reasonable doubt as to whether the accused:

(1) Drove his van to pick up his wife at her place of work;

(2) Had care or control of his van at the time of the first observations by the police officers, at the time of his arrest;

(3) Was impaired at any material time. [ 17 ] The defence submits that the Crown witnesses disagree, the one with the other, as to their observations of the accused, Mr. Kanakalingam, at the scene, 855 York Mills Road. [ 18 ] The defence further submits that this court should accept the evidence of Mrs.

Nallamthamey that her husband, the accused, was outside the family van, talking on his cell phone, when he was first observed at the Roger’s Mobile offices. [ 19 ] Finally, the defence submits that the evidence called at trial, taken in its entirety, leaves a reasonable doubt as to whether his client’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired. Crown [ 20 ] The Crown submits that the trial evidence proves to the criminal standard that Mr. Kanakalingam:

(1) Had care or control of his vehicle, and

(2) Was impaired. [21] The Crown submits that both police officer’s observed the accused in care or control:

(1) Constable Mozolev observed the accused sitting in the driver’s seat of the van, which was parked in front of the roger’sbuilding;

(2) Constable Chung observed the accused drive up to the front of the Roger’s building, then get out of the driver’s seat; The Crown further submits that the accused’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was manifest, due to his own admissions that he hadconsumed an entire 750 ml bottle of vodka during the day, and the observations of the four Crown witnesses, including his wife. LEGAL FRAMEWORK The Statutory Presumption of Care or Control – Subsection 258(1) (a) [22] The Criminal Code of Canada provides: Proceedings under

section 255 258

(1) In any proceedings under subsection 255(1) in respect of an offence committed under

section 253 or subsection 254(5) or in anyproceedings under any of subsections 255(2) to (3.2), (

a) where it is proved that the accused occupied the seat or position ordinarily occupied by a person who operates a motor vehicle, vesselor aircraft or any railway equipment or who assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment, the accused shall be deemed tohave had the care or control of the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, as the case may be, unless the accused establishes thatthe accused did not occupy that seat or position for the purpose of setting the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment in motion orassisting in the operation of the aircraft or railway equipment, as the case may be; Case Law Care or Control Evidence of an Intention to Drive or to Cause a Risk [23] In R. v.

Boudreault, 2012 SCC 56 , [2012] S. C. J. No. 56, the Supreme Court of Canada heard an appeal fromthe Quebec Court of Appeal, on the following facts. [24] Mr. Boudreault appealed from the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal which set aside his acquittal on two chargesof having care or control of a vehicle while his ability was impaired and while his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit. Becausehe was too drunk to drive, Boudreault asked for a taxi to be called, and decided to wait in his truck for the taxi to arrive. Boudreaultstarted the motor in order to turn on the heat.

At no time did he attempt to set his truck in motion. Upon his arrival, the taxi driver calledthe police after finding Boudreault inebriated and asleep in his truck. The trial judge held that there was no risk that the motor vehiclewould be set in motion, since Boudreault, though intoxicated, knew what he was doing and took all the necessary precautions. The trialjudge found as a fact that there was no intention to drive, and in addition, no risk of danger and acquitted Boudreault.

The Court ofappeal held that, since an intention to drive was not an essential element of the offence, the trial judge had erred in considering a lack ofintention to drive as proof that there was no risk of setting the vehicle in motion. [25] Justice Morris Fish, speaking for the court, concluded that the trial judge had not erred, and explained the proper legalframework at paragraph 9 and following: 9 For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that "care or control", within the meaning of s. 253(1) of the Criminal Code, signifies(1) an intentional course of conduct associated with a motor vehicle; (2) by a person whose ability to drive is impaired, or whose bloodalcohol level exceeds the legal limit; (3) in circumstances that create a realistic risk, as opposed to a remote possibility, of danger topersons or property. ------ 13 Impaired judgment is no stranger to impaired driving, where both are induced by the consumption of alcohol or drugs.

Absentevidence to the contrary, a present ability to drive while impaired, or with an excessive blood alcohol ratio, creates an inherent risk of

danger. In practice, to avoid conviction, the accused will therefore face a tactical necessity of adducing evidence tending to prove thatthe inherent risk is not a realistic risk in the particular circumstances of the case. ------ 48 I need hardly reiterate that "realistic risk" is a low threshold and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, will normally be theonly reasonable inference where the Crown establishes impairment and a present ability to set the vehicle in motion.

To avoidconviction, the accused will in practice face a tactical necessity of adducing credible and reliable evidence tending to prove that norealistic risk of danger existed in the particular circumstances of the case. Impaired Driving [26] In R. v. Stellato, (ON CA), [1993], O. J. No. 18, (Ont. C. of A.), the issue to be decided was whetherthe trial judge had erred where the trial judge found that the accused was impaired, where the impairment was not a “marked departure”from normal driving behaviour.

Justice Jean-Marc Labrosse, speaking for the court, stated: In all criminal cases the trial judge must be satisfied as to the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction can beregistered. Accordingly, before convicting an accused of impaired driving, the trial judge must be satisfied that the accused's ability tooperate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol or a drug. If the evidence of impairment is so frail as to leave the trial judge with areasonable doubt as to impairment, the accused must be acquitted.

If the evidence of impairment establishes any degree of impairmentranging from slight to great, the offence has been made out. (Emphasis added) In the present case, the trial judge applied the correct test for impairment. There was sufficient evidence adduced at trial from which hecould find that the Crown had proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired byalcohol at the material time. Consequently, the

Summary Conviction Appeal court did not err in dismissing the appellant's appeal. When An Accused Testifies – The Rule in W. (D.) [27] In R. v. W. (D.), (SCC), [1991] S.C.J. No. 26, Justice Peter Cory sets out the way in which trial judgesmust charge the jury when the accused chooses to testify. [28] In W. (D.), the appellant was convicted of sexual assault after a trial that pitted the credibility of the accused against thatof the complainant. The main charge was relatively short and was correct and fair.

The judge erred in the short recharge in that hecharacterized the core issue to be determined by the jury as whether they believed the complainant or whether they believed theappellant. [29] Justice Cory states: 28 Ideally, appropriate instructions on the issue of credibility should be given, not only during the main charge, but on any recharge. Atrial judge might well instruct the jury on the question of credibility along these lines: First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must ac-quit.

Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit. Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidencewhich you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the ac-cused. (Emphasis added) If that formula were followed, the oft repeated error which appears in the recharge in this case would be avoided.

The requirement thatthe Crown prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reason-able doubt is fundamental in our system of criminal law. Every effort shouldbe made to avoid mistakes in charging the jury on this basic principle. REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE [30] I will now deal with the testimony at trial and the arguments advanced by the accused as set out above. Proof of Care or Control The Crown Witnesses Testimony

Mrs. Nallamthamey [ 31 ] Mrs.

Nallamthamey testified that when she finished work, she went to the Mailroom/Courier entrance side door on 855 York Mills Road, where her husband would normally wait in the family van to pick her up, on the north side of the building, near the courier entrance, and discovered that neither her husband, or the family van, a Honda Odyssey, were there. [ 32 ] She testified that she was also concerned that she had not heard from her husband, and called him to ask where he was. [ 33 ] She testified that when she reached him, he told her he was on his way, but his voice on the phone sounded as if he had been drinking, and she concluded that he was drinking and driving, and then decided she had to call 911, and report him. [ 34 ] She testified that after calling 911, she spoke again with her husband, told him she had called 911, and he was surprised, and thought she was kidding. [ 35 ] She testified that he again assured her he was on his way, apologized, and said he would be there shortly. [ 36 ] She testified that she walked out of her office, and went to the Roger’s parking lot on the east side of the building, well away from York Mills Road and the Mailroom/Courier entrance and vehicle waiting area on the south side of the building, to await the arrival of the police. [ 37 ] She testified that after the police arrived, she spoke to them for about five minutes in the parking lot, at a location which did not permit a view of the Mailroom/Courier entrance. [ 38 ] She testified that she then followed the police, as they all walked north, out of the driveway on the east side of the building, and back in a westerly direction towards the Mailroom/Courier entrance, and courier waiting area, on York Mills Road. [ 39 ] She testified that when she walked around the corner of the building, following the officer’s, she saw the family van parked on York Mills Road, with her husband standing outside the van, beside the closed, driver’s side door, talking on his cell phone. [ 40 ] She testified that the police next approached her husband, spoke to him very briefly, directed him to get into the van in the driver’s seat, and continued to speak to him. [ 41 ] She testified that she followed the police officers and waited by the van, while the officers spoke with her husband. [ 42 ] Mrs.

Nallamthamey testified that following the officers conversation with her husband, the officers took her husband out of the van, and then walked with him to the other side of the street, where he was placed in a second police vehicle. P. C.

Nikolaj Mozolev [ 43 ] Constable Nikolaj Mozolev testified that he arrived at 855 York Mills Road, with his partner, Constable Christopher Chung, at approximately 18:35. [ 44 ] Constable Mozolev testified that as he and his partner drove into a parking lot, which is accessible of a circular drive, some thirty to fifty meters to the east of the Roger’s building, where they were flagged down by the complainant, the first Crown witness, Mrs.

Nallamthamey. [ 45 ] Constable Mozolev testified that she immediately informed them that her husband had already arrived at the Roger’s building and was “just around the corner”, in a dark grey Honda Odyssey van, at the front of the Roger’s Cable building, parked on the south side of York Mills Road, with the van facing east. [ 46 ] Constable Mozolev, in chief, was then shown an overhead view of the Roger’s building and 855 York Mills Road, from Google Maps, and marked the location in the parking lot where the officers spoke to Mrs.

Nallamthamey as “A”, and the location of the Honda Odyssey van, as “B”. (Exhibit 1(a)). [ 47 ] Constable Mozolev was also shown two more Google Maps views, the first, looking west/southwest along York Mills Road, approaching the Roger’s building, and a second, showing a street view looking down the walkway and facing the Mailroom- Courier Door of 855 York Mills Road. (Exhibits 2(

a) and 2(b)) [ 48 ] Constable Mozolev made a mark on both maps suggesting that the Honda van was parked well away from the Roger’s parking lots where he believed the initial interview with the complainant had taken place, and on an indent in the York Mill’s roadway, immediately in front of the Mailroom-Courier Door and walkway. [ 49 ] Constable Mozolev testified that after taking an initial statement from Mrs. Nallamthamey, he and his partner walked with Mrs.

Nallamthamey back to the location of the Honda Odyssey van, which was parked on York Mills Road, on the south side of the street, immediately north of Mailroom-Courier Door of the Roger’s Cable building. [ 50 ] Constable Mozolev testified that when they approached the van, he observed the accused, Mr. Kanakalingam, sitting in the driver’s seat of the vehicle, and spoke to him. [ 51 ] Constable Mozolev testified that he spoke briefly to Mr. Kanakalingam, and detected a strong smell of alcohol and

observed other indications of impairment. [ 52 ] Constable Mozolev testified that Mr. Kanakalingam’s eyes were glassy, and his speech was slurred. [ 53 ] Constable Mozolev testified that he then had him step out of the vehicle, and sit in the rear of the van, for further questioning. [ 54 ] Constable Mozolev testified that Mr. Kanakalingam was unstable as he stepped out of the vehicle. [ 55 ] Constable Mozolev testified that Mr.

Kanakalingam had no driver’s licence or other form of identification on his purpose, and he had to go to his computer in his scout car to access the Ministry of Transportation Website in order be able to identify Mr.

Kanakalingam. [ 56 ] Constable Mozolev testified that after these observations, he requested that an Alert Screening Device be brought to the scene to conduct a roadside test. [ 57 ] Under cross-examination, Constable Mozolev was referred to his notebook, where he had written: “She advised us that her husband was in a vehicle around the corner” and also written: “At driver’s seat”. [ 58 ] Constable Mozolev was asked in cross-examination whether it was possible that when he first observed Mr.

Kanakalingam that day, he was actually standing outside the vehicle, at the driver’s side. [ 59 ] Constable Mozolev denied this possibility, and repeated that when he initially observed Mr. Kanakalingam he was behind the wheel, in the driver’s seat. [ 60 ] Again, in cross-examination regarding his notes, Constable Mozolev was asked if they had been told by Mrs. Nallamthamey that her husband had not yet arrived, but was on his way, and would likely be there any minute. [ 61 ] On this assertion by defence counsel, Constable Mozolev stated that it was, indeed, possible that this is what they had been told.

Christopher Chung [ 62 ] Christopher Chung, now retired, testified that on 17 November 2015, he and his partner, Constable Mozolev, at approximately 18:17, were notified that police services 911 had received a call of a suspected impaired driving incident at the Roger’s Cable building, 855 York Mills Road. [ 63 ] Christopher Chung testified that he and his partner responded to the call, and at approximately 18:35 arrived at the parking lot to the east of the adjoining Roger’s building, to investigate. [ 64 ] Christopher Chung testified that he and his partner, Constable Mozolev, drove into the parking lot and were flagged down by a female, who identified herself as the “caller”. [ 65 ] He testified that they were told by the woman that she was the wife of the suspected impaired driver, and that she believed her husband would be arriving “any minute” driving the family’s Honda Odyssey van. [ 66 ] Christopher Chung testified that at 18:40 he observed the Honda Odyssey driving up and come to a stop and the driver place the flashing emergency lights on. [ 67 ] Christopher Chung testified that he next observed a male, now known to him as Mr.

Kanakalingam, open the driver’s side door, and emerge from the driver’s seat. [ 68 ] Mr. Chung was shown, in chief, a street view of York Mills Road, looking west/southwest towards the Roger’s building, and asked to mark where he saw the Honda van come to a stop on the south side of York Mills Road. [ 69 ] Mr. Chung marked a location next to the Roger’s parking lot driveway, at the west corner of the driveway, at the entrance to the parking lot, just east of the Roger’s building, within a few feet of where the officer’s first spoke to Mrs. Nallamthamey. (Exhibit 3) [ 70 ] Mr.

Chung was also shown a fresh, unmarked copy of the same Google Map depicting an overhead view of the Roger’s building, identical to the one previously shown to Constable Mozolev, and marked a first spot where he recalled first meeting the complainant, Mrs. Nallamthamey, and a second spot where the van was parked by the accused. (Exhibit 4) [ 71 ] In this testimony, Mr. Chung described the initial encounter with Mrs.

Nallamthamey as taking place in the parking lot immediately adjacent to the Roger’s building, as he had marked on Exhibit 4, on the east side of the building, a different location than that testified to by his partner that evening, Constable Mozolev. [ 72 ] Mr. Chung’s markings on Exhibit 4 also placed the initial encounter with Mrs. Nallamthamey well inside the parking lot to the east of the Roger’s building. [ 73 ] On Exhibit 4, as he had done on Exhibit 3, Mr. Chung again depicted the van being parked near to the parking lot near

the east end of the Roger’s building, on the south side of York Mills Road. The Defence Witnesses Testimony Mr. Kuna Kanakalingam [ 74 ] Mr. Kanakalingam chose to testify on his own behalf. [ 75 ] Mr. Kanakalingam testified over two days, in which he was examined in-chief and cross-examined for some considerable period of time. [ 76 ] Mr. Kanakalingam testified that he has been in a common-law union with Mrs.

Nallamthamey, the first Crown witness, since approximately 1999. [ 77 ] He testified that he has no criminal record. [ 78 ] He testified that he has a degree in accounting from Centennial College, and has worked for Bell Canada for16 years, in “vender performance management”. [ 79 ] He testified that due to a diabetic condition, he works both at the Bell Canada office at 100 Wynford Drive, in Toronto, and at his home, where he has a home office. [ 80 ] He testified that he suffers from an addiction to alcohol, and has received in-patient treatment at the Bellwood’s Centre in Toronto, prior to the events that gave rise to these charges now before the court. [ 81 ] He testified that at the time of these events he and his wife going through a separated, and are now separated, but still living under a single roof with their children, and shared the use of one vehicle, a Honda Odyssey Van. [ 82 ] He testified that he would customarily drive the van to his workplace, then after his work, drive to his wife’s workplace, and pick her up. [ 83 ] He testified that on the day he was charged he had finished work at the Bell office on Wynford Drive at 2:00 PM, and had come home. [ 84 ] He testified that on this day he and his wife had planned that he would drive to her place of work, and pick her up at approximately 6:00 PM. [ 85 ] He testified that, once home, however, he began drinking a 750 ml. bottle of vodka, which he consumed in its entirety. [ 86 ] He testified that he lost track of time, but when he realized that it would be unsafe for him to drive, he called his cousin, Mr.

Logakrishnan Muthukumaru, and asked if he could come to his residence, and drive the Honda van to pick up Mrs. Nallamthamey. [ 87 ] He testified that it was his plan to then wait for his wife to leave her work, and then have her drive them both home. [ 88 ] He testified that when he called his cousin, he learned that his cousin was shopping at Markham and Steeles for some celebratory items to honour his cousin’s father who had just passed away, but readily agreed to have a friend, Lloyd, drive him to Mr. Kanakalingam’s residence to permit Mr Muthukumaru to drive the Honda Van to Mrs.

Nallamthamey’s workplace. [ 89 ] He testified that the plan was that Mr. Muthukumaru’s friend Lloyd would follow the Honda Van to the Roger’s building, and then pick up Mr. Muthukumaru and continue on their errands. [ 90 ] He testified that in the result, his relative, Mr. Muthukumaru did receive a lift from his friend, Lloyd, to Mr. Kanakalingam’s residence, and his cousin, Mr. Muthukumaru drove the Honda Van to Mr. Kanakalingam’s wife’s workplace, with Mr.

Kanakalingam in the passenger seat. [ 91 ] He testified that immediately preceding and during this drive he had a series of phone calls with his wife, who was complaining that he sounded drunk, and shouldn’t be driving. [ 92 ] He testified that he never explained to his wife that he was not, in fact, driving and it was his cousin, Mr. Muthukumaru who was driving the van. [ 93 ] He testified that when he arrived, he was quite late, and when Mr.

Muthukumaru parked the van on York Mills Road, in the normal place, on the north side of the building, in the courier waiting area, half way down the building, to the west of the parking lot, Mrs. Nallamthamey was not there. [ 94 ] He testified that opened up the doors of the van, to air out the vehicle, and remove some of the smell of alcohol, got out of the van, and waited for his wife to appear. [ 95 ] He testified that at no time did he get into the driver’s seat, or get back into the van, until directed to do so by the police.

[96] He also testified that he never drove, or attempted to drive or move the van, that evening, after having consumed alcohol. Logakrishnan Muthukumaru [97] Mr. Muthukumaru was the second witness called by Mr. Kanakalingam, and the last witness in this case. [98] He testified that he has been employed by Canadian National, in their Brampton Intermodal Terminal for more than tenyears. [99] Mr.

Muthukumaru testified that he was not at work on the day of the allegations before the court because he was onBereavement Leave from work, due to the p0assing of his father on 11 November 2015. [100] Filed in this trial as evidence and marked as Exhibit 8, was a letter from Canadian National, dated 16 August 2016,confirming that Mr. Muthukumaru was on Bereavement Leave from work from 16 to 19 November, 2015. [101] Mr. Muthukumaru testified that he is related by marriage to Mr. Kanakalingam, and has been acquainted to his cousin forten to fifteen years. [102] Mr.

Muthukumaru testified that he received a call from his cousin on 17 November 2015 sometime between 4:00 and 5:00requesting his assistance. [103] Mr. Muthukumaru testified that when he received the call he was at a Mall in the Markham and Steeles neighbourhoodwith a friend, Lloyd Nirmalingam, shopping for ceremonial items for an event that was going to be held to honour his father. [104] Mr. Muthukumaru testified that Mr. Kanakalingam told him he needed a favour, because he had been drinking, to have Mr.Muthukumaru drive him in the family van to Mr.

Kanakalingam’s wife’s place of work, at Roger’s Cable, 855 York Mills Road, NorthYork, so that she could drive the van home. [105] Mr. Muthukumaru testified that he immediately agreed, and enlisted his friend, Mr. Nirmalingam, to follow him, in his car,so that they could continue their errands in Mr. Nirmalingam’s car after dropping Mr. Kanakalingam and the van at Mrs.Nallamthamey’s workplace. [106] Mr. Muthukumaru testified that during the drive to the Roger’s office, which took approximately twenty-five to thirtyminutes, he recalls Mr.

Kanakalingam receiving at least one call from his wife and having a conversation with his wife. [107] Mr. Muthukumaru testified that when he arrived at Mrs. Nallamthamey’s workplace, he left the van parked with theengine running, because it was cold that evening, and that Mr. Kanakalingam was sitting in the front passenger seat. [108] Mr. Muthukumaru testified that after getting out of the van he did not stay around and immediately drove away with hisfriend, Mr. Nirmalingam. [109] Mr. Muthukumaru testified that when he left the Roger’s Cable site, he had not seen Mrs.

Nallamthamey, and he saw nopolice or police vehicles in the area. [110] Mr. Muthukumaru was asked to look at Google Map Street view of the parking area on the north side of the building on855 York Mills facing the Mailroom-Courier Door of the Roger’s Building, and mark where he and Mr. Nirmalingam parked thevehicles they drove that day. [111] Mr. Muthukumaru testified that he parked the Honda van facing east, and Mr. Nirmalingam parked his car slightly behindthe van, also facing east. [112] Mr.

Muthukumaru marked the Google Map, placing the Honda Van on the west side of the main front entrance walkwayto the building, just in front of the Nirmalingam vehicle, which was parked in front of the Mailroom-Courier Door entrance. ANALYSIS [113] The accused, Mr. Kanakalingam has chosen to testify at this trial. [114] Thus, this court must weigh all the evidence in this trial in the manner set out in the instructions given to trial judges byMr. Justice Cory in R. v. W. (D.), (SCC), [1991] S.C.J.

No. 26. [115] To summarise, Justice Cory states: First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must ac-quit. Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit. Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidencewhich you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the ac-cused. (Emphasis added)

[ 116 ] Let me review the factual issues at play in this trial, in the light of the approach required by trial judges, as set out in R. v. W. (D.), supra. Care or Control Does the Evidence establish that The Accused was In the driver’s seat, or had an intention to drive? [ 117 ] Mr. Kanakalingam testified that he was never driving the Honda Odyssey van, nor was he in the driver’s seat during the journey from his residence to his wife’s place of work, or at the Roger’s Mobile office, until instructed to get into the van by the police officers. [ 118 ] His relative, and witness, Mr.

Muthukumaru, corroborates most of his testimony, on this point, as he testified that he drove the van from the family residence to the Roger’s building, with Mr. Kanakalingam in the front passenger seat, and also testified that when he left that location, his cousin was still in the passenger’s seat. [ 119 ] On this threshold question, the first three Crown witnesses, who were at the scene each give a different version of what transpired, as I have set out above. [ 120 ] Mrs.

Nallamthamey testified that when she spoke with her husband by phone, she concluded he was driving the van himself, when he told her he was coming to meet her at her work. [ 121 ] I find in this trial that although she made an assumption that he was driving, she had no actual direct knowledge to support that assumption. [ 122 ] I also find that she is a credible witness, and I prefer her evidence to that of the officer’s when she testified that when she and they first observed her husband at the Roger’s building, the van was already parked, on the south side of 855 York Mills Road, near the courier entrance and waiting area. [ 123 ] She testified that when she walked around the corner of the building, following the officer’s, she saw the family van, with her husband standing outside the van, beside the closed, driver’s side door, talking on his cell phone. [ 124 ] The first police officer to testify for the Crown, Constable Mozolev testified that after taking an initial statement from Mrs.

Nallamthamey, when he and his partner walked with Mrs. Nallamthamey to the location of the Honda Odyssey van, which was parked on York Mills Road, on the south side of the street, immediately north of Mailroom-Courier Door of the Roger’s Cable building, he observed the accused, Mr. Kanakalingam, sitting in the driver’s seat of the vehicle. [ 125 ] The third Crown witness, Mr. Christopher Chung, Constable Mozolev’s partner that day, now retired from the police service, testified that he initially attended with his then-partner, Constable Mozolev, and interviewed the complainant, they were told that Mr.

Kanakalingam had not yet arrived, but she expected him “any minute”. [ 126 ] Mr. Chung testified that at 18:40 he observed the Honda Odyssey driving up and come to a stop and the driver placing the flashing emergency lights on. [ 127 ] Christopher Chung testified that he next observed Mr.

Kanakalingam open the driver’s side door, and emerge from the driver’s seat. [ 128 ] When he was shown two Google street view maps, Exhibit’s 3 & 4 in this proceeding, he on each Google map placed the location of the Honda Odyssey, when it arrived and stopped on the south side of York Mills Road, as having come to rest very close to the entrance to the Roger’s parking lot located to the east of the Roger’s Mobile building [ 129 ] This location differs materially, in my view, from the location of the vehicle, as testified to by the two Crown witnesses who testified prior to him. [ 130 ] This location also differs materially, in my view, from the location where the accused, and his defence witness, Mr.

Muthukumaru, testified that the Honda van was parked. [ 131 ] Although this evidence given by the three Crown witnesses could be at least partially reconciled by each of them making their observations from different vantage points, and at slightly different moments in the narrative, in the end I have concluded that this testimony leaves me in doubt as to whether was either driving the vehicle, or in the passenger seat, that evening.

Summary of the factual deficiencies of the Crown evidence on whether Mr. Kanakalingam was ever in the driver’s seat or in

care or control of the vehicle [ 132 ] Mr. Chung testified he saw the accused drive the vehicle, Constable Mozolev testified that he first saw the vehicle parked, with the accused in the driver’s seat, while Mrs.

Nallamthamey testified that her husband was outside the vehicle when she and the officer’s first approached. [ 133 ] In my view, these three different scenarios, all presented as part of the Crown’s evidence are not reconcilable with each other. [ 134 ] Moreover, in my view, the testimony of the two Crown witnesses, Mozolev and Chung, are not only not reconcilable with each other, or with the testimony of the three other witnesses who testified, on this threshold issue as to whether the accused was in the driver’s seat at any material time. [ 135 ] The accused, Mr.

Kanakalingam denies being in the driver’s seat. [ 136 ] Although the testimony given by the three Crown witnesses could be at least partially reconciled by each of them making their observations from different vantage points, and at slightly different moments in the narrative, in the end I have concluded that this testimony leaves me in doubt as to whether was either driving the vehicle, or in the passenger seat, that evening. [ 137 ] I also have the two defence witnesses on these issues. [ 138 ] Although there is a remote chance that accused got into the driver’s seat after his relative, Mr.

Muthukumaru, left the scene, it is not sufficient to change my views on the credibility and reliability of the Crown witnesses on these points. [ 139 ] On the evidence as a whole, on this threshold point I am thus left in doubt. [ 140 ] On the basis of the testimony of the accused, Mr. Kanakalingam, and his witness, Mr.

Muthukumaru, I also find that he did not drive the Odyssey Van, or intend to drive the van that afternoon. [ 141 ] On the basis of all the evidence, I also find that in the circumstances of this case, it has not been proven to a criminal standard that the accused’s conduct created a risk of danger to persons or property, as defined by Justice Fish in R. v. Boudreault , supra .

Impaired Care or Control [ 142 ] Because of my findings on the facts relating to the issue of “Care or Control” it is not necessary for me to review the evidence on the issue of the accused impairment. [ 143 ] However, the Crown did tender evidence on this, including the observations of the two officers at the scene, the testimony of the Breath Technician, Constable Samir Patil, and the police “in-car” video, which portrays the accused shortly after his arrest, sitting in the back of the police vehicle. [ 144 ] If it were necessary to rule on the issue of impairment, I also have doubts as to the sufficiency of the Crown case on this point. [ 145 ] The officers at the scene initially decided to have the accused give a sample of his breath into an Approved Screening Device, rather than arrest him for impaired operation. [ 146 ] The first count on the Information, of “Over 80” was the basis for the arrest at the scene. [ 147 ] This suggests that, at least initially, the officers were not satisfied that the accused was impaired. [ 148 ] Moreover, some of the observations made by the two officers at the scene, later relied upon to prove impairment are of limited value because of the frailty of their testimony, generally, and the internal contradictions in their testimony, as to whether they observed any driving, and their lack of careful note taking, as revealed in the cross-examination at trial. [ 149 ] The officer who claimed to have observed the accused drive the van up to the Roger’s building and park it, Mr.

Chung, if his testimony were believed when he asserted he had observed the van being driven by the accused, did not say that there was any erratic driving. [ 150 ] The breath technician, Constable Patil, observed Mr.

Kanakalingam at the station, at approximately 8:35 PM and it was his opinion that the accused’s ability to drive was impaired. [ 151 ] In cross-examination, he conceded that he had never met the accused prior to the accused’s attendance at the station, and therefore could not compare his demeanor, speech patterns or affect, to knowledge of the accused’s “normal” behaviour. [ 152 ] Constable Patil also conceded that he had not looked at the in-car video, Exhibit 5, and there was no information provided to him, such as erratic driving, to confirm a connection between alcohol consumption, and ability to operate a motor vehicle. [ 153 ] At trial, the in-car video was played, and it depicts the accused, very distraught, lamenting his arrest and circumstance, but, in my view, adds little to the Crown’s case on this issue.

[ 154 ] Although the evidence at trial does confirm that the accused had alcohol in his system, by virtue of his failure on the Alcotest, and his own admissions of considerable consumption earlier in the day, in my view, there is really no sufficient connection between his alcohol consumption and to his ability to drive, based upon the evidence called by the Crown, and the trial evidence as a whole. [ 155 ] Thus, in my view, if it were necessary to rule on this point, I am left with doubt as to whether the accused’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by the consumption of alcohol. [ 156 ] In the result, I will find Mr.

Kanakalingam not guilty of the offence as charged. Released: 29 November 2017 Signed: “Justice Paul H. Reinhardt”