Chester's Case — Careless Driving — Dismissed

Client:  Chester C., Accused
Complainant:  Toronto Police Force, 11 Division

Charges:  (i) fail to remain at scene of an accident, (ii) fail to report accident, and (iii) careless driving, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act; and (iv) operate motor vehicle without insurance and (v) make false insurance statement, contrary to the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act

Background:  Chester was driving with no insurance on his truck. He smashed into the car in front of him. Then he panicked. He backed up and hit a second car. As he sped off, he hit a third car. Another witness noted Chester's plate number. Later, the police left a calling card at Chester's house. Chester sought the advice of a Toronto criminal defence lawyer, and called me right away. He didn't want to ignore the police, but he wasn't sure what to do.

READ THE POLICE REPORT

Goals:  We first had to deal with the police. Then, if Chester was charged, we would have to tackle the charges.

Strategy — Accident Report:  I couldn't advise Chester to simply ignore the police. Since he was a driver involved in an accident, the Highway Traffic Act required him to make a report. As an officer of the Court, I had to advise him to comply with the law. Chester did not, however, have to provide any other statement or evidence. I provided Chester with a written statement to give the police. This statement would assist Chester in asserting his rights and in preventing the collection of evidence against him.

"I'LL SAY ONLY WHAT I HAVE TO"

Results — Accident Report:  Chester attended the police station, presented the arrest statement, and gave the compelled Highway-Traffic-Act statement. He gave no other statement or evidence. After Chester made his accident report, the police charged him with above five offences. If convicted, Chester would face a lengthy licence suspension, a fine, and could possibly go to jail.

Strategy — Charges:  We scheduled a trial, and prepared for battle. Our defence focused on the lack of proper identification. Heading to trial, here's how this defence was shaping up: (i) no witness identified or described Chester as the driver of the truck; (ii) there was a good argument that the prosecutor could not use Chester's compelled Highway-Traffic-Act statement; and (iii) there was no other evidence connecting Chester to the accident. If the Judge had a doubt about Chester being the driver of the truck, he would have to acquit on all charges.

Results — Charges:  At trial, the Judge agreed that the prosecutor could not use Chester's compelled Highway-Traffic-Act statement. But that was only the first half of the battle. One of the witnesses "swore" that Chester was the driver of "that truck." I argued that the witness identification of Chester was too weak to support a conviction. The Judge disagreed. He convicted on 3 of the 5 charges, suspended Chester's licence, and imposed a huge fine. I filed an appeal. In my written submissions, I argued that the convictions were unreasonable — the identification was just too weak. After reading my submissions, the Crown asked the Judge to allow the appeal. Chester was acquitted of all charges.

READ THE COURT TRANSCRIPT OF THE APPEAL
READ CHESTER'S TESTIMONIAL