R. v. Soni (J.), (2014) 598 A.R. 386 (QB)

• Judge: Shelley, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 31, 2014
• Citations: (2014), 598 A.R. 386 (QB);2014 ABQB 709

R. v. Soni (J.) (2014), 598 A.R. 386 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. JA.048

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent/Crown) v. Jayant Soni (applicant/accused)

(110247475Q2; 2014 ABQB 709)

Indexed As: R. v. Soni (J.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Shelley, J.

October 31, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing death (Criminal Code, s. 249(4)) and street racing causing death (s. 249.4(4)) following a three-vehicle traffic collision in April 2010. Onboard electronic data from two of the vehicles was downloaded by the vehicles' manufacturers and provided to the police. A voir dire was held to determined the admissibility of this data as evidence at the accused's trial.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the evidence was not admissible.

Criminal Law - Topic 1395

Motor vehicles - Dangerous driving - Evidence and proof - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5209 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5201

Evidence and witnesses - General - Admissibility - Generally - Soni was the driver of a Mercedes that was involved in a traffic collision with a Lexus and an Alero - The driver of the Alero was killed - Soni was charged with dangerous driving causing death and street racing causing death - Onboard electronic data from the Mercedes and the Lexus was downloaded by those vehicles' manufacturers and provided to the police - In a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the data as evidence at Soni's trial, the Crown argued that the trial judge should not evaluate it in isolation, but within a larger matrix of facts, including eyewitness testimony and conclusions from the accident reconstruction report - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench disagreed - First, the accident reconstruction's information pool included the electronic data, so using the report to test the data's reliability would be an exercise in circular logic - Second, it was improper for imprecise evidence to prove the accuracy of more specific data - Any context offered by other evidence was irrelevant to evaluate the electronic data - See paragraphs 39 to 43.

Criminal Law - Topic 5209

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Prejudicial evidence - Soni was the driver of a Mercedes that was involved in a traffic collision with a Lexus and an Alero - The driver of the Alero was killed - Soni was charged with dangerous driving causing death and street racing causing death - Onboard electronic data from the Mercedes and the Lexus was downloaded by those vehicles' manufacturers and provided to the police - The Crown sought to have the data admitted into evidence in order to, inter alia, establish Soni's speed at the time of the collision - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that this evidence was inadmissible - The evidence was potentially highly unreliable - The mechanisms to obtain, interpret and record the data were unknown, and the data was not linked to a specific time and place - Although the data appeared precise, a calculation was only as accurate as the means that measured the relevant variables - People tended to trust a "hard number", unless they were warned of the risks involved in that - This was a powerful prejudicial effect - See paragraphs 44 to 82.

Evidence - Topic 3017

Documentary evidence - General - Electronic documents - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5209 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Harrer (H.M.), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 562; 186 N.R. 329; 64 B.C.A.C. 161; 105 W.A.C. 161; 128 D.L.R.(4th) 98, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Buhay (M.A.), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631; 305 N.R. 158; 177 Man.R.(2d) 72; 304 W.A.C. 72; 2003 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Broughton, [1996] A.J. No. 970 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Curran (S.F.) (2013), 565 A.R. 201; 2013 ABQB 194, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Gubbins (K.P.) (2014), 596 A.R. 351; 2014 ABPC 195, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Kilpatrick (D.K.) (2013), 555 A.R. 110; 2013 ABQB 5, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Bjelland (J.C.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 651; 391 N.R. 202; 460 A.R. 230; 462 W.A.C. 230; 2009 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Gratton (A.L.) (2003), 341 A.R. 201; 23 Alta. L.R.(4th) 214; 2003 ABQB 728, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 235, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. F.J.U., [1995] 3 S.C.R. 764; 186 N.R. 365; 85 O.A.C. 321; 128 D.L.R.(4th) 121, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Grainger, [1958] O.W.N. 311; 120 C.C.C. 321 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Werenka (1981), 11 M.V.R. 280 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. A.K. (2004), 373 A.R. 141; 2004 ABQB 875, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Redmond (1990), 37 O.A.C. 133; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Delorey (J.L.) (2004), 226 N.S.R.(2d) 59; 714 A.P.R. 59; 2004 NSCA 95, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. J.-L.J., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 600; 261 N.R. 111; 2000 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Morris, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190; 48 N.R. 341, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Wray, [1971] S.C.R. 272; 11 D.L.R.(3d) 673, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 38].

White v. The King, [1947] S.C.R. 268, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Handy (J.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908; 290 N.R. 1; 160 O.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 419, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Melaragni (1992), 73 C.C.C.(3d) 348; 16 W.C.B.(2d) 329 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Shearing (I.), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 33; 290 N.R. 225; 168 B.C.A.C. 161; 275 W.A.C. 161; 2002 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Khelawon (R.), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 787; 355 N.R. 267; 220 O.A.C. 338; 2006 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 85].

Counsel:

J.P. Quenneville, for the Crown;

B. Beresh and S. Straub (student-at-law), for the accused.

This voir dire was heard on October 27-29, 2014, before Shelley, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered an oral decision on October 31, 2014, and the following written reasons on November 18, 2014.