R v Amankwaa

R. v. Amankwaa

[1997] O.J. No. 6014
Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division) — Justice of the Peace Quon | April 1, 1997

Background

Isaac Amankwaa was driving eastbound on Eglinton Avenue West in Etobicoke, approaching the intersection with Martingrove Road. He was in the right lane, which had signs indicating it was for right turns only (with an exception for buses). There were two signs: a green warning sign 100 metres before the intersection stating "Right Lane Must Exit," and a white arrow on black background 25-30 metres before the intersection with "Buses Excepted" underneath. The lane also had two arrows painted on the roadway surface.

Instead of turning right as the signs required, Amankwaa drove straight through the intersection. Police Constable Schulze, positioned on the south side of Eglinton east of Martingrove, observed this and charged Amankwaa under section 154(1)(c) of the Highway Traffic Act for failing to obey a lane sign. Amankwaa's defence argued that since the lane continued on the other side of the intersection (restricted to buses), he was entitled to proceed straight, and that the signs didn't specify times of operation as allegedly required by section 155.

Issues

1. Did the Crown prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the highway was divided into "clearly marked lanes" as required by section 154(1)(c)?
2. Was the defendant charged under the correct section of the Highway Traffic Act?

The "Clearly Marked Lanes" Requirement

The court focused on a critical distinction in the Highway Traffic Act: some sections refer to "marked lanes" while section 154(1)(c) specifically requires "clearly marked lanes." Justice of the Peace Quon found this difference was intentional and meaningful. The prosecution had to prove not just that there were lanes, but that they were clearly marked.

Drawing on cases from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, where legislation explicitly requires "clearly visible" lines, the court determined that "clearly marked lanes" requires evidence about both the method used to divide the highway into lanes and the visibility of those demarcations to drivers. The officer's testimony that there were "4 lanes of traffic" with some marked for turns wasn't enough — there was no evidence about how the lanes were actually delineated or whether those demarcations were clearly visible.

The court noted that while the evidence was sufficient to survive the defence's motion for non-suit (meaning there was some evidence on each element), it wasn't sufficient to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt at trial's end.

Key Takeaway

The prosecution must prove every word in the charge — "clearly marked" means more than just "marked."

If you're charged under section 154(1)(c), pay attention to whether the Crown actually proves the lanes were "clearly marked" with specific evidence about lane markings and their visibility, not just general testimony about the number of lanes.