R v Crittenden

Her Majesty the Queen v. Jim Crittenden

Appeal from Provincial Court conviction
Newmarket Provincial Court — His Honour Judge R.J. Nadeau | July 19, 1990

Background

On October 8, 1988, Police Officer Woods stopped Jim Crittenden while driving. Crittenden identified himself verbally as "Jim Crittenden" and provided his address as 771 Sedore Avenue, Willow Beach. The officer testified that Crittenden only produced the photo portion of his driver's license — the rest was missing.

The Crown's case relied entirely on Ministry of Transportation documents showing that "Alfred J. Crittenden" with a date of birth of April 26, 1962, living at 771 Sedore Avenue, had his license suspended for unpaid fines. The Crown never asked Crittenden if he had ever used the name "Alfred," never confirmed his date of birth, and never obtained his driver's license number from him during the stop.

Issues

1. Did the Crown prove that the Ministry documents for "Alfred J. Crittenden" actually related to the defendant "Jim Crittenden"?
2. Was proper notice of suspension given under section 34 of the Highway Traffic Act?

The Identity Gap

The appeal judge found a fatal flaw in the Crown's case: there was insufficient evidence linking the defendant to the suspension documents. While both individuals lived at the same address, the judge noted that the evidence revealed "more than one Jim Crittenden at the address of 771 Sedore Avenue in Willow Beach." The Crown had established that Alfred J. Crittenden's license was suspended, but failed to prove that Alfred J. Crittenden and Jim Crittenden were the same person.

The judge emphasized that "documents received from the Ministry must in fact be proven to apply to the defendant before the Court." Without a driver's license number, date of birth, or evidence that the defendant had ever used the name "Alfred," the Crown could not "complete the circle between the person in the certificate and the accused person."

Key Takeaway

The Crown must prove you are the same person named in government records — similar names and addresses aren't enough.

If you're charged based on government documents, carefully examine whether the Crown has actually proven the documents relate to you personally, not just someone with a similar name at your address.