R v Multani

Her Majesty The Queen v. Amarjit Multani

Court File No. 1060 999 00 20571922 00
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice J.A. Morneau | September 18, 2018

Background

Amarjit Multani was driving a tractor-trailer unit on Highway 10 in the middle of the afternoon when his brake lights weren't working. A Ministry of Transportation traffic safety officer in a fully marked vehicle with roof emergency lights tried to pull him over. The officer activated emergency lights and pulled up alongside the tractor-trailer — but had to enter the oncoming lane of traffic to do so. Because it was unsafe for both vehicles to pull over immediately, the officer turned the emergency lights on and off intermittently over about half a kilometer and three separate occasions.

Multani testified that he had good mirrors with a clear view down the sides of his vehicle, and that he pulled over as soon as he saw the emergency lights on the third attempt. He said he simply didn't see the officer signal for him to stop until that final time. The officer tried three times over 19.2 kilometers before Multani finally stopped. He was charged under section 216.1(2) of the Highway Traffic Act for failing to stop a commercial motor vehicle for examination.

Issues

1. Whether Multani's failure to stop on the first two attempts constituted an offence under the Highway Traffic Act
2. Whether the trial judge's inconsistent findings about Multani's credibility rendered the conviction unsafe

The Credibility Confusion

This case turned on a critical flaw in how the trial judge assessed the evidence. Justice of the Peace S. Taylor found that Multani was not lying about pulling over when he saw the lights on the third occasion. The judge accepted his testimony about having good mirrors and a clear view. But then the judge made contradictory findings about the first two attempts.

The judge stated that Multani "either did not see the lights or did not care" on the first two occasions, and that "I do not know which." Later, the judge said he could not find it reliable that Multani didn't see the flashing lights over 19.2 kilometers, and concluded that Multani's evidence was "not credible or reliable." The appeal court found these statements irreconcilable — the judge couldn't simultaneously accept Multani's credibility on the third stop while rejecting it on the first two.

For strict liability offences like this one, the standard is whether a reasonable person would have seen the emergency lights in those circumstances. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the prohibited act occurred, but then the defendant can avoid liability by proving they took all reasonable care. The trial judge needed to make clear findings on whether Multani genuinely didn't see the lights or was being willfully blind.

Key Takeaway

Inconsistent credibility findings by a trial judge can be grounds for a successful appeal, even in strict liability cases.

If a judge accepts part of your testimony as truthful but rejects other parts without clear reasoning, that contradiction may undermine the entire conviction. The appeal was granted and a new trial was ordered.