R v Sajan

Sajan v. York (Regional Municipality)

2019 ONCJ 315
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice Joseph F. Kenkel | May 10, 2019

Background

Samana Sajan was convicted of Careless Driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act after a motor vehicle accident. The only witness was the driver of the other vehicle, who testified that he saw a "young lady" driving the car that hit him. When asked if he could identify that person again, the witness said "It's one year. I-I-vaguely, yeah." He then pointed to Ms. Sajan in court and said "I think it's her." The witness was not cross-examined on his identification.

At trial, Ms. Sajan's agent brought a motion for non-suit, arguing there was insufficient evidence of careless driving and questioning whether there was adequate identification of the driver. Even the prosecutor conceded that "The issue of identification...is a sketchy one." The Justice of the Peace denied the motion, finding that while identification "may be weak," there was sufficient evidence that could result in a conviction if believed.

Issues

1. Whether the Justice of the Peace erred in not granting a non-suit motion due to insufficient identification evidence

The Identification Evidence Problem

Justice Kenkel found the identification evidence fatally flawed. The witness expressed clear doubt about his ability to identify the driver after a year had passed, describing his recollection as "vague" and his identification as uncertain ("I think it's her"). The prosecution didn't call the investigating officer, so there was no other evidence linking Ms. Sajan to the driving.

The court applied the principle from R v Hay (2013 SCC 61): "Where the Crown's case consists solely of eyewitness testimony that would necessarily leave reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable juror, the trial judge must direct an acquittal upon a motion for directed verdict." This wasn't a case where weak identification evidence should be left to the trier of fact — the evidence was so poor that no reasonable trier of fact could rely on it.

On appeal, the prosecution argued that Ms. Sajan would have been required to file an accident report, and the court could infer identification from that. Justice Kenkel rejected this for three reasons: the argument wasn't made at trial, there was no evidence any report was actually filed, and even if filed, such reports can't be used to prove guilt due to Charter protections (R v White).

Key Takeaway

Hesitant, uncertain identification evidence can be grounds for a directed verdict if it's the prosecution's only evidence linking you to the offence.

If you're facing charges based solely on weak eyewitness identification — especially where the witness expresses doubt or uncertainty — a non-suit motion at the close of the prosecution's case might succeed. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were the driver, and "I think it's her" after admitting vague memory simply isn't enough.