R v Sandhu

R. v. Sandhu

2009 ONCJ 77
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice of the Peace Kenneth W. Dechert | February 25, 2009

Background

On December 15, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., Constable Mark Urie was stopped in the southbound left turn lane on Waterdown Road in Burlington, waiting for a red light. Heavy traffic, clear cold weather, dry roads, artificial lighting illuminating the intersection. As the east-west light turned from green to amber, he heard an engine "revving very high" and looked right to see a lone eastbound vehicle approaching on Plains Road — a distinctive black Honda Prelude with a modified muffler.

The officer estimated the vehicle was traveling at "no less than 120 kilometres per hour" when he first spotted it 200 metres from the intersection. He counted a five-second amber light, followed by a two-second all-red phase. According to Constable Urie, the Honda entered the intersection approximately one second after the north-south light had turned green — meaning it was facing a solid red. He pursued, caught up (other traffic slowed the Honda down), and ticketed Gurvir Sandhu for red light — fail to stop under section 144(18) of the Highway Traffic Act.

Issues

1. Did the defendant enter the intersection while facing a red traffic signal?
2. How should credibility be assessed when there are conflicting witness accounts?

The Credibility Battle

This case came down to a classic "he said, he said" between the officer and the defendant. Sandhu testified that he was driving 50-60 km/h eastbound when the light turned yellow. He was 40-50 feet from the stop line, had cars behind him, and decided he couldn't safely stop without getting "stuck" in the middle of the intersection. So he accelerated slightly to 65 km/h to clear the intersection on the yellow — and maintained throughout his testimony that he never saw a red light.

The judge applied the R. v. W.(D.) credibility framework: even if you don't believe the defendant, you must acquit if his evidence leaves you with reasonable doubt. The key problem with the officer's testimony? He admitted he was "focusing" on when the light was "going to turn red" and couldn't say where Sandhu's vehicle was relative to the stop line at the moment the light changed. His observations of the vehicle's position happened "in a matter of one or two seconds" while his attention was drawn to traffic lights to his left, not the approaching vehicle to his right.

Key Takeaway

Even rock-solid police testimony can have gaps that create reasonable doubt.

The officer's inability to pinpoint exactly where the defendant's vehicle was when the light turned red — combined with his admission that he was watching the lights rather than tracking the vehicle's position — was enough to sink the prosecution's case. In red light cases, precise timing and positioning matter enormously.