R v Skorput

Regina v. Skorput

72 C.C.C. (3d) 294
Ontario Court (Provincial Division) — MacDonnell Prov. Div. J. | April 10, 1992

Background

Zlatko Skorput was charged with careless driving under section 111 of the Highway Traffic Act after a collision on September 15, 1989. At about 7:10 p.m., Pepino Liotti was sitting in his parked car on Richgrove Drive when he saw another vehicle turn from Martin Grove Road and head toward him at 40-50 km/h. The car swerved at the last second but still collided with the rear of Liotti's vehicle, pushing it forward about 10 feet.

Skorput failed to show up for his trial, so it proceeded ex parte (without him present). The Crown called two witnesses: Liotti and the investigating police officer. After Liotti's testimony, the justice of the peace made a critical statement that would doom the prosecution.

Issues

1. Whether the presiding justice erred by concluding that establishing a prima facie case was sufficient for conviction in an ex parte trial
2. Whether the Crown was required to present all relevant evidence, including evidence that might assist the defence

The Prima Facie Case Error

After hearing Liotti's testimony, the justice told the Crown: "I think the Crown so far has established a prima facie case, and with the accused not being here, I think it is just a question of whether or not you can identify that person to make your case complete." When the police officer began to testify about the investigation, the judge cut him off, saying "I don't think we need the damage. All I need is..." The officer only got to identify Skorput as the driver before the Crown closed its case and the justice convicted.

The appeal court found this was a fundamental error. Justice MacDonnell explained that "prima facie case" has two different legal meanings: the permissive sense (evidence that could support a conviction) and the presumptive sense (evidence that would require a conviction unless rebutted). Either way, the justice was wrong. If he meant permissive, then he applied a standard lower than "beyond reasonable doubt." If he meant presumptive, then he was applying a concept that only matters at the end of all evidence, not in the middle of the Crown's case.

The Crown's Duty to Present All Evidence

The court emphasized that even in an ex parte trial, the Crown must call all relevant evidence — including evidence that might help the defence. The police officer's full investigation could have revealed information that raised reasonable doubt about whether Skorput's driving actually constituted careless driving under section 111. By cutting off this testimony, the justice prevented a full consideration of all the evidence.

Key Takeaway

Even when you don't show up to court, the Crown still has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt using all available evidence.

Your absence doesn't lower the prosecution's burden of proof or excuse them from presenting their complete case. If they cut corners and leave out potentially exonerating evidence, that's grounds for appeal even in an ex parte trial.