R v Sztronga

R. v. Sztronga

2010 ONCJ 157
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice of the Peace Conacher | April 27, 2010

Background

On May 5, 2008, around 7:15 p.m., Colin Sztronga was riding his red Ducati motorcycle westbound on Highway 401 between Morningside Ave. and Markham Road. He was traveling with another motorcyclist on a Honda, both doing about 120-130 km/h in a 100 km/h zone. P.C. Proulx of Toronto Police Traffic Services was patrolling about 100 metres behind when he witnessed what he described as the "very distinctive red Ducati" pop a wheelie — lifting its front wheel off the roadway at a 45-degree angle for approximately 50 metres before passing the Honda.

Sztronga was charged under section 172 of the Highway Traffic Act for stunt driving, specifically for "driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway." The penalty for this offence includes license suspension, vehicle impoundment, and substantial fines — making it one of the most serious sanctions under the HTA.

Issues

1. Whether the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sztronga performed the wheelie
2. Whether the conduct, if proven, constituted stunt driving under Ontario Regulation 455/07

The Credibility Battle

This case came down to a classic "he said, he said" credibility contest. P.C. Proulx testified confidently that he saw the red Ducati perform the wheelie, while Sztronga claimed it was the Honda rider who did it. The court applied the R. v. W.(D.) framework: even if you don't believe the accused, you must still ask whether the Crown's evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judge found several problems with Sztronga's testimony. He claimed to have observed the officer "at least 500 metres back" when emergency lights came on, but couldn't explain how he made such a precise distance calculation while riding at 120 km/h. He also testified about visibility problems from the setting sun, yet admitted to taking his eyes off the road to look backward. Most damaging was his claim that he "chased up to" the Honda to watch wheelies because they were "really cool" — undermining his assertion that he'd never attempt one himself.

The court found P.C. Proulx credible, noting his experience as a traffic officer, his detailed contemporaneous notes, and his unwavering testimony under cross-examination. The judge specifically rejected defence suggestions that the officer couldn't distinguish between the motorcycles or accurately observe from his position.

Strict Liability and Intent

The court classified stunt driving as a strict liability offence under R. v. Raham, meaning the Crown doesn't need to prove intent — only that the conduct occurred and that the manner of driving "indicates an intention" to lift the tires. The judge found this test was easily met: an experienced motorcyclist operating a $30,000 Ducati at highway speeds doesn't accidentally pop a wheelie. Given the road conditions, traffic volume, and Sztronga's admitted fascination with wheelies, the court concluded the manoeuvre was clearly intentional.

Key Takeaway

In credibility contests with police officers, courts will scrutinize every detail of your testimony for consistency and plausibility.

Sztronga's defence failed because his story contained implausible elements and his demeanour suggested he was being evasive about key details. When challenging police testimony, you need a coherent alternative narrative that doesn't contradict itself or defy common sense.