R v Yanitsky

R. v. Yanitsky

2009 ONCJ 581
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice of the Peace Kenneth W. Dechert | November 27, 2009

Background

On January 31, 2009, at 10:20 p.m., Tatiana Yanitsky was driving with her husband to visit friends in an unfamiliar area of Oakville. After leaving their friends' house on Mayla Drive, she made a wrong turn and found herself going the wrong direction on Upper Middle Road. Looking for a way to turn around, she approached the intersection of Upper Middle Road and Neyagawa Boulevard and decided to make a U-turn at the traffic light.

Sergeant Lina Crawford of Halton Regional Police was driving eastbound on Upper Middle Road when she observed what she believed was a vehicle making a left turn from southbound Neyagawa Boulevard onto eastbound Upper Middle Road — while facing a red light. She followed the vehicle, pulled it over, and charged Yanitsky with "red light — proceed before green" under section 144(18) of the Highway Traffic Act.

Issues

1. Did Yanitsky proceed through the intersection while facing a red traffic signal?
2. Was Yanitsky travelling southbound on Neyagawa Boulevard (as the officer claimed) or making a U-turn from westbound Upper Middle Road (as she claimed)?

The Credibility Contest

This case came down to a classic "he said, she said" situation with completely contradictory testimony. Yanitsky testified that she was travelling westbound in the left lane of Upper Middle Road, approached the intersection with a green light in her favour, and made a slow, cautious U-turn to head eastbound. She insisted she was never travelling southbound on Neyagawa Boulevard at any point.

Sergeant Crawford testified that she observed Yanitsky's vehicle stationary in the southbound lane of Neyagawa Boulevard, facing a red light, before making a left turn onto eastbound Upper Middle Road. However, the officer's evidence had some significant gaps — she couldn't specify exactly where the vehicle was positioned relative to stop lines or crosswalks, and her observations were made from approximately 100 yards away.

Justice Dechert applied the R. v. W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility in cases with conflicting testimony. While he found both witnesses generally credible, he noted that the defendant's evidence was supported by a Google map she had marked with her route the day after the incident, when the events were fresh in her memory.

Key Takeaway

Even credible prosecution evidence can fail if it lacks sufficient detail about crucial elements of the offence.

The officer's inability to specify the defendant's exact position when "stationary" and the distance from which observations were made created enough reasonable doubt to secure an acquittal, despite the officer being otherwise credible and experienced.