1. Case Name:
R. v. Nikiforos
IN THE MATTER OF the Provincial Offences Act R.S.O.
1990
Between
Her Majesty the Queen, and
Ioannis Nikiforos
[2008] O.J. No. 3180
Ontario Court of Justice
Toronto, Ontario
N. Tahiri J.P.
Oral judgment: June 4, 2008.
(12 paras.)
Charges: s. 106(3) Highway Traffic Act - Passenger - Fail to Wear Complete Seatbelt Assembly.
Counsel:
Ms. I. Szenes, Municipal Prosecutor.
Mr. M. Riddell, Agent for the Defendant.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 N. TAHIRI J.P. (orally)::-- Okay, the matter before the Court are two counts against two
different defendants, Mr. Vlachos, Evangelos and Nikiforos is the second defendant. The charge
was laid according to the certificate of offence on the 17th day of June, 2007, at around 3:28 a.m.,
after midnight and the charges are both - both these defendants are charged with Passenger Fail to
Wear Complete Seatbelt Assembly, contrary to Highway Traffic Act.
Page 1

2. 2 Prosecution made a motion at the outset that both the defendants - rather, the agent for the
defendants made a motion that given that both counts arising from the same set of circumstances so
the matters should be heard jointly. The prosecution did not have any - did not take any issue with
this proposition and so therefore Court proceeded; Court also considered that to be an expeditious
way to proceed with both defendants, so the matters heard jointly.
3 The onus is on the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In
order to do so, the prosecution called upon the officer in charge of this investigation. The officer
indicated that on the day in question, he was in - this was a Sunday morning, according to the
officer and he was in full uniform capacity as a paid police officer and he was in charge of a lane
closure on Highway 404, north of Sheppard and he was - at this time was in a fully marked police
vehicle and the officer indicated that due to construction on this stretch of the road, the three lanes
of the Highway 404 going northbound, three of those lanes of the four, four lane highway were
closed and so the only remaining left - passing lane or lane number one, allowed the traffic to move
forward.
4 And the officer, at this time, was in his vehicle situated perpendicularly to the traffic moving
northbound on Highway 404 on one lane. And at this time the officer, at around 3:28 a.m., his
attention was drawn first from some distance, 50 to 60 feet away, to a car and subsequently when
this vehicle, which was a taxi cab, approached the officer's position, he heard the passengers - one
of the passengers on the back seat of this vehicle pulled out his head and screamed profanity at the
officer.
5 The officer immediately drove toward the vehicles and moved beyond, directly behind this cab
and at this time the officer observed that both passengers reaching over to the straps that was
hanging at this time, according to the officer's evidence and each passenger start to putting on their
seatbelts and the officer noticed each passenger grabbing the strap and pulling it toward their hips
and even the officer stated that he noticed the - noticed the passengers moving their head downward
towards their hip in order to make sure that the seatbelts are properly buckled and noticing this
infraction, the officer pulled over this vehicle and after establishing the identity of the passengers,
charged both - both defendants with charge of Passenger Fail to wear Complete Seatbelt Assembly.
6 The officer indicated that this stretch of the highway, the normal condition is that the speed
limit of this stretch is 100 kilometres per hour, but given that only one lane of traffic was moving
and there was construction, the traffic slowed to 40 kilometres per hour. He indicated that the traffic
was moderate, the lighting was good and the officer could see inside the vehicle through the through
his windshield and through the back window of the cab that was driving in front of him and he
observed clearly the movements of the two passengers reaching over their shoulder and grabbing
the seatbelt.
7 Now, these two - the two defendants are not in attendance in Court at this time, but they are
represented by an agent. The agent raised some issues as to the motivation of the officer and
Page 2

3. whether the officer - because when first the officer observed this vehicle he did not notice,
according to the evidence, any infraction but he indicated that the reason for his pursuit, or the
reason for him to follow this vehicle was the fact that he wanted to, after hearing the profanities, he
wanted to make sure that there is no safety issue with the passengers. And in response to a question
as to the - whether there was any traffic or any cars driving behind the taxi cab, the officer stated
that he has no recollection as to whether there were any traffic, but he nevertheless indicated that
there was no car between his vehicle and the taxi cab that he was following before laying the
charges and he never lost the sight of this vehicle and also he indicated that he never lost sight of
the vehicle.
8 Given that all the circumstances of this case, the time of the night, the issue of visibility,
whether the officer could see everything at this time although the officer's - I should state that his
evidence is uncontradicted and defence did not call any evidence, but given the first - the officer did
not observe any infraction and initially did not notice whether the passengers were wearing their
seatbelts, but later on the movement of the passengers, the motion that they made and also the straps
caught the attention of the officer. Given that this happened at 3:30, or the exact time was 3:28 a.m.,
it's dark out and that officer was driving and so I believe that reasonable doubt is raised.
9 I therefore dismiss both charges against the defendant. I also consider the fact that the officer
did not have any recollection about the as to the traffic and whether there were cars behind this taxi
cab and there was some issue as to the answers to the question that was posed by the agent as to
how he was able to get in behind this car and the officer's evidence was that once he activated his
emergency equipment, then the approaching vehicles gave him right of way, or allowed him to
move in, so - but before that, he said that he had no recollection of whether there were any cars
coming at that time. So, given all the circumstances of this case, I believe that reasonable doubts are
raised. I therefore dismiss both charges against the two defendants.
10 MR. RIDDELL: Thank you, Your Worship.
11 THE COURT: Thank you.
12 MR. RIDDELL: Thank you.
qp/s/qlala/qlprp
Page 3