R v Drljevic
2010 ONCJ 188
R. v. Drljevic
2010 ONCJ 188
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice of the Peace Kenneth W. Dechert | May 6, 2010
Background
On October 19, 2008, Milinko Drljevic was driving westbound on Highway 407 in Burlington when Police Constable Deron Ellsworth began following him. Ellsworth observed an unmarked police car stopped on the right shoulder with its emergency lights flashing intermittent red and blue lights. When Ellsworth moved to the middle lane to avoid the stopped vehicle, he expected Drljevic to do the same — but Drljevic stayed in the right lane and drove past the emergency vehicle at 105 km/h without slowing down or changing lanes.
Ellsworth immediately pulled Drljevic over and charged him under section 159.1(2) of the Highway Traffic Act for failing to move into another lane when approaching an emergency vehicle. Drljevic testified that he wanted to change lanes but felt it was unsafe because Ellsworth was following too closely behind him in the middle lane — only about 30 yards back at highway speed.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved all elements of the offence under section 159.1(2) of the HTA
- Whether the specific colour of emergency lights matters under the statute
The Red Light Requirement
Justice Dechert carefully analyzed the wording of section 159.1(2), which requires drivers to move over when approaching "an emergency vehicle with its lamp producing intermittent flashes of red light" that is stopped on a highway. The key issue was that the stopped police car had red-and-blue lights flashing, not just red lights.
The judge noted that section 159.1(1) covers emergency vehicles with lights producing "intermittent flashes of red light or red and blue light" — but section 159.1(2) (the move-over requirement) only mentions "red light" without including the "or red and blue light" language. Reading the HTA sections together, particularly sections 62(14.1) and 62(32) which specify that only police vehicles can use red-and-blue lights, the judge concluded this was a deliberate distinction by the legislature.
The prosecution failed to prove the emergency vehicle was displaying intermittent flashes of red light only, as required by section 159.1(2). Since the evidence showed red-and-blue lights, the charge couldn't succeed.
Key Takeaway
The exact wording of traffic statutes matters — even seemingly minor differences in language can be the difference between conviction and acquittal.
This case shows how careful statutory interpretation can reveal gaps in prosecution evidence. When challenging POA charges, examine every element the Crown must prove and whether the evidence actually matches the specific requirements of the offence.