Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

McClung J.A. set out the following facts in the Court of Appeal. A serious injury hit and run collision occurred in Edmonton on February 17, 2001. The issue at trial was the identity of the driver. The trial date was June 11, 2002, some 16 months later. After the accident, the offending driver, suffering a cut forehead, left the scene of the accident, but without providing his name and address. He smelled of alcohol. A City of Edmonton Emergency Medical Services (EMS) vehicle had arrived before the suspected driver took off in another vehicle, white in colour, which he apparently requisitioned by cell phone. Before he left, the driver and his passenger were seen removing material including green garbage bags from the colliding vehicle's trunk as well as cleaning out the glove box.

Two witnesses at trial, Donna Weber and Aime Royer, could not identify the Appellant as the driver. Weber was the driver of another car, and Royer was the captain of the ambulance response team. Four other witnesses identified the Appellant as the driver with the cut forehead who had left the scene before the police arrived. The positive identification of Zurowski was made by Rose Boyes and Shaun Merritt. Two responding ambulance attendants also identified the Appellant. Kevin Keith spoke to Zurowski for one minute and Gerald Lewis held his head while first aid was being administered. The Appellant did not testify.

The trial judge convicted Zurowski of two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm, driving while disqualified, and failing to stop at the scene of an accident on the basis of this evidence. On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Berger J.A. dissenting on the basis that the trial judge failed to appreciate the tenuous nature of the identification evidence and its frailties which, taken singly or cumulatively, undermine the reliability of the conviction. He also erred in law by equating the sheer number of identification witnesses with quality, reliability and accuracy of their testimony.