Les éléments constitutifs de l'infraction de fuite (249.1 Ccr)

R. v. Kulchisky, 2007 ABCA 110 (CanLII)

[4] The second ground of appeal relates to the conviction, pursuant to s. 249.1(1) of the Criminal Code. The argument is that the trial judge misapprehended the essential elements of the crime and, accordingly, failed to appreciate that the factual underpinnings could not support a conviction. The essential elements are the following:

· The accused must be operating a motor vehicle.

· A peace officer must be pursuing the accused.

· The evidence must establish that the accused knows a police officer is in pursuit.

· The peace officer must be operating a motor vehicle.

· The accused must fail to stop his vehicle as soon as reasonable in the circumstances.

· The accused must have no reasonable excuse for his failure to stop.

· The accused must fail to stop “in order to evade the peace officer.”

[10] To evade, in our view, equates with an attempt to elude or get away from. The motive for evasion, assuming the absence of a reasonable excuse, is of no moment. If the intent is “to get away”, say, to avoid an argument with the pursuing police officer and to seek out another, the trial judge will have to evaluate whether, in the light of all of the evidence, that amounts to a reasonable excuse. The judgment below, read in its entirety, makes clear that the trial judge disbelieved the Appellant’s explanation. The conviction, accordingly, with respect to that count, is also sustained.