BC Injury Law and ICBC Claims Blog

Prior Consistent Statements Considered in Vicarious Liability Impaired Driving Case

Reasons for judgement were released this week by by BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, addressing the issue of implied or express owner consent following a motor vehicle collision involving an impaired driver.

In this week’s case ¬†(Gibbs v. Carpenter) the¬†Defendant¬†Carpenter was driving a vehicle owned by the Defendant Kusch. ¬†She denied giving him permission to drive the vehicle. ¬†He was “impaired by alcohol” when he “crossed the centre line and collided head on” with the Plaintiff vehicle.

Mr. Justice Joyce had to decide whether there was consent for him to drive.  There was conflicting evidence on this point and the Court ultimately made the call that there was no express or implied consent letting the owner off the hook.  Prior to deciding this issue the Court grappled with whether a written statement the owner gave the police was admissible.

In the aftermath of the collision the owner provided the police with a verbal statement indicating that consent for the trip was not given or if it had been the owner expected someone else to drive.  This statement was admitted into evidence   The owner provided a more fullsome written statement to the police following this.  The owner attempted to get the written statement into evidence arguing it formed part of the original statement or in the alternative that it was needed to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication. Mr. Justice Joyce disagreed and excluded the statement. In doing so the following useful summary of the law was provided:

[61]         I am unable to agree that the written statement forms part of one continuous statement, given the intervening events. It is not as though the statement was given at the scene mere minutes after the first conversation. Ms. Kusch went home, slept, spoke to her father about what had happened and it was upon his suggestion that she prepared a written statement. Ms. Kusch had the opportunity to reflect and consider what information she would include in her statement. In my view, it cannot be considered a mere continuation of the earlier oral statement.

[62]         As for the submission that the written statement should be admitted to clarify the equivocal oral statement, the trial was the opportunity to testify whether the oral statement was made or not, whether it was accurate or not, whether Constable Wright’s version of what Ms. Kusch said was complete, or whether his recall and recording of the statement were incomplete. I, therefore, do not accede to Mr. Harris’ first ground.

[63]         I am also of the opinion that the statement is not admissible as a prior consistent statement rebutting an allegation of recent fabrication.

[64]         In R. v. Stirling, 2008 SCC 10 [Stirling], Mr. Justice Bastarache reviewed the principles applicable in determining when prior consistent statements can be led to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication and how such statements, if admitted, are to be used. The context in which the issue arose in Stirling is set out in paras. 1 Р2:..

[68]         Thus, the purpose of the prior consistent statement is to remove a potential motive to fabricate and a trial judge may consider the removal of this motive when assessing the witness’s credibility.

[69]¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†¬†In the recent decision delivered from the Ontario Court of Appeal,¬†R. v. Kailayapillai, 2013 ONCA 248 at para.¬†41, I note that Mr.¬†Justice Doherty adopted the phrase ‚Äúmotive or reason‚ÄĚ to fabricate and discussed the importance of the timing of the statement in relation to when the motive or reason arose:

[41]¬†¬†¬†¬†¬† … The value of the¬†prior consistent statement¬†does not rest exclusively in its consistency with the evidence given by the witness at trial. It is the consistency combined with the timing of that prior statement. As the statement was made before the alleged¬†motive or reason¬†to fabricate arose, the statement is capable of rebutting the suggestion made by the cross-examiner that the witness‚Äôs evidence is untrue because it was fabricated for the reason or motive advanced in cross-examination. The witness‚Äôs evidence is made more credible to the extent that the asserted¬†motive or reason¬†advanced for fabrication has been negated by the evidence of the¬†prior consistent statement: see¬†R. v. Stirling,¬†2008 SCC 10, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 272, at paras.¬†5-7.

[Emphasis added.]

[70]         Once admitted, the trial judge may not use the prior consistent statement for the truth of its contents. At para. 11 of Stirling, Bastarache J. said:

[11]¬†¬†¬†¬†¬† Courts and scholars in this country have used a variety of language to describe the way prior consistent statements may impact on a witness’s credibility where they refute suggestion of an improper motive. …. What is clear from all of these sources is that credibility is necessarily impacted ? in a positive way ? where admission of prior consistent statements removes a motive for fabrication. Although it would clearly be flawed reasoning to conclude that removal of this motive leads to a conclusion that the witness is telling the truth, it is permissible for this factor to be taken into account as part of the larger assessment of credibility.

[71]         In the present case, any reason that Ms. Kusch may have to fabricate a story was clearly present at the time she prepared her type-written statement. She faced having to explain to her father, a police officer, how an inebriated young man with a learner’s permit came into possession of her car and came to be involved in a serious car accident. She may very well have appreciated that there might be insurance implications arising out of who was driving. She may also have been influenced by the advice of her father in forming her statement. The statement was not prepared prior to the existence of a reason to fabricate; it was formed afterward. In my view, it does not have any probative value and does not fall within the exception to the general rule that excludes prior self-serving statements. It is not admissible.

If you found this article useful please share with others:
  • TwitThis
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

 

This site is created by MacIsaac & Company, a British Columbia Personal Injury Lawfirm. This website is not affiliated in any way with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC).This web site is made possible through funding provided by the British Columbia law firm MacIsaac and Company. bc-injury-law.com is designed to empower individuals to better understand their ICBC Claim and the process involved in dealing with ICBC. This web site is offered for information only and is not claim-specific legal advice. Use of the site and sending or receiving information through it does not establish a solicitor / client relationship. Links to and from this website do not state or imply a relationship between MacIsaac and Company and the linked entity.

Copyright © 2008 The MacIsaac Group of Law Firms. All rights reserved.
Web Site Design by Sage Internet Solutions Ltd.