Defence points to RCMP errors in fatal crash case

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 27/03/2025 (226 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A second trial for a Manitoba truck driver arrested following a fatal highway collision wrapped up Wednesday with the defence arguing a “flawed” police investigation made it impossible to prove the accused was responsible for the crash.

Sukhbir Singh was convicted in 2023 of one count of dangerous driving causing death and sentenced to one year in jail for the Feb. 28, 2020 collision that killed 34-year-old Andrew Labossiere.

Singh was behind the wheel of a heavy-duty semi-trailer truck, heading south on Highway 13 when he drove through a stop sign at the intersection of Highway 2 and collided with Labossiere’s eastbound pickup truck, sending it into a ditch. Labossiere died at the scene.

Singh admitted at his first trial he drove through the stop sign but argued he was not guilty of dangerous driving as his driving did not represent a “marked departure” from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person.

Singh argued it was dark, he had reduced his speed, was unfamiliar with the road, was not distracted by his cellphone or intoxicated, and signs warning of the intersection were close together, all pointing to a “momentary lapse of attention,” not the marked departure required for a dangerous driving conviction.

Provincial court Judge Robert Heinrichs disagreed. In his decision, he said Singh failed to note the reduced speed zone and missed other “traffic warning signs and rumble strips before speeding through a stop sign.”

Singh’s conviction was later overturned and a new trial was ordered after the Manitoba Court of Appeal found Heinrichs’ ruling was based on a “misapprehension of evidence.” In delivering his decision, Heinrichs made repeated reference to a photo exhibit showing a reduced speed zone sign. That particular sign, however, was on Highway 2, not Highway 13, the one Singh was driving on.

At Singh’s most recent trial, defence lawyer Kate Smith argued an RCMP collision reconstructionist made several critical errors, including mistakenly documenting road signs and rumble strips that were on the opposite side of the highway to which Singh was travelling.

“No one learned of that error until after he testified at the first trial,” Smith told King’s Bench Justice Shane Perlmutter. “It’s clear that he has his directions mixed up.

“How do we know that he hasn’t mistaken all of his measurements?” she said. “What distinguishes this case from many is the number of unknowns, which makes the conclusions based on them unreliable.”

On Tuesday, a California-based collision reconstructionist called by the defence said there was too much missing information to conclude Singh was responsible for the crash.

Police examined the scene for the first time only after first responders had left and then three years later, after the second trial was ordered, court heard.

“You have to rely on data collected by experts at the scene at the time,” Babak Malek said. When scene analysis is delayed, “there is always the potential that some of the evidence will be spoiled.”

Crown attorney Nick Reeves said uncontested evidence before the court clearly established Singh’s guilt.

“Despite (the testimony of) multiple experts, there is not that much that needs to be determined,” Reeves said.

Singh was travelling 100 km/h on Highway 13 when he started reducing his speed in advance of the intersection at Highway 2. A blinking red light sat atop a stop sign at the intersection, which was further illuminated by road lights. A warning sign was situated 250 metres before the intersection, notifying drivers of the upcoming stop sign.

Singh had turned off his cruise control and reduced his speed to 86 km/h when he drove through the intersection. It was only then that Singh applied his brakes, Reeves said.

“Mr. Singh was driving on a straight and flat stretch of highway and there were no visual obstructions at the intersection,” Reeves said. “(Singh) would have been able to see that intersection from a considerable distance.”

Perlmutter will deliver his verdict at a later date.

dean.pritchard@freepress.mb.ca