Charges stayed in road-rage incident in 2019. (File photo)

Charges stayed in road-rage incident in 2019. (File photo)

Charges in Cowichan road-rage incident stayed by Crown

Crofton’s Jeffrey Robert Pfeifer was charged after incident in 2019

The charges against Jeffrey Robert Pfeifer in a road-rage incident in the Cowichan Valley in 2019 have been stayed.

The stay of proceedings in the case was directed by Crown counsel after a pre-trial conference on Sept. 9 when prosecutors concluded that the charge-assessment standard against Pfeifer was not met.

Pfeifer, a 56-year old resident of Crofton, had been arrested and charged with assault causing bodily harm and mischief in connection with the road-rage incident on Oct. 9, 2019.

An 85-year-old man was tailgated while driving on Herd Road, and after the driver passed him, the driver approached the man’s vehicle, smashed a window, and then assaulted the elderly man.


A description of the truck was released to the public and police conducted an extensive investigation.

Staff Sgt. Kurt Bosnell said at the time that a random attack of an elderly person was a shock to the community.

“Our officers conducted a thorough and in-depth investigation, identifying the man responsible and holding him accountable for his actions,” he said.

A statement from the BC Prosecution Service said that following the pre-trial conference on the case, the Crown conducted a thorough review of the file and all available evidence and concluded that the charge approval standard could not be met.

“Having come to this conclusion, the prosecutor directed a stay of proceedings,” the statement said.

According to the statement, Crown counsel must independently, objectively, and fairly measure all the available evidence against a two-part test; whether there is a substantial likelihood of conviction; and, if so, whether the public interest requires a prosecution.

“This test applies at all stages of the prosecution,” the statement said.

“If, at any point, the prosecutor concludes that the evidentiary standard is not met or that a prosecution is no longer required, in the public interest, a prosecution cannot proceed. In this case the prosecutor concluded the test could not be met and that a stay of proceedings was appropriate.”

Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter