Alain Dumas

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and appealed on the ground that the trial judge erred in assessing the evidence, rendering the verdict unreasonable.

The majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada examined the trial judge's oral reasons to determine whether the verdict was vitiated by illogical or irrational reasoning within the meaning of R. v. Beaudry and R. v. Sinclair.

The Court found no reviewable error, as the trial judge's inference was based on the whole of the evidence, including the complainant's testimony about the position of her car at the time of the collision.

The appeal was unanimously dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for having care or control of a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol level exceeded .08.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from the bench, agreeing with the reasons of Justice LeBel of the Quebec Court of Appeal.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after the trial judge admitted the preliminary inquiry testimony of an alleged accomplice who refused to testify at trial, pursuant to s. 643(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 643(1) does not violate ss. 7 or 11(d) of the Charter, provided the accused had a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary inquiry.

However, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial because the trial judge failed to recognize his statutory discretion to exclude the evidence to ensure a fair trial, and erred by instructing the jury to treat the transcript exactly like live testimony without warning them of the dangers of accepting such evidence.