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.
