David C. Besant

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after crossing the centre line and striking an oncoming vehicle while feeling suicidal.

He appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in finding the requisite mens rea and rejecting his defence of a momentary lapse of attention.

He also appealed his 90-day intermittent sentence, arguing the trial judge improperly considered his deliberate crossing of the centre line as an aggravating factor without it being proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's mens rea analysis.

While the Court agreed the trial judge erred in relying on the unproven aggravating factor for sentencing, it ultimately found the original sentence was fit and dismissed the sentence appeal.

The applicant sought leave to appeal his summary conviction for dangerous driving and his sentence.

He argued the trial judge failed to consider his moral blameworthiness and awareness of risk after he took medication that caused drowsiness and drifted across the centre line.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding the trial judge properly applied the Beatty test, concluding the applicant's conduct was a marked departure from the standard of care and he was aware of the risk.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the trial judge did not prematurely foreclose a conditional discharge.

The appellant appealed an order finding her in contempt for breaching a disclosure order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was a basis for the finding of breach and that the motion judge's decision to make a finding of contempt was a discretionary exercise with which the court would not interfere.

No penalty was imposed, and costs of $4,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the interpretation of a commercial agreement and alleged misrepresentations about a liquor licence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the terms of the liquor licence were generally known to the public and could be learned through due diligence.

The court also upheld the finding of fact that no misrepresentation was made and found no basis for granting relief from forfeiture.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.