David Layton

The appellant was acquitted at trial of dangerous driving causing death under s. 249(4) of the Criminal Code after the trial judge found reasonable doubt as to mens rea, despite finding the actus reus established.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and entered a conviction, finding the trial judge committed an error of law.

The Supreme Court of Canada (4-1) dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made two inter-related errors of law: he applied a wrong legal principle by treating momentariness of excessive speeding as categorically insufficient to establish mens rea, and he failed to apply the correct test from R. v. Roy by not assessing what a reasonable person would have foreseen and done in the accused's circumstances.

The dissent would have restored the acquittal, finding no identifiable legal error tainting the trial judge's reasonable doubt.

In this criminal appeal, the Court considered when corroborative evidence can establish the threshold reliability required to admit hearsay under the principled exception.

The Crown sought admission of a co-accused’s video re-enactment implicating the respondent in two murders after the declarant refused to testify.

A majority held the trial judge relied on corroborative evidence that did not sufficiently answer the specific hearsay danger of fabrication, and concluded threshold reliability was not met.

The appeal was dismissed and the order for a new trial remained in place, with a dissent that would have restored the convictions.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.

At trial, the Crown relied on letters written by the appellant in jail, which contained exculpatory statements but were admitted fabrications.

The trial judge instructed the jury that the law presumes any incriminating part of an accused's statement is likely to be true, while excuses carry less weight.

Additionally, the Crown failed to disclose a police interview with a witness who saw the victim's severed head at the apartment of the Crown's key witness.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the jury instruction was improper and the Crown's non-disclosure violated the appellant's right to make full answer and defence.