Elena Middlekamp

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing death following a judge-alone trial.

After a hockey game in Pembroke, Ontario, the appellant accelerated from a traffic light at a high rate of speed on a city street where heavy pedestrian traffic was crossing mid-block.

His vehicle struck two pedestrians, killing one.

The trial judge found the appellant was driving at approximately 60 km/h in a 50 km/h zone and that the manner of driving was dangerous to the public.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that while the trial judge properly analyzed the actus reus of dangerous driving, he failed to adequately analyze the mens rea element by not explaining how and in what way the appellant's driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances.

The appellant appealed convictions for two counts of assault against her five-year-old daughter and one count of assault with intent to resist arrest, as well as the concurrent suspended sentence.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge's reasons for judgment were insufficient regarding the analysis of the appellant's evidence and its impact on reasonable doubt for the assault counts against her daughter (counts one and two).

Consequently, the appeals for these two convictions were allowed, and a new trial was ordered before a different judge.

The appeal against the conviction and sentence for assault with intent to resist arrest (count three) was dismissed, as the trial judge's reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence on that count were sufficient, and the sentence imposed was not demonstrably unfit.

The accused, suffering from schizophrenia and experiencing delusions, stabbed four strangers and brandished a knife at two others.

He was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and weapons offences.

The court found that the accused had the specific intent to kill for the attempted murder charge.

However, based on psychiatric evidence, the court concluded that the accused was incapable of knowing his actions were morally wrong due to his mental disorder.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) on all counts.