E. Peterson

The accused was charged with attempting to obstruct or pervert the course of justice in a judicial proceeding by threatening to use his vote, position and influence as a jury member to cause a hung jury irrespective of the evidence at trial.

The accused sent communications to the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Sheriff's office, and a newspaper reporter expressing his intention to deliberately vote to hang any jury on which he served.

The court found that the jury selection process constitutes a judicial proceeding under the Criminal Code.

However, the court acquitted the accused, finding that his actions constituted mere threats to obstruct justice rather than an attempt to do so, as he did not bring his materials to court and had no contact with potential jurors.

The court found the accused was attempting to avoid jury duty rather than to obstruct justice.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing witness credibility, taking judicial notice of weather conditions, and applying the modified objective test for dangerous driving.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, which included testimony from civilian motorists and a police officer regarding the appellant's erratic driving, excessive speed, and aggressive maneuvers on Highway 400.

The court upheld the finding that the appellant's conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable driver.