2 total
The accused was acquitted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm because his speeding and inattention did not constitute a marked departure from the standard of care.
The accused, Wendel Attard, was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm following a collision.
The Crown alleged that Attard's vehicle, travelling at an excessive speed (112-117 km/hr in an 80 km/hr zone), collided with another vehicle making a left turn, demonstrating dangerous driving.
The defence argued that while the driving might have been dangerous, it did not constitute a "marked departure" from the standard of care required for a criminal conviction, noting that other vehicles were also exceeding the speed limit.
The court found Attard's driving objectively dangerous due to speed and inattention, but ultimately concluded that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that his conduct amounted to a "marked departure" from the standard of care of a reasonable and prudent person.
Consequently, the accused was found not guilty.
The accused was convicted of impaired driving, dangerous driving, and criminal negligence causing death following a high-speed intersection collision.
The accused, Azar Sheikh, was charged with impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, drive over 80 causing death and bodily harm, dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm, and criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm following a fatal collision.
The Crown's case relied on inferences from eyewitness observations, expert toxicologist opinions regarding alcohol and MDMA levels, and accident reconstruction evidence.
The court found the accused guilty of impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm, and criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm.
However, the accused was acquitted of the "drive over 80" charges due to reasonable doubt regarding the precise blood alcohol concentration at the time of the collision, given the variability in testing methods.
The court emphasized that the accused's impairment and excessive speed were significant contributing factors to the collision, well beyond de minimis.
