2 total
Convictions quashed and new trial ordered due to incomplete jury recharge on the W.(D.) instruction.
The appellant appealed her convictions on two counts of impaired operation causing bodily harm, two counts of driving over 80 causing bodily harm, and two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.
The charges arose from a motor vehicle accident in which the appellant's vehicle overturned after she failed to negotiate a curve.
The central issue on appeal concerned the trial judge's instruction to the jury regarding the W.(D.) direction as it applied to the appellant's statement at the accident scene: "I don't know what happened.
My car just lost control." The Court of Appeal found that while the initial charge was adequate, the recharge contained serious errors in the application of the W.(D.) direction, particularly the omission of the second and third branches of the instruction in the recharge, which constitute non-direction amounting to misdirection on a critical aspect of the defence.
The accused was convicted of dangerous driving causing death after striking a pedestrian while driving 152 KPH in a 50 KPH zone.
The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.
The victim, a 13-year-old girl, was struck and killed by the accused's vehicle while crossing Airport Road in Caledon, Ontario.
The Crown alleged the accused was speeding; the defence argued the victim's unexpected entry into traffic made the collision inevitable and that the accused's speed did not constitute dangerous driving.
The court found the accused was travelling at 152 KPH in a 50 KPH zone near a residential area and village entrance on a day when pedestrian traffic was reasonably foreseeable.
The court convicted the accused of dangerous driving causing death, finding both actus reus and mens rea established, and that causation was proven despite the victim's unexpected action.