The appellant, convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and failing to stop at an accident, appealed her convictions and sentence.
The central issue at trial was the defence of necessity, claiming she drove due to fear for her safety.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by allowing the Crown to elicit evidence of the appellant's pre-trial silence regarding the alleged attack and by drawing an adverse inference from that silence, thereby breaching her right to silence.
The court held that the right to silence cannot be used to incriminate an accused or impeach credibility, and that suggesting a defence is a "recent fabrication" due to pre-trial silence undermines this right.
The appeal was allowed, convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered.