Jodie-Lee Primeau

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing death after striking and killing a pedestrian who was crossing the street following a hockey game.

The court found that while the accused's speed constituted the actus reus of dangerous driving given the heavy pedestrian traffic, the Crown failed to prove the requisite mens rea.

The court concluded that poor lighting, dark clothing, and the distraction of a stopped vehicle's headlights meant the accused's failure to see the pedestrians was a momentary lapse or error in judgment, not a marked departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent driver.

The charge was dismissed.

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 his convictions for sexual assault and threatening conduct, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility by overemphasizing her demeanour, failing to reconcile inconsistencies in her statements, and making unsupported factual findings.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the inconsistencies as minor and contextualized them within the complainant's emotional state.

The court held there was no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility findings and the verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence.