dangerous driving

The offender pled guilty to dangerous operation causing bodily harm and failing to stop at the scene of an accident after striking a pedestrian in an underground parking garage while driving unlicensed.

The victim suffered profound, life-altering physical and psychological injuries.

The Crown sought 18 to 22 months of actual incarceration, while the defence sought a suspended sentence or fine.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, the court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, comprising 9 months for dangerous driving and 3 months consecutive for failing to remain, along with a driving prohibition.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failing to remain at the scene of an accident after driving her vehicle over her friend's foot and leg following an argument.

The accused claimed she fled in a state of fear or 'fight or flight' mode.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding she drove away in anger, not fear, and that her actions constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver.

The court also found the accused was wilfully blind to the injuries caused.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving, flight from police, and impaired operation following a high-speed police pursuit of a BMW sedan.

The central issue at trial was the identification of the driver, as the pursuing officer lost sight of the vehicle briefly before locating it parked at a convenience store with the accused nearby.

The court applied the frameworks for eyewitness identification and circumstantial evidence, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts, noting his marked departure from the standard of care, intentional flight from police, and visible signs of impairment.

The youthful offender pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing bodily harm after crossing the center line and striking an oncoming vehicle head-on, causing significant injuries to two elderly passengers.

The Crown sought six to nine months of incarceration, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of prolonged dangerous driving and severe victim impact against the mitigating factors of a guilty plea, lack of prior record, and the offender's mental health struggles.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent jail sentence and a four-year driving prohibition.

The offender pled guilty to dangerous driving causing bodily harm after striking a pedestrian while speeding.

The victim suffered serious injuries including a compound fracture.

The Crown sought 60 to 90 days intermittent imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, sentencing the offender to 60 days of intermittent imprisonment, three years of probation including 100 hours of community service, and a three-year driving prohibition.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, driving with excess alcohol, and dangerous driving.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds to make a breath demand, resulting in a breach of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath test results under s. 24(2).

Without the breath tests and lacking sufficient evidence of impairment or a marked departure from the standard of care, the court acquitted the accused of all charges.

The appellant was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death after his vehicle crossed the centre line into oncoming traffic, killing three people.

The trial judge acquitted the appellant, finding that his momentary lapse of attention did not constitute a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittals and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittals, holding that a momentary lapse of attention, without more, cannot establish the actus reus and mens rea of the offence of dangerous driving.

The Crown appealed as of right from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal upholding the accused's acquittal on dangerous driving counts.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that while there was evidence upon which a trier of fact could make a finding of dangerous driving, the failure to do so did not amount to an error of law.