dangerous driving

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on charges of causing death while driving with excess blood-drug concentration (THC) and dangerous driving causing death, following a fatal collision with a horse and buggy.

The trial judge had acquitted the respondent on the basis that the Crown failed to prove a causal nexus between the respondent's impairment and the collision, and failed to establish a marked departure from the standard of care.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 320.14(3) of the Criminal Code does not require proof that the impairment itself caused the death, only that the accused caused the death while committing the predicate offence.

The Court also found the trial judge erred in applying the modified objective standard for dangerous driving.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed her conviction for dangerous driving.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge relied on inadmissible hearsay to find that the appellant was the driver of the tractor trailer involved in the collision.

As there was no other admissible evidence tying the appellant to the accident, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving and failing to stop for police after a vehicle registered to him fled from officers following a nearby shooting.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance footage showing the accused driving a vehicle away from the shooting scene shortly before the police pursuit.

The court applied the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence and found that the evidentiary gaps, including unknown timelines and the possibility of a driver switch, left room for reasonable inferences inconsistent with guilt.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, over 80, and dangerous driving after witnesses observed him driving a white van erratically, including swerving, running a red light, and driving with his feet out the window.

Police followed the van to the accused's residence, where he was arrested.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging violations of his rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b), arguing unlawful entry onto his property, failure to facilitate access to counsel of choice, and arbitrary detention.

The court dismissed all Charter applications, finding the police had an implied license to knock, fulfilled their duties regarding the right to counsel, and reasonably detained the accused due to his extreme intoxication and belligerent behavior.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of stolen property, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and operating a motor vehicle while disqualified.

He argued that the trial judge erred in relying on flawed eyewitness identification evidence and in finding that his driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly cautioned herself on the frailties of eyewitness identification and reasonably relied on overwhelming confirmatory evidence.

The court also upheld the trial judge's findings regarding the dangerous driving and the stolen licence plate.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and impaired driving causing bodily harm following a motor vehicle collision where he struck a parked crash truck.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing his credibility based on his failure to mention an obstructing van during a 9-1-1 call and the development of his testimony, and that the finding of impairment was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the 9-1-1 call was properly used as a prior inconsistent statement and that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to find impairment.

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 accused was a passenger in a vehicle driven by his former romantic partner.

During an argument, the accused opened the passenger door while the vehicle was moving, grabbed the steering wheel, and pulled the emergency brake.

This caused the driver to lose control and collide with an oncoming vehicle.

The court found the accused's testimony not credible and accepted the driver's evidence.

The court held that a passenger who briefly assumes control of a vehicle by grabbing the steering wheel and emergency brake is operating the vehicle and can be found guilty of dangerous driving.

The accused was found guilty.

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 appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence relating to causation and arrived at inconsistent verdicts by acquitting the other driver involved in the incident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge made specific factual findings supported by evidence, including that the appellant ignored repeated warnings to slow down, which distinguished his case from the co-accused.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the five-month custodial sentence was deemed fit.

The appellant appealed a 42-month sentence imposed for a series of serious offences committed over a two-hour period while intoxicated, which included an altercation with a taxi driver and dangerous driving.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred by imposing five consecutive sentences and that the total sentence was too harsh.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the imposition of consecutive sentences for offences implicating separate legal interests, and concluding the sentence was not unduly harsh given the appellant's lengthy criminal record and the seriousness of the offences, noting the sentencing judge properly considered Gladue factors.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and two counts of failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The trial judge sentenced the accused to 90 days' imprisonment to be served intermittently, and adjourned sentencing on the remaining counts to later impose an additional 60 days intermittent.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge exercised her discretion for an illegal purpose by bifurcating the sentencing to circumvent the 90-day limit on intermittent sentences under s. 732(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court also found the original sentence demonstrably unfit and varied the sentence to a total of 15 months' imprisonment, less credit for time served.

The appellant pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, criminal harassment, and breach of a court order.

He was unaware that his guilty plea to dangerous driving would result in an automatic, indefinite suspension of his driver's licence under the Highway Traffic Act due to his prior convictions.

The Court of Appeal held that the collateral consequence of an indefinite licence suspension was legally relevant and significant to the appellant, a truck driver.

Because he was uninformed of this consequence, his plea was invalid.

The appeal was allowed, the guilty plea and conviction for dangerous driving were set aside, and a new trial was ordered on that charge.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing death and failing to remain at the scene of an accident after striking a pedestrian who had been acting erratically in front of his vehicle.

The trial judge held a hearing to determine whether there was an "air of reality" to the accused's claims of self-defence and defence of property under the amended provisions of the Criminal Code.

The court found no evidence that the accused reasonably believed force was being used or threatened against him, nor that his actions in rapidly accelerating his vehicle were reasonable in the circumstances.

Consequently, the court ruled that neither defence had an air of reality and could not be put to the trier of fact.

The respondent was acquitted at trial of several driving offences causing death and bodily harm, with the trial judge finding reasonable doubt as to whether the respondent or his passenger was driving at the time of the fatal collision.

The Crown appealed the acquittals, arguing the trial judge made errors of law in his treatment of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge misapprehended key eyewitness testimony and failed to consider the totality of the evidence, instead applying the reasonable doubt standard in a piecemeal fashion to individual pieces of evidence.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions and sentence for impaired driving, failing to remain at the scene of an accident, and refusing to provide breath samples following a multi-vehicle collision on the Gardiner Expressway.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, improperly relied on an out-of-court statement, and rendered unreasonable verdicts.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeals for those offences, finding the verdicts reasonable and supported by evidence, including the appellant's feigned attempts to provide breath samples.

The court allowed the appeal solely to enter an acquittal on a stayed dangerous driving charge.

The appeal against the sentence of four months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine was dismissed as fit.

The defendant was charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence that the defendant removed pizza delivery items from his vehicle after the collision, arguing it showed a consciousness of guilt related to speeding to meet a delivery deadline.

The court ruled the post-offence conduct evidence was admissible, as it was relevant to whether the defendant was speeding or had a motive to speed, subject to a limiting instruction to the jury that it could not be used to elevate the level of culpability to criminal negligence or dangerous driving.

The accused was charged with criminal negligence causing death, dangerous driving causing death, impaired driving causing death, and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg causing death following a single motor vehicle rollover.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the driver.

The court heard evidence from civilian witnesses, police, and expert witnesses on collision reconstruction and occupant kinematics.

The court rejected the defence expert's opinion that the deceased was the driver and accepted the Crown's expert evidence, along with civilian testimony and physical evidence, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and bodily harm after his vehicle collided with a group of oncoming motorcyclists.

The Crown alleged the accused crossed the centre line while distracted by a text message.

The court reviewed conflicting eyewitness testimony and expert accident reconstruction evidence regarding the point of impact and whether the accused crossed the centre line.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's jurisprudence on dangerous driving, the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was texting, that he crossed the centre line, or that his driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing witness credibility, taking judicial notice of weather conditions, and applying the modified objective test for dangerous driving.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, which included testimony from civilian motorists and a police officer regarding the appellant's erratic driving, excessive speed, and aggressive maneuvers on Highway 400.

The court upheld the finding that the appellant's conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable driver.