Christopher J. Nowlin

On a criminal appeal from a conviction for dangerous driving causing death, the Court addressed the fault element required beyond proof of objectively dangerous driving.

The Court held that actus reus alone cannot ground an inference of the marked-departure mens rea and that triers must conduct a meaningful inquiry into whether a reasonable person would have foreseen and avoided the risk.

It found legal error where the trial reasons effectively inferred marked departure from dangerous driving and from the absence of an exculpatory explanation.

The Court further held the appellate proviso was unavailable because the evidentiary record did not make conviction inevitable.

The conviction was set aside and an acquittal entered.

The appellant was arrested for multiple assaults and asserted his right to counsel.

After failing to reach his lawyer of choice, he consulted with duty counsel and expressed satisfaction with the advice.

During the subsequent police interrogation, he repeatedly requested to speak with a lawyer and have one present, but the police denied these requests and continued questioning until he confessed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 10(b) of the Charter does not require the presence of counsel during an interrogation, nor does it require police to provide further opportunities to consult counsel absent a change in circumstances.