Rose-Mélanie Drivod

A naturopath was charged with criminal negligence causing death and unlawful act manslaughter after a patient died of endotoxic shock following an intravenous nutrient injection administered at her clinic, contrary to Quebec's Medical Act.

The trial judge acquitted the accused on both charges after a 39-day trial, finding the intravenous injection was not objectively dangerous in the circumstances and that the accused's conduct did not constitute a marked departure from the reasonable person standard.

The Court of Appeal set aside both acquittals, substituted a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter, and ordered a new trial on the criminal negligence charge.

The Supreme Court majority (5-2) allowed the appeal and restored the acquittals, holding that objective dangerousness is not an independent element of the actus reus of unlawful act manslaughter and that the Court of Appeal improperly replaced the trial judge's factual findings.

The dissent would have ordered a new trial on both charges, finding the unlawful injection was inherently objectively dangerous regardless of the accused's training.

The appellant was acquitted at trial of operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit after the trial judge found that straddle evidence rebutted the statutory presumption under s. 258(1)(d.1) of the Criminal Code.

The Quebec Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and substituted a conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that straddle evidence is admissible to rebut the statutory presumption, applying the principles from R. v. Gibson.

The trial judge committed no legal error in finding the presumption rebutted and no palpable or overriding error in weighing the other indicia of impairment.

The acquittal was reinstated.