R. v. Blenner‑Hassett; R. v. Piluke, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 443
Lorne Douglas Blenner‑Hassett Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
and between
James Preston Piluke Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. Blenner‑Hassett; R. v. Piluke
File Nos.: 23923, 24070.
1995: January 31.
Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia
Criminal law ‑‑ Charge to jury ‑‑ Mens rea ‑‑ Serious misdirections with respect to mens rea.
Cases Cited
Referred to: R. v. Hundal, 1993 CanLII 120 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867, aff'g (1991), 1991 CanLII 5752 (BC CA), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 214.
APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (R. v. Blenner-Hasset) (1993), 1993 CanLII 1716 (BC CA), 37 B.C.A.C. 15, 60 W.A.C. 15, 86 C.C.C. (3d) 199, 50 M.V.R. (2d) 241, allowing an appeal from acquittal by Owen‑Flood J. sitting with jury. Appeal dismissed.
APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (R. v. Piluke) (1993), 1993 CanLII 1855 (BC CA), 37 B.C.A.C. 1, 60 W.A.C. 1, 86 C.C.C. (3d) 1, 50 M.V.R. (2d) 255, allowing an appeal from acquittal by Owen-Flood J. sitting with jury. Appeal dismissed.
D. Mayland McKimm, for the appellants.
Robert A. Mulligan, for the respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by
[1] Sopinka J. ‑‑ These appeals are as of right. We are satisfied that the instructions to the jury in both cases contained serious misdirections of law with respect to the mens rea of dangerous driving. The misdirections constituted an error as to the state of the law as laid down at the time by the Court of Appeal of British Columbia in R. v. Hundal (1991), 1991 CanLII 5752 (BC CA), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 214. The question therefore as to whether the Crown can rely on an error of law by reason of this Court's statement of the law in R. v. Hundal, 1993 CanLII 120 (SCC), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867, does not arise. The appeals are dismissed.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitor for the appellants: D. Mayland McKimm, Victoria.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria.