R. v. MacLeod, 2014 SCC 76, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 619

The appellants, Jasmine and Richard Doxtator, appealed their first-degree murder convictions.

Their primary argument was that the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury on the included offences of second-degree murder and manslaughter for Jasmine Doxtator, which they argued also impacted Richard Doxtator's trial.

The Court of Appeal, in a majority decision, agreed that there was an "air of reality" to the lesser included offences for Jasmine Doxtator, and the trial judge's failure to leave these options to the jury constituted a legal error that tainted the verdict for both appellants.

The court rejected the Crown's argument to apply the curative proviso.

Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and a new trial was ordered for both Jasmine and Richard Doxtator.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

The trial judge had found that the Crown failed to prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt, despite the respondent driving at excessive speeds, because the surrounding circumstances (light traffic, dry road, no interference with other vehicles) did not establish a marked departure from the standard of care.

The Crown argued that the trial judge erred in law by stating that speed alone cannot found a conviction for dangerous driving.

The appellate court reviewed relevant case law, confirming that while excessive speed can constitute dangerous driving, a contextual analysis of all surrounding circumstances is required.

The court found no reviewable error in the trial judge's conclusion that the Crown had not proven dangerous driving beyond a reasonable doubt given the totality of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.