R. v. Hecimovic, 2015 SCC 54, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 483

Case Summary

This criminal appeal considered the mens rea element for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death. The trial judge had entered acquittals after concluding the required fault standard was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court set aside those acquittals and ordered a new trial. The Court held that the trial reasoning failed to assess the accused's driving conduct against the full evidentiary record to determine marked departure from the objective standard of care. The appeal was dismissed, with two justices dissenting.

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Date: 20151113 Docket: 36260

Between:

Andelina Kristina Hecimovic

Appellant

and

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

Coram: Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon and Brown JJ.

Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 2)

Abella J. (Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon and Brown JJ. concurring)

R. v. Hecimovic, 2015 SCC 54, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 483

Andelina Kristina Hecimovic Appellant

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

Indexed as: R. v . Hecimovic

2015 SCC 54

File No.: 36260.

2015: November 13.

Present: Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon and Brown JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

Criminal law — Dangerous operation of motor vehicle — Elements of offence — Mens rea — Trial judge ordering acquittal of accused on two counts of dangerous driving causing death on grounds that mens rea element of offence had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt — Trial judge did not properly consider accused’s conduct in light of all relevant evidence in order to determine whether it was marked departure from requisite standard of care.

APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Tysoe, Garson and Willcock JJ.A.), 2014 BCCA 483 , 364 B.C.A.C. 144, 317 C.C.C. (3d) 503, 72 M.V.R. (6th) 58, 625 W.A.C. 144, [2014] B.C.J. No. 3066 (QL), 2014 CarswellBC 3723 (WL Can.), setting aside the acquittal entered by Gropper J., 2013 BCSC 1865 , 53 M.V.R. (6th) 60, [2013] B.C.J. No. 2243 (QL), 2013 CarswellBC 3081 (WL Can.), and ordering a new trial. Appeal dismissed, Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ. dissenting.

Jeffrey Ray , Dimitri Kontou and Roger Thirkell , for the appellant.

Frederick G. Tischler , for the respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

[ 1 ] Abella J. — The majority is of the view that the appeal should be dismissed substantially for the reasons of Willcock J.A.

[ 2 ] Justices Moldaver and Karakatsanis would allow the appeal substantially for the reasons of Tysoe J.A.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors for the appellant: Kontou Law Corporation, Vancouver.

Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver.

R. v. Hecimovic, 2015 SCC 54, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 483

Case Summary

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Between:

Cited By (2 cases)

R. v. A.M., 2023 ONCJ 181

R. v. Cheechoo, 2018 ONCJ 111