Supreme Court of Canada

Docket: 40810

Appeal Heard: March 20, 2024 Judgment Rendered: March 20, 2024

Between: Gabriel Boudreau, Appellant and His Majesty The King, Respondent

Official English Translation

Coram: Côté, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and O'Bonsawin JJ.

Unanimous Judgment Read By: Côté J. (para. 1)

Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.

Parties

Gabriel Boudreau Appellant

v.

His Majesty The King Respondent

Indexed as: R. v. Boudreau

2024 SCC 9

File No.: 40810.

2024: March 20.

Present: Côté, Martin, Kasirer, Jamal and O'Bonsawin JJ.

On Appeal from the Court of Appeal for Quebec

Criminal law — Appeals — Unreasonable verdict — Evidence — Assessment — Accused convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm — Accused appealing on ground that trial judge erred in assessing evidence and that verdict was therefore unreasonable — Majority of Court of Appeal dismissing appeal — Conviction upheld.

Cases Cited

Referred to: R. v. Beaudry, 2007 SCC 5, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 190; R. v. Sinclair, 2011 SCC 40, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 3.

History

APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal (Healy, Ruel and Gagné JJ.A.), 2023 QCCA 358, 435 C.C.C. (3d) 426, 491 D.L.R. (4th) 615, [2023] AZ‑51923468, [2023] J.Q. n^o 1832 (Lexis), 2023 CarswellQue 20657 (WL), affirming the conviction of the accused for dangerous driving causing bodily harm. Appeal dismissed.

Counsel

Alain Dumas, for the appellant.

Olivier T. Raymond and Sabrina Lambert-Michel, for the respondent.

Judgment

English version of the judgment of the Court delivered orally by

[1] Côté J. — Having examined the trial judge's reasons, delivered orally, to determine whether the verdict was vitiated by illogical or irrational reasoning within the meaning of R. v. Beaudry, 2007 SCC 5, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 190, and R. v. Sinclair, 2011 SCC 40, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 3, we would dismiss the appeal. With respect, even though the judge could have expressed herself more clearly at times, the appellant has not shown a reviewable error, because the judge's inference was based on the whole of the evidence. In particular, there is no reviewable error with regard to the complainant's testimony about the position of her car at the time of the collision. As a result, and substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal, we unanimously dismiss the appeal.

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors

Solicitors for the appellant: Dumas Carré Théberge Michaud-Brière, Québec.

Solicitor for the respondent: Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, Québec.