S. Karim

The accused was driving a sports car at speeds up to 163 km/h in an 80 km/h zone on a highway, shortly after passing two motorcycles.

As he approached an intersection with a green light, a vehicle turned left into his path, resulting in a collision that killed three people and injured two others.

The court found the accused guilty of dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm, concluding his excessive speed near an intersection was a marked departure from the standard of care.

However, the court acquitted him of criminal negligence, finding a reasonable doubt that his conduct amounted to a marked and substantial departure showing wanton or reckless disregard.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference arising from an alleged incident involving a young child relative in 2003.

The complainant testified that the memory of the alleged assault resurfaced approximately eight years later.

Applying the credibility framework in R. v. W.(D.), the court assessed whether the Crown had proven the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judge expressed concerns about the reliability of the recalled memory and the absence of corroborative or expert evidence regarding memory recovery.

On the totality of the evidence, the Crown failed to meet the burden of proof and the accused was acquitted on both counts.

During a blended voir dire, the Crown sought a ruling that the accused’s videotaped police statement was voluntary, while the defence argued that it was obtained through inducement and in violation of the accused’s Charter rights under ss. 7 and 10(b).

The court found the police interview was conversational, non‑threatening, and did not involve any improper quid pro quo inducement capable of overbearing the accused’s will.

The accused had been repeatedly cautioned about his right to silence and had consulted duty counsel before the interview.

The court concluded the statement was voluntary and that no Charter breaches occurred.

Even if a breach had occurred, the statement would have been admitted under s. 24(2) after applying the Grant factors.