William Delaney

The appellant drove his boat through a known swimming area at considerable speed without keeping a proper lookout, striking and fatally injuring a swimmer.

He was convicted of dangerous operation of a vessel.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether the trial judge applied the proper test for the offence as set out in R. v. Hundal.

The majority held that although the trial judge erred by applying a stricter subjective mens rea test rather than the modified objective test, no miscarriage of justice occurred given the strong evidence of a marked departure from the standard of care.

The appeal was dismissed using the curative proviso.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal that had overturned the accused's conviction for sexually assaulting his stepdaughter.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the Court of Appeal erred in requiring a victim to offer some minimal word or gesture of objection and in equating a lack of resistance with consent.

The Court found there was sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict.