Peda v. R.

Peda v. R.

By majority the Court held the trial judge's charge was adequate: s.221(4) is clear and contains the test of dangerous driving and it was not necessary to instruct the jury in terms separating advertent from inadvertent negligence absent evidence raising inadvertence; Binus's contrary remarks were not binding; appeal dismissed and conviction affirmed.

Citation
[1969] SCR 905
Parties
Appellant / Accused: Bruno Peda; Respondent / Crown: Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 June 1969
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario (conviction Affirmed Below)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Dangerous Driving, Advertent Vs Inadvertent Negligence, Jury Directions, Mens Rea, Criminal Code S.221(4)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Motor Vehicles Law Evidence and Procedure Dangerous Driving Advertent Vs Inadvertent Negligence Jury Directions Mens Rea Criminal Code S.221(4)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruno Peda

Appellant / Accused

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent / Crown

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario (conviction Affirmed Below)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial judge's directions on s.221(4) were adequate
  2. 2 Whether the jury must be told that advertent negligence (not inadvertent negligence) is required for conviction under s.221(4)
  3. 3 Whether Binus and Mann decisions obligate specific jury instructions on advertence

Ratio Decidendi

By majority the Court held the trial judge's charge was adequate: s.221(4) is clear and contains the test of dangerous driving and it was not necessary to instruct the jury in terms separating advertent from inadvertent negligence absent evidence raising inadvertence; Binus's contrary remarks were not binding; appeal dismissed and conviction affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction for dangerous driving under s.221(4) affirmed
  • Sentence of 12 months imprisonment upheld