Archer v. The Queen

Archer v. The Queen

Section 29(1) of the Highway Traffic Act creates two separate offences (driving without due care and attention; driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway). Because the appellant was charged in the alternative with both, the information violated s.710(3) of the Criminal Code and the conviction could not stand; appeal allowed and conviction quashed.

Citation
[1955] SCR 33
Parties
Appellant / Accused: Norman Archer; Respondent / Crown: Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 January 1955
Procedural Posture
Criminal Summary Conviction Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.
Legal Topics
Driving Offences, Multiplicity / Duplicity of Charges, Construction of Statutory Offences, Summary Conviction Procedure, Autrefois Convict
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Motor Vehicles / Traffic Law Statutory Interpretation Procedure Summary Convictions Driving Offences Multiplicity / Duplicity of Charges Construction of Statutory Offences Summary Conviction Procedure +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norman Archer

Appellant / Accused

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent / Crown

Procedural Posture

Criminal Summary Conviction Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.29(1) of The Highway Traffic Act creates one offence or two distinct offences
  2. 2 Whether charging the accused in the alternative contravened s.710(3) of the Criminal Code
  3. 3 Whether s.723(3) and s.725 of the Criminal Code cured any duplicity in the information

Ratio Decidendi

Section 29(1) of the Highway Traffic Act creates two separate offences (driving without due care and attention; driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway). Because the appellant was charged in the alternative with both, the information violated s.710(3) of the Criminal Code and the conviction could not stand; appeal allowed and conviction quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Conviction quashed