R. v. Devision

R. v. Devision

The accused was convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm (s.255(2)) because, on the whole of the circumstantial evidence — pre-accident erratic driving, post-accident indicia of intoxication, high BAC readings (170/160 mg/100ml) absent evidence of bolus or post-incident drinking, and expert reconstruction showing loss of control — the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that impairment significantly contributed to the faulty driving causing the injury; the accused was acquitted under s.255(2.1) because the Crown failed to prove the material time of driving within two hours beyond a reasonable doubt so s.258(1)(c) presumption could not be applied to prove 'over 80', and...

Citation
2016 NSPC 43
Parties
Crown: Queen; Accused: Judith Devision
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial (judgment)
Outcome
Count 1 (s.255(2)): Guilty. Count 2 (s.255(2.1)): Not guilty. Count 3 (s.252): Not guilty.
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm (s.255(2)), Over 80 Offence and Presumption of Identity (s.255(2.1); S.258(1)(c)), Leaving the Scene With Intent to Escape Liability (s.252), Causation, Judicial Notice of Alcohol Metabolism, Bolus Drinking
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Impaired Driving Road Traffic Offences Evidence Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm (s.255(2)) Over 80 Offence and Presumption of Identity (s.255(2.1); S.258(1)(c)) Leaving the Scene With Intent to Escape Liability (s.252) Causation +2 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 6 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Queen

Crown

Judith Devision

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vehicle/driver seen at Wagmatcook was the same as at South Haven
  2. 2 Whether the material time of driving was within two hours of breath tests so as to invoke s.258(1)(c) presumption of identity
  3. 3 Whether impairment by alcohol caused or significantly contributed to the collision (causation for s.255(2))

Ratio Decidendi

The accused was convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm (s.255(2)) because, on the whole of the circumstantial evidence — pre-accident erratic driving, post-accident indicia of intoxication, high BAC readings (170/160 mg/100ml) absent evidence of bolus or post-incident drinking, and expert reconstruction showing loss of control — the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that impairment significantly contributed to the faulty driving causing the injury; the accused was acquitted under s.255(2.1) because the Crown failed to prove the material time of driving within two hours beyond a reasonable doubt so s.258(1)(c) presumption could not be applied to prove 'over 80', and...

Court Disposition

Count 1 (s.255(2)): Guilty. Count 2 (s.255(2.1)): Not guilty. Count 3 (s.252): Not guilty.

Orders

  • Count 1: Convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm (s.255(2))
  • Count 2: Acquitted of causing an accident while 'over 80' resulting in bodily harm (s.255(2.1))