R. v. Pleau

R. v. Pleau

On a modified objective standard the judge found the accused faced an objectively credible imminent medical peril, had no reasonable legal alternative given the circumstances (locked out, no phone, lack of medical skill, time pressure) and the harm avoided outweighed or was comparable to the harm inflicted by impaired driving, therefore the defence of necessity applied and the accused was acquitted.

Citation
2013 NSPC 116
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Roger Pleau
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment (provincial Court Acquittal)
Outcome
Acquitted
Legal Topics
Necessity, Impaired Driving, Modified Objective Test, Proportionality
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Defences Necessity Impaired Driving Modified Objective Test Proportionality

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Roger Pleau

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment (provincial Court Acquittal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of necessity applies to driving while impaired
  2. 2 Whether there was clear and imminent peril to the injured companion
  3. 3 Whether there was no reasonable legal alternative to driving him to hospital

Ratio Decidendi

On a modified objective standard the judge found the accused faced an objectively credible imminent medical peril, had no reasonable legal alternative given the circumstances (locked out, no phone, lack of medical skill, time pressure) and the harm avoided outweighed or was comparable to the harm inflicted by impaired driving, therefore the defence of necessity applied and the accused was acquitted.

Court Disposition

Acquitted

Orders

  • Accused Roger Pleau acquitted of charges contrary to s.253(1)(a) and s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code