R. v. Kourakos
The trial judge's failure to address and reconcile contradictions in the arresting officer's testimony on key matters (speech and movements) was an error of law; accordingly the conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C43167
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Nick Kourakos
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 July 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision (leave to Appeal Granted; Appeal Allowed; Conviction Set Aside; New Trial Ordered)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered
- Legal Topics
- Impaired Driving, Credibility of Witness, Trial Error, Appeal Against Conviction
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Nick Kourakos
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision (leave to Appeal Granted; Appeal Allowed; Conviction Set Aside; New Trial Ordered)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred by failing to address and reconcile contradictions in the arresting officer's testimony concerning the appellant's speech and movements which were foundational to the impaired driving finding
- 2 Whether that legal error warranted setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge's failure to address and reconcile contradictions in the arresting officer's testimony on key matters (speech and movements) was an error of law; accordingly the conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; new trial ordered
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted
- Appeal allowed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Kourakos Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2005-07-12 Docket numbers C43167 Judges Rosenberg, Marc; MacFarland, Jean Louise; Rouleau, Paul S. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20050712 DOCKET: C43167 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – KOURAKOS, NICK (Appellant) BEFORE: ROSENBERG, MACFARLAND and ROULEAU JJ.A. COUNSEL: R. Boggs for the appellant Robert Gattrell for the respondent HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY: July 12, 2005 On appeal from the judgment of The Honourable Mr. Justice McNeely dated October 25, 2002, upholding the conviction and the sentence imposed by The Honourable Mr. Justice Ross dated March 6, 2002. ENDORSEMENT [1] Unfortunately there are no reasons from the summary conviction appeal court judge. The reasons of the trial judge do not address nor reconcile the contradiction in the arresting officer’s testimony concerning the appellant’s manner of speech and movements which were the foundation for the finding of impaired driving. This was an error of law. See R. v. Sheppard (2002), 162 C.C.C. (3d) 298 (S.C.C.) at para. 46. [2] Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted, the appeal is allowed, the conviction is set aside and a new trial ordered on the charge of impaired driving.