R. v. M.S.
- Citation
- 2003 SCC 11
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 13 March 2003
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 13 March 2003
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Although there was evidence upon which a trier of fact could have found dangerous driving, the trial judge's failure to make that finding did not amount to an error of law; therefore appellate intervention was not justified and the appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; acquittal on dangerous driving counts upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Acquittal on dangerous driving counts upheld.
- Judgment accordingly.
02
Material facts
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Appellant Counsel: Thomas D. GalliganM.S.
Respondent Counsel: Michael H. O'Brien; Matthew Wells03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the failure of the trier of fact to find dangerous driving constituted an error of law
- 02
Whether appellate intervention was warranted where evidence could have supported a finding of dangerous driving
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown submitted that the evidence supported a finding of dangerous driving and that the trial court's failure to convict amounted to an error of law warranting appellate intervention.
- Respondent
- The accused argued that although evidence existed on which a trier of fact could have found dangerous driving, the trial judge's decision not to convict did not constitute an error of law and should not be disturbed on appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
R. v. M.S., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 125 (SCC)
Appellate courts must not overturn acquittals absent an identifiable error of law.
- 02
R. v. M.S., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 125 (SCC)
Deference is owed to the trier of fact's findings on issues of credibility and mixed fact and law unless a legal error is present.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Although there was evidence upon which a trier of fact could have found dangerous driving, the trial judge's failure to make that finding did not amount to an error of law; therefore appellate intervention was not justified and the appeal was dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The decision emphasizes deference to triers of fact in criminal cases and that the mere existence of evidence capable of supporting conviction does not automatically constitute a legal error when conviction is not entered.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; acquittal on dangerous driving counts upheld.
- Appeal dismissed.
- Acquittal on dangerous driving counts upheld.
- Judgment accordingly.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 13 March 2003
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 13 March 2003
R. v. M.S. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2003-03-13 Neutral citation 2003 SCC 11 Report [2003] 1 SCR 125 Case number 29251 Judges Iacobucci, Frank; Major, John C.; Bastarache, Michel; Binnie, William Ian Corneil; Arbour, Louise On appeal from Ontario Subjects Criminal law Notes SCC Case Information: 29251 Decision Content R. v. M.S., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 125, 2003 SCC 11 Her Majesty The Queen Appellant v. M.S. Respondent Indexed as: R. v. M.S. Neutral citation: 2003 SCC 11. File No.: 29251. 2003: March 13. Present: Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario Criminal law — Driving offences — Dangerous driving — Trier of fact could have made finding of dangerous driving upon evidence but failure to do so not amounting to error of law. APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (2002), 160 O.A.C. 184, 24 M.V.R. (4th) 165, 4 C.R. (6th) 157, [2002] O.J. No. 2194 (QL), upholding the accused’s acquittal on dangerous driving counts. Appeal dismissed. Thomas D. Galligan, for the appellant. Michael H. O’Brien and Matthew Wells, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by 1 Iacobucci J. — Mr. O’Brien, it will not be necessary to hear from you as the Court is ready to pronounce judgment. Before doing so, Mr. Galligan, the Court wishes to thank you for your able submissions. 2 This appeal comes
to us as of right. In the final analysis, we agree with the majority in the Ontario Court of Appeal ((2002), 4 C.R. (6th) 157) that: “While there was evidence upon which a trier of fact could make a finding of dangerous driving, in the circumstances, the failure to do so did not amount to an error of law” (para. 11). 3 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto. Solicitors for the respondent: Sullivan, Festeryga, Lawlor & Arrell, Hamilton.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.