R. v. McIvor
- Citation
- 2009 BCCA 551
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 3 December 2009
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (dangerous Driving Causing Death) / Appeal From Provincial Court; Judgment of Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 3 December 2009
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (dangerous Driving Causing Death) / Appeal From Provincial Court; Judgment of Court of Appeal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge reasonably concluded that the appellant's sustained pattern of excessive speed, drinking while driving, failure to heed a clear advisory/warning sign, and repeated loss of lane control together constituted a marked departure from the standard of care required for dangerous driving causing death; the mistake of fact was unreasonable in the circumstances and the verdict was supported by the evidence.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction for dangerous driving causing death upheld
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction for dangerous driving causing death under s.249(4) Criminal Code affirmed
02
Material facts
Parties
Regina
Respondent Counsel: M. Joyce DeWitt-Van OostenBrian Marland McIvor
Appellant Counsel: John GreenAmounts and remedies
- Blood Alcohol Mg Per 100m L Tested Approx: 120
- Possible Blood Alcohol Mg Per 100m L at Accident Estimate: 30
- Speed Limit Urban Km H: 50
- Speed Limit Rural Km H: 60
- Advisory Speed Km H: 40
- Expert Minimum Estimated Speed Km H: 55
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal (dangerous Driving Causing Death) / Appeal From Provincial Court; Judgment of Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused's driving amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care required for dangerous driving causing death
- 02
Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting a reasonably held mistake of fact defence
- 03
Whether the trial judge's reliance on the warning sign was unsupported by the evidence
- 04
Whether the verdict was unreasonable given the evidence
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding a marked departure from the standard of care. He submitted his loss of control was a reflexive response to an optical illusion - he reasonably believed oncoming vehicles were in his lane and acted to avoid imminent collision; his actions were reasonable in the circumstances and constituted a reasonable mistake of fact. He also argued the trial judge overstated the significance of the warning sign and that the verdict was therefore unreasonable.
- Respondent
- The Crown argued the trial judge correctly assessed the totality of the appellant's conduct — prolonged excessive speed, consumption of alcohol while driving, straddling the centre line, failure to heed a clear warning sign and loss of control — as amounting to a marked departure from the standard of care. The Crown maintained the mistake of fact was unreasonable in light of the warning sign and road conditions and that the verdict was supported by the evidence.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
R. v. Beatty, 2008 SCC 5; Criminal Code s. 249(4)
Dangerous driving requires (a) objectively dangerous driving (actus reus) and (b) objective mens rea: the dangerous conduct must amount to a marked departure from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe in the accused's circumstances
- 02
R. v. Beatty, 2008 SCC 5; R. v. Tutton, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1392
A reasonably held mistake of fact can be a complete defence if, on the accused's reasonable perception of the facts, the conduct met the requisite standard of care
- 03
R. v. Brannan, 1999 BCCA 669; R. v. Asuchak, 1999 BCCA 502
Evidence of prior alcohol consumption may be excluded as a factor in assessing driving culpability depending on precedents
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge reasonably concluded that the appellant's sustained pattern of excessive speed, drinking while driving, failure to heed a clear advisory/warning sign, and repeated loss of lane control together constituted a marked departure from the standard of care required for dangerous driving causing death; the mistake of fact was unreasonable in the circumstances and the verdict was supported by the evidence.
Obiter and limits
- The trial judge's comment that the situation could have been "clarified in a second or two" was unfortunate but did not amount to reversible error
- This case is distinguishable from R. v. Beatty because the dangerous conduct occurred over a sustained period rather than in the instant immediately before the collision
- The road grade was obvious and the warning sign was adequate in the circumstances
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction for dangerous driving causing death upheld
- Appeal dismissed
- Conviction for dangerous driving causing death under s.249(4) Criminal Code affirmed
Source and reliance status
British Columbia Court of Appeal · 3 December 2009
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.
Full judgment text is not available for this record.
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.