Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

R. v. Reed

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The appellant's conduct — driving at night more than 20 km/h over the speed limit on a curve completely on the wrong side of the road — constituted a marked departure from the norm, supporting conviction for dangerous driving causing death; the Court of Appeal properly set aside the acquittals and remitted the matter for sentencing.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal decision allowing Crown's appeal and setting aside the acquittals is confirmed; matter remitted to trial judge for sentencing.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada
  • Confirm the British Columbia Court of Appeal order setting aside the acquittals
  • Remit the matter to the trial judge for sentencing

02

Material facts

Parties

Ryan Robert Reed

Appellant Counsel: Brian E. Mickelson; Kenneth S. Purchase

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent Counsel: Alexander Budlovsky

Amounts and remedies

  • Excess Speed (km/h): 20

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal Dangerous Driving Causing Death / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From British Columbia Court of Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Appellant contended the acquittals should be upheld because the evidence was insufficient to establish a marked departure from ordinary driving and therefore insufficient to convict for dangerous driving causing death.
Respondent
Crown argued the driving — at night, on a curve, totally on the wrong side of the road and more than 20 km/h over the speed limit — constituted a marked departure from the norm and justified setting aside the acquittals and remitting for sentencing.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    British Columbia Court of Appeal (Cumming J.), (1997), 26 M.V.R. 11, at p. 14

    A 'marked departure from the norm' in driving is the proper standard to establish dangerous driving causing death

  2. 02

    R. v. Reed, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 753

    An appellate court may set aside acquittals where the evidence supports a conviction and remit the matter for sentencing

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The appellant's conduct — driving at night more than 20 km/h over the speed limit on a curve completely on the wrong side of the road — constituted a marked departure from the norm, supporting conviction for dangerous driving causing death; the Court of Appeal properly set aside the acquittals and remitted the matter for sentencing.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed; Court of Appeal decision allowing Crown's appeal and setting aside the acquittals is confirmed; matter remitted to trial judge for sentencing.

  • Appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada
  • Confirm the British Columbia Court of Appeal order setting aside the acquittals
  • Remit the matter to the trial judge for sentencing

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of Canada · 29 April 1998

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.

Source document

Supreme Court of Canada

Judgment· 29 April 1998

[1998] 1 SCR 753

R. v. Reed Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1998-04-29 Report [1998] 1 SCR 753 Case number 25820 Judges Lamer, Antonio; Cory, Peter deCarteret; Iacobucci, Frank; Major, John C.; Binnie, William Ian Corneil On appeal from British Columbia Subjects Criminal law Notes SCC Case Information: 25820 Decision Content R. v. Reed, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 753 Ryan Robert Reed Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Reed File No.: 25820. 1998: April 29. Present: Lamer C.J. and Cory, Iacobucci, Major and Binnie JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia Criminal law ‑‑ Motor vehicles -- Dangerous driving causing death. APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (1997), 86 B.C.A.C. 111, 142 W.A.C. 111, 26 M.V.R. (3d) 11, [1997] B.C.J. No. 211 (QL), allowing the Crown’s appeal and setting aside the accused’s acquittals on three counts of dangerous driving causing death, [1996] B.C.J. No. 241 (QL), [1996] B.C.W.L.D. 757, 30 W.C.B. (2d) 66. Appeal dismissed. Brian E. Mickelson and Kenneth S. Purchase, for the appellant. Alexander Budlovsky, for the respondent. //Cory J.// The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by 1 Cory J. ‑‑ We are in agreement with the decision of the Court of Appeal. Their reasons are summarized in these words of Justice Cumming: It cannot be said that the respondent’s driving of the type of motor vehicle he

had, at night, at a speed more than 20 kilometers in excess of the speed limit, on a curve and totally on the wrong side of the road, is other than a “marked departure from the norm.” ((1997), 26 M.V.R. 11, at p. 14.) 2 This appeal as of right is dismissed and the order of the Court of Appeal to remit the matter to the trial judge for sentencing is confirmed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellant: Brian E. Mickelson Law Corporation, Vancouver. Solicitor for the respondent: The Ministry of the Attorney General, Vancouver.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.