Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a 6-year sentence for dangerous driving causing death and a concurrent 4-year sentence for bodily harm, with a 16-year driving ban.
The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Wolfe, 2024 SCC 34, holds that discretionary driving prohibitions under s. 320.24(4) of the Criminal Code cannot be imposed for offences that are not enumerated in the section; therefore the Crown’s application for a prohibition following a manslaughter conviction must be dismissed.
Source excerpt
The single uncertified breath reading of 130 mg/100 ml, absent foundational certificate or viva voce/expert evidence about the instrument and without interpretive expert evidence, only establishes that the accused had alcohol in her system and cannot be given significance as to impairment; assessing all evidence in totality, the Crown failed to prove the accused's ability to operate a conveyance was impaired to any degree beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused is therefore acquitted on both counts (s.320.15(1) and s.320.14(1)(a)).
Source excerpt
La Cour d’appel a maintenu les condamnations pour conduite avec facultés affaiblies et a suspendu conditionnellement les accusations de conduite dangereuse en vertu de Kienapple.
The information's failure to specify which demand was relied on did not invalidate the count because the correct charging section s.320.15 was used, disclosure and trial evidence made clear the demand was an ASD under s.320.27, the Crown was granted leave to amend to add s.320.27, and mens rea for s.320.15 is established by proof the accused knew a demand was made and failed to comply; the Crown proved those elements beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused failed to establish a reasonable excuse.
Source excerpt
Accepted the certified Intox EC/IR II results (170 mg% and 160 mg%, lowest 160 mg% conclusive under transitional Code provisions) and accepted Crown expert retrograde extrapolation adding accepted elimination rates (10–20 mg%/hr), yielding estimated BAC at accident time of 192–224 mg% which is well over legal limit; on totality accused’s conduct and elevated BAC established he was a significant contributing cause of the accident and Crown proved all elements of s.255(2.1) beyond reasonable doubt.
Source excerpt
The Court allowed the Crown appeal because the trial judge committed legal errors: she failed to apply the conclusive statutory presumption in s.320.31(4) when the evidentiary conditions for it were met; she failed to consider wilful blindness as a legally cognizable route to knowledge on the s.320.16 charge despite the issue being live on the evidence; and she failed to consider the totality of the evidence (engaging in unsupported speculation about swerving and neglecting material visibility and road‑condition evidence), thereby undermining the acquittals and necessitating a new trial.
Source excerpt
The court found the plaintiff changed lanes and braked suddenly near a crosswalk, causing the rear-end collision. The plaintiff was held 100% liable.
The court dismissed judicial review of an IRP review decision, holding the adjudicator reasonably preferred the officer’s detailed evidence and rejected the dentures excuse.
The court held the traffic stop lawful, found no unlawful detention from brief questioning, and ruled the discarded M&M container was abandoned.
Explore more
