Canada Case Law

R v. MacIsaac

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The court found the AV alert admissible and reliable electronic evidence linking the alert time (3:57 a.m.) to the vehicle crash and therefore to the time operation ceased; the accused was the driver; the first breath sample at 5:21 a.m. (120 mg/100 ml) fell within the two‑hour offence window and proved the s.320.14(b) exceeding offence beyond a reasonable doubt; the s.320.14(a) impaired charge arose from the same facts and was conditionally stayed to avoid double punishment. The court further held that where s.320.31(4) is relied upon the Crown must prove the time of last driving within a re…

Source excerpt

• Impaired driving
• Over 80 mg offence (exceeding)
• Electronic evidence (automated vehicle alerts)
• Section 320.31(4) extrapolation/presumption
• Third‑party suspect defence
• Time of last driving

Read case analysis

R. v. Sandhu

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court acquitted Dilpreet Singh Sandhu of impaired and dangerous driving charges after finding the Crown failed to prove he was the driver beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Identity of driver
• Impaired driving
• Dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm
• Witness credibility and reliability
• Dna evidence
• Admissions and statements

Read case analysis

R. v. Kelly

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge erred by requiring an additional element that the impairment or excess BDC itself be shown to have caused the deaths under s.320.14(3); proper interpretation is that s.320.14(3) is made out by proving the accused committed the predicate offence (impairment or excess BAC/BDC) and that the accused, while operating the conveyance, caused the death, subject to the ordinary legal causation inquiry that the accused's actions were a significant contributing cause. The trial judge also misapplied the modified objective standard for dangerous driving. The acquittals on the four counts…

Source excerpt

• Dangerous driving causing death
• Driving with excess blood‑drug concentration (bdc)
• Causation
• Modified objective standard
• Blood drug concentration regulations

Read case analysis

R. v. Wood

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found Ms. Wood guilty on all counts after concluding she intentionally drove forward while Mr. Reed stood in front of her truck, causing his leg injuries.

• Dangerous driving causing bodily harm
• Assault with a weapon
• Assault causing bodily harm
• Credibility assessment
• Necessity defence
• Admission of preliminary inquiry evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Heth-Klems

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from conviction for dangerous driving causing death, holding the trial judge properly applied the marked-departure test to the facts found.

• Dangerous driving causing death
• Mens rea - marked departure
• Standard of care
• Evaluation of factual findings
• Dangerous-driving
• Marked-departure

Read case analysis

R. v. Kooner

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Kooner’s appeal, holding the circumstantial evidence proved he was the driver and knew bodily harm had resulted from the collision.

• Hit-and-run
• Circumstantial evidence
• Knowledge/mens rea
• Wilful blindness
• Standard of review for factual findings
• Circumstantial-evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Harry

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

A British Columbia trial judge convicted Lance Jordan Harry of sexual interference, invitation to touch, dangerous driving, and flight from police; the sexual assault count was stayed under Kienapple.

• Sexual interference
• Mistake of age defence
• Sexual assault
• Dangerous driving
• Flight from police
• Kienapple stay

Read case analysis

R. v. Baillie

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a conveyance was impaired by a drug because (1) there was no reliable evidence of erratic driving (alternative explanation: blown tires), (2) urine metabolites only show prior use and do not establish timing or impairment, (3) the certified DRE's opinion, while admissible and afforded weight, was not conclusive given the accused's admitted tolerance from daily cannabis use and inconsistencies, leaving a reasonable doubt.

Source excerpt

• Drug recognition evaluation (dre)
• Urine toxicology
• Burden of proof
• Tolerance to drugs
• Reasonable doubt

Read case analysis

R. v. McKnight

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Sentencing reasons for Reid McKnight, who pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and failing to remain at the scene, resulting in a global three-year sentence.

• Dangerous driving causing death
• Failure to remain at scene
• Joint submission on sentence
• Ancillary orders (dna, weapons prohibition, driving prohibition)
• Dangerous-driving-causing-death
• Failure-to-remain-at-the-scene

Read case analysis

R. v. Ramroop

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

On the totality of the circumstantial evidence the trial judge could reasonably infer that the appellant was the driver and was impaired; exclusion of the involuntary statement did not vitiate the remaining evidence and the convictions were therefore properly upheld.

Source excerpt

• Impaired driving
• Fail to remain (hit and run)
• Circumstantial evidence
• Standard of proof
• Admissibility of statements

Read case analysis