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 dismissed Christopher Hamilton’s conviction appeal for dangerous driving causing death and upheld the sentence, varying only the driving prohibition.
The motion judge found the grounds of appeal were not frivolous and that detention was not necessary to secure public safety or to preserve public confidence; accordingly release pending appeal was justified. A partial stay of the driving prohibition was warranted because there is a genuine statutory interpretation issue concerning whether s.320.24(4) permits a prohibition broader than the specific conveyance (snowmobile), so the non‑snowmobile portion of the prohibition should be stayed pending appeal.
Source excerpt
The trial judge did not err in refusing the NCR assessment because the evidence adduced at trial did not give reasonable grounds under s.672.11(b) to order an assessment; the sentencing judge erred in principle by treating the appellant's bipolar disorder as an aggravating factor, which had an impact on sentence, and the appropriate global sentence is substituted at 8 years with corrected pre-trial custody credit of 771 days.
Source excerpt
The Court dismissed the appeal and held the sentencing judge did not err in principle and did not impose a demonstrably unfit sentence in imposing a lifetime driving prohibition: given the seriousness of the offence, the prior related dangerous conduct, psychiatric evidence of unmanaged risk, and the discretionary nature of ancillary orders, a lifetime prohibition was an open and reasonable sentencing choice subject to Parole Board review after ten years.
Source excerpt
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
The Court upheld the conviction because the trial judge’s detailed, reasoned findings that the motorcycle headlight was on were open on the evidence; the judge adequately applied W.D. principles; and the proposed fresh evidence was not cogent under Palmer, contained serious inconsistencies and would not have affected the verdict, therefore the fresh evidence application and the appeal were dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate any legal error or material misapprehension in the trial judge's factual and credibility findings; the proposed accident reconstruction report was excluded as fresh evidence for lack of due diligence; and the sentence appeal failed because the appellant did not show the sentence was manifestly unfit or founded on errors in principle.
Source excerpt
The sentencing judge acted within statutory discretion and did not err in principle by imposing a 10-year driving prohibition; he properly prioritized deterrence and denunciation, considered the sentence as a whole, and his reasons were cogent and not demonstrably unfit, so the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed: the trial judge did not apply uneven scrutiny and reasonably rejected speculative expert evidence of microsleep given reconstruction and vehicle data; the six-year sentence was within range and not demonstrably unfit; alleged s.14 interpretation errors were not material to the conduct of the trial and are remediable by a certified Punjabi translation of the Reasons for Sentence rather than a new trial.
Source excerpt
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.
Explore more
