R. v. Benoit (B.K.), (2015) 368 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 179 (NLPC)

• Judge: Gorman, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 09, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2015), 368 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 179 (NLPC);2015 NLPC 1315

R. v. Benoit (B.K.) (2015), 368 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 179 (NLPC);

    1149 A.P.R. 179

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. JN.019

Her Majesty The Queen v. Brandon Kenneth Benoit

(2015 NLPC 1315A00107)

Indexed As: R. v. Benoit (B.K.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court

Gorman, P.C.J.

June 11, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was charged with dangerous driving for the manner in which he passed another vehicle.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court acquitted the accused.

Criminal Law - Topic 1394

Motor vehicles - Dangerous driving - Elements of - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court stated that "the offence of dangerous driving consists of the following elements: - the actus reus of dangerous driving is established when the driving, viewed objectively, was dangerous to the public in all of the circumstances; and - the mens rea for dangerous driving requires proof that the accused person's driving exhibited a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the accused person's circumstances." - See paragraph 36.

Criminal Law - Topic 5221

Evidence and witnesses - Burden of proof - Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - The accused was charged with dangerous driving for the manner in which he passed another vehicle, in which LeBlond was a passenger - LeBlond testified that: the accused tailgated her vehicle; started to pass and almost clipped her vehicle; reduced speed and tucked behind her vehicle again; clipped her vehicle as he passed again; the occupants of the accused's vehicle all threw out garbage at her vehicle as they passed; the accused pulled in very close to the front of her vehicle and braked; and then the accused sped away - The accused testified that he hit some slush as he passed the other vehicle, which moved his vehicle slightly towards the other vehicle without touching it - A passenger gave corroborating evidence of hitting slush - The accused admitted that he threw out a coffee cup (spilled on him when he hit the slush), but that no one else threw anything out the windows - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court acquitted the accused - The testimony of the accused and LeBlond were irreconcilable - It was not a matter of believing one or the other - Guilt had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt on the whole of the evidence - The accused's evidence was clear, reasonable and logical - There were no obvious falsehoods or clear exaggerations - There was no rational, reasoned basis to reject the accused's evidence - The court was satisfied that the accused drove in a reasonable, safe and lawful manner - See paragraphs 1 to 51.

Evidence - Topic 4022

Witnesses - General - Credibility - Considerations - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court referred to appellate case law noting the limited value of demeanour in assessing the credibility of a witness: "demeanour is of limited value because it can be affected by many factors including the culture of the witness, stereotypical attitudes, and the artificiality of and pressures associated with a courtroom. One of the dangers is that sincerity can be and often is misinterpreted as indicating truthfulness. ... it is important for trial judges to bear in mind that, to the extent possible, they should try to decide cases that required assessing credibility without undue reliance on such fallible considerations as demeanour evidence." - See paragraph 43.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. McGee (D.), [2014] O.A.C. Uned. 312 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. G.B. et al. (No. 2), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 30; 111 N.R. 31; 86 Sask.R. 111, refd to. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. S.D., [2011] 1 S.C.R. 537; 414 N.R. 1; 2011 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. Phelan (D.B.) (2013), 337 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 64; 1047 A.P.R. 64; 2013 NLCA 33, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. J.K. (2015), 365 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 53; 1138 A.P.R. 53; 2015 NLCA 14, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. J.M.H. (2011), 421 N.R. 76; 283 O.A.C. 379; 2011 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Ahmed (O.), [2013] O.A.C. Uned. 381; 2013 ONCA 473, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. E.H., [2014] O.A.C. Uned. 559; 2014 ONCA 622, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. S.T. (2015), 319 Man.R.(2d) 22; 638 W.A.C. 22; 2015 MBCA 36, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Beatty (J.R.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49; 371 N.R. 119; 251 B.C.A.C. 7; 420 W.A.C. 7, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Roy (R.L.), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 60; 430 N.R. 201; 321 B.C.A.C. 112; 547 W.A.C. 112, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Saul (G.A.) (2015), 371 B.C.A.C. 9; 636 W.A.C. 9; 2015 BCCA 149, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Holloway (J.) (2015), 361 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 160; 1122 A.P.R. 160 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Rempel (I.) (2015), 599 A.R. 242; 643 W.A.C. 242 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Rhayel (H.) (2015), 334 O.A.C. 181; 2015 ONCA 377, refd to. [para. 43].

Counsel:

A. Sparkes, Q.C., for the Crown;

C. Brackley, for the accused.

This matter was heard on June 9, 2015, at Corner Brook, NL, before Gorman, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 11, 2015.