R. v. Blenner-Hassett (L.D.); R. v. Piluke (J.P.), (1995) 53 B.C.A.C. 241 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux- Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 31, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 53 B.C.A.C. 241 (SCC);[1994] 2 CTC 25;48 DTC 6314;[1995] 1 SCR 443;80 FTR 320;1994 CanLII 88 (SCC);[1994] 2 SCR 312;95 CCC (3d) 95;1995 CanLII 118 (SCC)

R. v. Blenner-Hassett (L.D.) (1995), 53 B.C.A.C. 241 (SCC);

    87 W.A.C. 241

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Lorne Douglas Blenner-Hassett (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(23923)

James Preston Piluke (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(24070)

Indexed As: R. v. Blenner-Hassett (L.D.); R. v. Piluke (J.P.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux- Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

January 31, 1995.

Summary:

Piluke was acquitted by a jury on counts of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. Blenner-Hassett was acquitted by a jury of three counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and one count of dangerous driving causing death. The Crown appealed in both cases, submitting that the trial judge erred in directing the jury on the elements of dangerous driving.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Lambert, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 37 B.C.A.C. 1; 60 W.A.C. 1, allowed the Crown's appeal in Piluke's case, set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial. In a judgment reported 37 B.C.A.C. 15; 60 W.A.C. 15, the court, Lambert, J.A., dis­senting, also allowed the Crown's appeal in Blenner-Hassett's case and ordered a new trial. Both accused appealed. The appeals were heard together.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed both appeals.

Criminal Law - Topic 120

Double jeopardy - General - [See Crimi­nal Law - Topic 4951 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1392

Motor vehicles - Dangerous driving - Jury charge - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1393 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1393

Motor vehicles - Dangerous driving - Intention or mens rea - Section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code made it an offence to operate a motor vehicle in a manner "dan­gerous to the public" - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that the modified objective test for dangerous driving was now "the trier of fact should be satisfied that the conduct amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the accused's situation" - The test imparted a degree of subjectivity into the standard of care, but s. 249 did not require proof of knowledge of the danger created by the accused, reck­lessness or deliberateness by the accused (i.e., subjec­tive criminal intent) - The court ordered a new trial for an accused acquitted of dan­gerous driving, where the jury charge was in accordance with the law at the time of trial, but not in accordance with the modi­fied objective test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Hundal after the trial - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision, stating that the jury charge "contained serious misdirections of law with respect to the mens rea of dan­gerous driving".

Criminal Law - Topic 4951

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Misdirection by trial judge - Appeal by Crown from acquittal - An accused was acquitted by a jury of dan­gerous driving - The trial judge's direc­tions to the jury on the mental element required accorded with the law at the time - The Crown appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Hundal, changed the mental element, creating a modified objective test - The trial judge's jury charge, appropriate at the time of trial, would no longer be appropriate - Lambert, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, dissenting on the Crown's acquittal appeal which resulted in a new trial, would have dismissed the appeal on the ground that the accused could not again be placed in jeopardy by a change in judge-made law more than one year after the accused was acquitted - The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the majority decision, stating that "the misdirections constituted an error as to the state of the law as laid down at the time by the Court of Appeal of British Columbia ... The question there­fore as to whether the Crown can rely on an error of law by reason of this court's statement in ... Hundal ... does not arise".

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hundal (S.) (1991), 63 C.C.C.(3d) 214; 6 C.R.(4th) 215; 29 M.V.R.(2d) 108 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Hundal (S.), [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867; 149 N.R. 189; 22 B.C.A.C. 241; 38 W.A.C. 241; 19 C.R.(4th) 169, refd to. [para. 1].

Counsel:

D. Mayland McKimm, for the appellants;

Robert A. Mulligan (video-conference), for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 31, 1995, Sopinka, J., deliv­ered the following oral judgment in both official languages for the Supreme Court of Canada.