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.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Minister of National Revenue v. Schwartz, (1996) 193 N.R. 241 (SCC)
...v. Minister of National Revenue, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 627; 182 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 56]. Antosko v. Minister of National Revenue, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 312; 168 N.R. 16; [1994] C.T.C. 25; 94 D.T.C. 6314, refd to. [para. R. v. Zeolkowski, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1378; 95 N.R. 149; 58 Man.R.(2d) 63, refd to.......
-
Municipal Contracting Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General),
...British Columbia Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 804; 248 N.R. 216, refd to. [paras. 44, 99]. Canada v. Antosko, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 312; 168 N.R. 16, refd to. [paras. 44, 100]. Singleton v. Minister of National Revenue, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1046; 275 N.R. 133, refd to. [paras.......
-
Table of Cases
...Co v Canada, 2005 SCC 54 ................... 34, 37, 41, 469, 470, 479, 481, 487, 488, 493, 506, 510, 601, 603 Canada v Antosko, [1994] 2 SCR 312, [1994] 2 CTC 25, 94 DTC 6314 ...............................................................................33, 38, 39, 427 Canada v Burnco Indu......
-
Table of cases
...v Canada (Attorney General), [1999] 4 FC 72, 168 FTR 114, [1999] FCJ No 696 (TD) ..............................261 Antosko v Canada, [1994] 2 SCR 312, 168 NR 16, [1994] SCJ No 46 ............... 245 Apotex Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [2000] 4 FC 264, 188 DLR (4th) 145, [2000] FCJ No 63......
-
Minister of National Revenue v. Schwartz, (1996) 193 N.R. 241 (SCC)
...v. Minister of National Revenue, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 627; 182 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 56]. Antosko v. Minister of National Revenue, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 312; 168 N.R. 16; [1994] C.T.C. 25; 94 D.T.C. 6314, refd to. [para. R. v. Zeolkowski, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1378; 95 N.R. 149; 58 Man.R.(2d) 63, refd to.......
-
Municipal Contracting Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General),
...British Columbia Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 804; 248 N.R. 216, refd to. [paras. 44, 99]. Canada v. Antosko, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 312; 168 N.R. 16, refd to. [paras. 44, 100]. Singleton v. Minister of National Revenue, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1046; 275 N.R. 133, refd to. [paras.......
-
Ludco Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Ministre du Revenu national, 2001 SCC 62
...Revenue, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 695; 161 N.R. 243; 110 D.L.R.(4th) 470, refd to. [para. 37]. Antosko v. Minister of National Revenue, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 312; 168 N.R. 16, refd to. [para. 37]. Quebéc (Communauté urbaine) v. Corporation Notre-Dame de Bon-Secours, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 3; 171 N.R. 161; 63 Q.A......
-
Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada et al., 2005 NSSC 126
...Stubart Investments Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 536; 53 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 32]. Canada v. Antosko, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 312; 168 N.R. 16, refd to. [para. Statutes Noticed: Civil Procedure Rules (N.S.), rule 18.14(1)(b) [para. 10]; rule 25.01(1)(a) [para. 4]. Auth......
-
Table of cases
...v Canada (Attorney General), [1999] 4 FC 72, 168 FTR 114, [1999] FCJ No 696 (TD) ..............................261 Antosko v Canada, [1994] 2 SCR 312, 168 NR 16, [1994] SCJ No 46 ............... 245 Apotex Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [2000] 4 FC 264, 188 DLR (4th) 145, [2000] FCJ No 63......
-
Table of Cases
...Co v Canada, 2005 SCC 54 ................... 34, 37, 41, 469, 470, 479, 481, 487, 488, 493, 506, 510, 601, 603 Canada v Antosko, [1994] 2 SCR 312, [1994] 2 CTC 25, 94 DTC 6314 ...............................................................................33, 38, 39, 427 Canada v Burnco Indu......
-
Fifty Years of Taxation at the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court
...the true economic purpose of transactions was also rejected. 103 Shell Canada , above note 102 at para 39. See also Canada v Antosko , [1994] 2 SCR 312 [ Antosko ]; Friesen v Canada , [1995] 3 SCR 103; Singleton , above note 102. 104 Central Supply , above note 90 at 5297. [ 565 ] The Feder......
-
Legal Policy Analysis
...whole; and it is the purpose in question which will dictate in each case whether a strict or a liberal interpretation is appropriate 61 [1994] 2 SCR 312 at para 25. 62 The plain meaning rule is described in Chapter 4. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 246 or whether it is the tax department or the t......