R. v. Hamilton, (1984) 3 O.A.C. 232 (CA)

• Judge: Houlden, Arnup and Blair, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: March 29, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1984), 3 O.A.C. 232 (CA)

R. v. Hamilton (1984), 3 O.A.C. 232 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Hamilton

Indexed As: R. v. Hamilton

Ontario Court of Appeal

Houlden, Arnup and Blair, JJ.A.

April 11, 1984.

Summary:

The accused was charged with criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle causing death, contrary to s. 203 of the Criminal Code of Canada, impaired driving, contrary to s. 234 and failure to provide a breath sample contrary to s. 235(1) of the Code. Following a trial by judge and jury, the accused was convicted on counts one and three. The accused appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, because the trial judge erred in admitting, as similar fact evidence, evidence of the accused's prior convictions.

Criminal Law - Topic 4953

Appeals - Indictable offences - New trials - Grounds - Admission of prejudicial evidence - The Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, where the trial judge admitted evidence of previous convictions which was gravely prejudicial to the accused, even though the Crown's other evidence was extremely strong - See paragraph 6.

Evidence - Topic 1256

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Similar acts - To prove criminal conduct - A trial judge admitted evidence of the accused's prior conviction for driving the wrong way on a one-way street as similar fact evidence to determine whether, on a charge of criminal negligence causing death, the accused's conduct was deliberate or accidental - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the judge erred, because the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial - see paragraph 4 to 5.

Evidence - Topic 1256

Relevant facts - Relevance and materiality - Similar acts - To prove criminal conduct - A trial judge admitted evidence of an accused's prior conviction for impaired driving as similar fact evidence to determine whether, on a charge of breathalyzer refusal, the accused understood the demand - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the judge erred, because the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial - See paragraphs 4 to 5.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Alward and Mooney (1977), 16 N.R. 127; 18 N.B.R.(2d) 97; 26 A.P.R. 97; 35 C.C.C.(2d) 392 (S.C.C.) refd to. [para. 6].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 613(1)(b)(iii) [para. 6].

Counsel:

M.W. Caroline, for the appellant;

Damien Frost, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Houlden, Arnup and Blair, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal on March 29, 1984. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally by Houlden, J.A., and released on April 11, 1984.