R. v. Hayes (N.D.), 2015 ABCA 112

• Judge: Slatter, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: March 18, 2015
• Citations: 2015 ABCA 112;(2015), 599 A.R. 341

R. v. Hayes (N.D.) (2015), 599 A.R. 341; 643 W.A.C. 341 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. MR.147

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Nathan Delwin Hayes (applicant)

(1503-0044-A; 2015 ABCA 112)

Indexed As: R. v. Hayes (N.D.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Slatter, J.A.

March 20, 2015.

Summary:

The Alberta Provincial Court convicted Hayes of dangerous driving. Hayes appealed, alleging that the trial judge erred in finding that he drove in a manner that was dangerous to the public, and in finding that his conduct amounted to a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at [2015] A.R. Uned. 147, dismissed the appeal. Hayes applied for leave to further appeal.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Slatter, J.A., denied leave. No important point of law was raised that would justify a further appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1391

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Dangerous driving - What constitutes - [See Criminal Law - Topic 7603 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 7603

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeal to a court of appeal - What constitutes a ''question of law'' - The trial judge found a marked departure from the conduct of normal drivers, and convicted the accused of dangerous driving - The summary conviction appeal court judge found no reviewable error - The accused applied for leave to further appeal - The first proposed ground of appeal was that the trial judge merely "may have found" that the accused's driving endangered members of the public - The second proposed ground of appeal was that the summary conviction appeal court judge misinterpreted the decision in R. v. Edlund (1990) (Alta. C.A.) - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Slatter, J.A., denied leave to further appeal - No important point of law was raised that would justify a further appeal - The trial judge did not specifically mention the exact danger he found, because it was so obvious - If the trial judge had acquitted the accused because there was no proof of danger to a member of the public, "we might now be facing a Crown appeal. That was the error made in Edlund, where the trial judge overlooked the fact that the passenger and other driver were endangered, even if there were no other members of the public around."

Criminal Law - Topic 7607

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeal to a court of appeal - When available - General - [See Criminal Law - Topic 7603 ].

Practice - Topic 8874

Appeals - Leave to appeal - From question of law - [See Criminal Law - Topic 7603 ].

Practice - Topic 8876

Appeals - Leave to appeal - Grounds for granting leave - [See Criminal Law - Topic 7603 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kilpatrick (D.K.), [2013] A.R. Uned. 160; 2013 ABCA 168, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Nielsen (H.W.) (2014), 575 A.R. 197; 612 W.A.C. 197; 2014 ABCA 173, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Edlund (1990), 104 A.R. 354 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Counsel:

K.A. Joyce, for the respondent;

N.J. Whitling, for the applicant.

This application for leave to appeal was heard on March 18, 2015, before Slatter, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who delivered the following reasons for decision, filed at Edmonton, Alberta, on March 20, 2015.