R. v. Hecimovic (A.K.), (2015) 379 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon and Brown, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 13, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 379 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);2015 SCC 54

R. v. Hecimovic (A.K.) (2015), 379 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);

    654 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. NO.048

Andelina Kristina Hecimovic (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(36260; 2015 SCC 54; 2015 CSC 54)

Indexed As: R. v. Hecimovic (A.K.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon and Brown, JJ.

November 13, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was charged with two counts of dangerous driving causing death. The Crown's principal theory was that the accused intentionally engaged in dangerous conduct. Alternatively, the Crown asserted that the accused failed to exercise the requisite degree of care to the task of driving.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1865, found the accused not guilty. The Crown appealed, asserting that the trial judge addressed only its primary theory at trial which was restricted to subjective intent and failed to address its alternate theory, which required the application of the modified objective test and a consideration of the accused's inattentiveness.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Tysoe, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at 364 B.C.A.C. 144; 625 W.A.C. 144, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1391

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Dangerous driving - What constitutes - The accused was charged with two counts of dangerous driving causing death - The Crown's principal theory was that the accused intentionally engaged in dangerous conduct - Alternatively, the Crown asserted that the accused failed to exercise the requisite degree of care to the task of driving - The trial judge found the accused not guilty - The Crown appealed, asserting that the trial judge addressed only its primary theory at trial which was restricted to subjective intent and failed to address its alternate theory, which required the application of the modified objective test and a consideration of the accused's inattentiveness - The appeal court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial - The trial judge erred in considering the accused's conduct in light of all the relevant evidence in order to determine whether it was a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in her circumstances - The analysis was inappropriately limited, perhaps reflecting the Crown's emphasis on its principal theory of guilt, focussing upon only three aspects of the accused's conduct: (1) moving into the right-turn-only lane; (2) jumping the red light; and (3) travelling at a high rate of speed - The judge's conclusion respecting each factor hinged upon acceptance of the accused's testimony - Accepting her testimony that she erred in thinking the right lane was a through lane, she did not see the red light and she did not think that she was speeding, should not of been determinative of whether her acts were a marked departure - The three acts, even considered together, did not constitute the whole Crown case against the accused - What was required was consideration of how the degree of care that the accused brought to her driving measured against the appropriate objective standard - Examining only the three acts said to evince intent to drive dangerously in effect resulted in the application of a subjective standard - That amounted to an error of law - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision.

Criminal Law - Topic 1391.2

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Dangerous driving - Causing death or bodily harm - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1391 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1393

Motor vehicles - Dangerous driving - Intention or mens rea - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1391 ].

Counsel:

[None disclosed].

Solicitors of Record:

[None disclosed].

This appeal was heard on November 13, 2015, by Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner, Gascon and Brown, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. Abella, J., delivered the following judgment orally for the court in both official languages on the same date.