R. v. Rajic (G.), (1993) 61 O.A.C. 155 (CA)

• Judge: Tarnopolsky, McKinlay and Carthy, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: April 16, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1993), 61 O.A.C. 155 (CA)

R. v. Rajic (G.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 155 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. George Rajic (applicant)

(No. C6709)

Indexed As: R. v. Rajic (G.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Tarnopolsky, McKinlay and Carthy, JJ.A.

April 16, 1993.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of dangerous driving causing death following a jury trial and was sentenced to imprisonment for two years less a day plus a three year driving prohibition. The accused appealed against conviction and sentence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The jury was misdirected on the issue of the level of fault required to constitute dangerous driving.

Criminal Law - Topic 1394

Motor vehicles - Dangerous driving - Elements of - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that there were various levels of negligence and that the negligence required to support a finding of dangerous driving must be a marked departure from prudent conduct - The court stated that simple negligence was not sufficient - The court ordered a new trial for an accused convicted by a jury of dangerous driving causing death - The jury, if properly instructed, would not necessarily have found the accused guilty of the higher level of fault defined by a marked departure from the standard of care that a prudent driver would have exercised in all the circumstances.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Smithers, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 506; 15 N.R. 287; 34 C.C.C.(2d) 427; 75 D.L.R.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Lowe (1974), 21 C.C.C.(2d) 193; 6 O.R.(2d) 585 (C.A.), not appld. [para. 8].

R. v. Hundal (S.) (1993), 149 N.R. 189 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 9].

R. v. Sharp (1984), 3 O.A.C. 26; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 428 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. D.F. (1989), 100 A.R. 122; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 241; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 357 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Holland (N.G.) (1992), 105 Sask.R. 122; 32 W.A.C. 122 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Stewart (M.R.) (1992), 135 A.R. 173; 33 W.A.C. 173 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Durham (C.E.) and Stratigeas (P.) (1992), 58 O.A.C. 126; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 219 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Finlay, [1991] 5 W.W.R. 193; 91 Sask.R. 228; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 557 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 7].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 86(2) [para. 11]; sect. 249(1)(a) [para. 6]; sect. 249(4) [para. 1].

Counsel:

James Lockyer, for the appellant;

Lucy Cecchetto, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 7, 1992, before Tarnopolsky, McKinlay and Carthy, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Carthy, J.A., and released on April 16, 1993.