Summary

Keywords

None.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Criminal law - Charge to jury - Defences - Air of reality - Curative proviso - Whether the jury instructions on intent and accident were adequate - Whether there was an air of reality to the panic defence - Whether the curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, was applicable.

The respondent was convicted of second degree murder and aggravated assault. He killed one person and injured another by driving his truck into a crowd of people that had gathered outside a bar at which he had been drinking. At trial, the respondent claimed that his acceleration into the crowd was an involuntary panic response. He argued in the alternative that what happened was an accident, and that he had no intention of killing or injuring anyone. The respondent appealed his convictions. A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial. In its view, the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the legal significance of the panic attack defence. McDonald J.A., dissenting in part, would have dismissed the appeal on the basis that, when read holistically, the jury charge was adequate on the issue of intent and accident. Alternatively, he found that the panic defence had no air of reality and, therefore, any errors were immaterial. In the further alternative, he would have applied the curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code to any errors, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that the respondent intended to strike the crowd with his truck.

Lower Court Rulings