Tag Archives: Criminal Attorney Calgary

blog

In for an inch…. Joint/co-principal liability in Criminal Offences in Canada by JS Patel, Criminal Defence Lawyer (403-585-1960)

In Regina v. Strathdee, 2021 SCC 40, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) upheld a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal (2020 ABCA 443) overturning the acquittal for unlawful act manslaughter and entering a conviction. The trial judge had acquitted the accused after considering joint/co-principal liability and abetting under ss.21(1)(a) and 21(1)(c), respectively, of the Criminal Code of Canada (2019 ABQB 479).  The charges against Mr. Strathdee stemmed from a group assault in which several victims sustained multiple injuries and one victim, Mr. Tong, sustained a single stab wound which caused his death.

Joint Liability in Criminal Offences in Canada. Recent Decision from the Supreme Court of Canada (November 2021)

The SCC agreed with the Court of Appeal that there was no basis for the view that the stabbing of Tong was a distinct act outside the scope of the group attack. 

The court stated: “Having regard to the findings of fact in paras. 137 and 156-59 (CanLII) of the trial decision, and the statement of law set out by the Court of Appeal at paras. 61, 66 and 68 of its decision, this Court affirms the result of the Alberta Court of Appeal that is guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.” 

The court also clarified a statement of law in Regina v. Cabrera, 2019 ABCA 184, aff’d Shlah, 2019 SCC 56, regarding joint/co-principal liability noting:

“Joint/co-principal liability flows whenever two or more individuals come together with an intention to commit an offence, are present during the commission of the offence, and contribute to its commission. In the context of manslaughter, triers of fact should focus on whether an accused’s actions were a significant contributing cause of death, rather than focusing on which perpetrator inflicted which wound or whether all of the wounds were caused by a single individual. In the context of group assaults, absent a discrete or intervening event, the actions of all assailants can constitute a significant contributing cause to all injuries sustained. Properly read, the discussion of party liability in R. v. Pickton, 2010 SCC 32, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 198, is fully consistent with the foregoing.”

If you have been charged with a criminal offences in Canada, contact Mr. J.S. Patel, Criminal Defence Lawyer for a consultation: 403-585-1960 or 647-323-1960.

blog

Dangerous Driving involving alcohol and the use of a Commercial Vehicle, R. v. Raj, 2018 ONCA 623, Case Summary.

Leave a comment
 
Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle, section 249(1)
Dangerous Driving under the Criminal Code of Canada

In Regina v. Raj, 2018 ONCA 623 (CanLII) the Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with the conviction appeal for an accused person involving a commercial dump-truck operator.  It was a case Dangerous Driving involving alcohol and the use of a Commercial Vehicle. The facts underpinning the appeal involved a proven allegation that the accused had driven the raised box of his dump truck into an over-pass.  The accused was/is a professional truck driver. On July 31, 2014, he was driving a commercial dump truck on the Queen Elizabeth Highway (“QEW”). There was a trailer attached to the truck whose box could be raised and lowered using a system of buttons and levers in the truck called the Power Take-off (“PTO”) system. That day, the appellant had left the PTO lever in the ‘On’ position. Under certain circumstances, leaving the PTO engaged permitted the trailer to rise.

The accident scene was chaotic and dangerous, and the police placed the accused in a police car for 2.5 hours for his own safety. The following arguments were raised by the accused’s criminal appeal lawyers:  First, it was posited that the trial judge erred by concluding that the appellant’s confinement in the police cruiser for 2.5 hours was not an arbitrary detention contrary to s. 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Second, if that argument was successful, then it was argued that result would be that the police breached both his s. 9 and s. 10 Charter rights. This, it was argued, would call for a reappraisal of the trial judge’s s. 24(2) analysis and lead to a different result – the exclusion of the evidence relating to the smell of alcohol on the appellant’s breath. The Court disagreed.  It said that the principal, and continuing, purpose of the appellant’s detention was his own safety. His truck had caused a terrible accident with extensive damage to vehicles and a bridge and injuries to several people. The police noticed the appellant walking around a dangerous accident scene and sitting on a guardrail very close to a damaged and collapsing girder. Importantly, his truck was crushed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal also upheld the decision of the trial judge admitting evidence of a smell of alcohol on the accused’s breath even though the police did not provide access to counsel during the detention, breaching s.10(b) of the Charter. The police conduct was only a mistake and not deliberate misconduct, and the police would have smelled the alcohol even if they had acted properly.

What is more, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s finding that the accused’s conduct was a marked departure from a reasonable person’s driving.  This was mostly due, in large part on the accused’s alcohol consumption, and his failure over forty (40) seconds to notice that the box of his dump truck had raised.  The court said that prior to colliding with the bridge superstructure the appellant drove a one (1) kilometer distance for forty (40) seconds without detecting the rising dump box despite its effect on the truck’s handling and despite it being clearly visible from all of the truck’s mirrors.Given all the factors, the Court of Appeal dismissed the possibility of the that period of time constituting an “momentary inadvertence.”

If you have been charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and require a consultation, contact Mr. J.S. Patel, DUI Criminal Lawyer for a free initial consultation. Mr. Patel is regarded a throughly prepared criminal lawyer in the context of driving matters such as DUIs and Dangerous driving.

 Call: 403-585-1960.