Blog

Friends, smartphone and students outdoor, college and social media, reading chat online and connectivity. Young people at campus, using phone and check mobile app, technology and communication

The issue in the appeal was whether a judge presiding over a dangerous driving trial rendered an unreasonable decision on the basis of inferences that were illogical and clearly contradicted by the evidence.&nbsp;Gabriel Boudreau was convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm as a result of a collision between his vehicle and the complainant’s on a Québec City highway in 2017. Mr. Boudreau’s vehicle rear‑ended the complainant’s vehicle. The complainant suffered a cervical dorsal sprain, the symptoms of which persisted at the time of the trial four years later.The complainant and Mr. Boudreau gave contradictory versions of the events. The complainant stated that, at the time of the collision, she was driving in the left lane because of the slow traffic in the right lane when Mr. Boudreau’s vehicle forcefully struck hers from behind. As for Mr. Boudreau, he admitted that he had been driving over the speed limit but said that he had slowed down prior to the collision because traffic on the highway had become heavier. According to him, the accident occurred because the complainant suddenly moved into the left lane without signalling and he was unable to avoid it.In finding that Mr. Boudreau had been driving erratically prior to the collision, the judge relied on three witness accounts and a video obtained from a department of transport camera that showed Mr. Boudreau driving before his vehicle climbed a hill and went out of camera range. However, because the collision itself could not be seen on the video, the judge had only the accounts given by the complainant and Mr. Boudreau available to her to determine what had happened at the moment of impact. She found that Mr. Boudreau’s version of events, according to which the complainant had quickly pulled into the left lane, was inconsistent with the report assessing the damage caused to the complainant’s vehicle, as the report indicated damage not just to the left rear corner of the vehicle but to the entire rear structure. The judge reasoned that if the complainant had suddenly moved into the left lane, the damage would have been on the left side of her vehicle, not the rear. The judge therefore accepted the complainant’s version of events and convicted Mr. Boudreau.Mr. Boudreau appealed his conviction to the Quebec Court of Appeal. He argued that the trial judge had made errors in assessing the evidence and that those errors had led to an unreasonable decision. The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.One Court of Appeal judge dissented. She would have allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial. In her view, the trial judge had made two errors that had led to an unreasonable decision. First, the trial judge had wrongly rejected Mr. Boudreau’s testimony on the basis of an illogical inference, namely that if the complainant had suddenly changed lanes, the impact would have occurred on the left side of the car, not the left rear corner. In the dissenting judge’s opinion, Mr. Boudreau’s version of events was perfectly consistent with the location of the damage, that is, the rear of the vehicle, particularly the left rear corner. Second, she was of the view that the trial judge’s finding that the complainant had been driving in the left lane well before the impact was contradicted by the testimony of the complainant herself, who stated that she had moved into the left lane because of congestion in the right lane.Mr. Boudreau appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court Upholds a Man’s Conviction for Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm.

Visual contents concept. Social networking service. Streaming video. communication network.

Mr. Ahmed Abdullahi was arrested in June 2013 as a result of an integrated police investigation into the trafficking of illegal firearms in Toronto. A jury convicted him of various firearm offences and one count of participation in the activities of a criminal organization for the purpose of trafficking weapons, contrary to section 467.11 of the Criminal Code. This last conviction was the only issue before the Supreme Court of Canada.Under section 467.11, the Crown must first prove the existence of a “criminal organization”. The Criminal Code defines a criminal organization as a group of three or more people, however organized, that facilitates or commits a serious offence for a financial or other benefit. Organized crimes attract greater police powers for certain authorizations and warrants, and harsher sentences than those committed by groups that come together randomly to commit a single offence. In its 2012 judgment in R. v. Venneri, the Supreme Court of Canada said that for a criminal organization to be “organized”, it must have “some form of structure and degree of continuity”.Before members of the jury started their deliberations, the trial judge instructed them on the required elements of the criminal organization offence, including the need to first prove the existence of such an organization. On that element of the offence, the judge read the definition of a criminal organization but did not mention the need to identify a structure and a degree of continuity to qualify a group as such. In the end, the jury found Mr. Abdullahi guilty on all counts, including that of participating in the activities of a criminal organization for the purpose of trafficking weapons.On appeal, Mr. Abdullahi argued the judge’s instruction to the jury was insufficient because it failed to explain that a criminal organization must have structure and continuity. The majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal and concluded that the jury had been properly instructed. The dissenting judge disagreed and would have ordered a new trial on that count. Mr. Abdullahi appealed the conviction to this Court.The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal.The trial judge’s instruction did not sufficiently equip the jury to decide if a criminal organization existed.

The Supreme Court orders a new trial due to insufficient jury instructions.

Young laptop user woman using computer, typing on keyboard

Retired Corporal (Cpl.) Colin McGregor was posted to the Canadian Defence Liaison Staff at Canada’s embassy in Washington, D.C. Given his position in the United States, Cpl. McGregor had diplomatic immunity in respect of his person, property and residence under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.In 2017, one of his Canadian Armed Forces colleagues posted to the United States discovered two audio recording devices in her home. She believed Cpl. McGregor had placed them there and reported the discovery to her senior officer. Upon investigating the matter, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service found there were reasonable grounds to believe Cpl. McGregor had committed the offences of voyeurism and possession of a device to surreptitiously record private communications. Yet, the Investigation Service could not search his residence in Alexandria, Virginia because it was not located on Canadian Armed Forces property. As a result, the lead investigator asked the Canadian Embassy to waive Cpl. McGregor’s immunity under the Vienna Convention. With immunity waived, the Alexandria Police Department obtained a warrant that authorized the search of Cpl. McGregor’s residence, as well as any electronic devices found there.&nbsp;The American police entered Cpl. McGregor’s residence and invited the Investigation Service to conduct the search. Officers seized electronic devices and searched some of them while in the residence. They discovered evidence of the suspected offences as well as others. The electronic devices were removed to Canada and searched further, in line with Canadian warrants.&nbsp;A military judge dismissed Cpl. McGregor’s motion to exclude the evidence for breach of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects people from “unreasonable search or seizure”. The military judge convicted him of voyeurism, possession of a device for surreptitious interception of private communications, sexual assault and disgraceful conduct. That decision was affirmed by the Court Martial Appeal Court.&nbsp;Cpl. McGregor then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Both parties relied on this Court’s decision in R. v. Hape about whether the Charter applies to searches and seizures conducted by Canadian police officers in other countries. Cpl. McGregor took the position that the Charter applies in this case to the Investigation Service, whereas the Crown argued the opposite.&nbsp;A unanimous Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed his convictions.The investigation did not violate Cpl. McGregor’s rights under section 8 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court rules Canadian military investigators did not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms while investigating a Canadian soldier’s criminal activity abroad.

Canadian Legal Matters

Featured Articles

The Supreme Court Upholds a Man’s Conviction for Dangerou...

The Supreme Court orders a new trial due to insufficient ...

The Supreme Court rules Canadian military investigators d...