|
Criminal - Criminal Negligence. R. v. Wheeler
In R. v. Wheeler (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a defendant's criminal appeal, here brought against convictions for both "impaired driving causing death and criminal negligence causing death".
Here the court considers an element of criminal negligence:[69] Mr. Wheeler augments this submission by arguing that the trial judge failed to address the degree from which Mr. Wheeler’s conduct departed from that of a reasonable driver in the circumstances. He relies on the direction in R. v. Roy, 2012 SCC 26, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 60, at para. 30, where the Court emphasized that the distinction between a mere departure from the norm and a marked departure from the norm is a matter of degree, noting that “[t]he trier of fact must identify how and in what way the departure from the standard goes markedly beyond mere carelessness” (emphasis in original). This requirement does not mean a trial judge must address this issue explicitly. In my view, so long as it is evident from the reasons, read in the context of the evidence and submissions, that the trial judge assessed the degree of departure and was satisfied that it was markedly beyond mere carelessness, there is no basis for appellate intervention. That is the case here. . R. v. Wheeler
In R. v. Wheeler (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a defendant's criminal appeal, here brought against convictions for both "impaired driving causing death and criminal negligence causing death".
The court considers 'causation', here in this criminal negligence context:[62] .... In R. v. Maybin, 2012 SCC 24, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 30, at para. 28, Karakatsanis J. explained, for the Court, that the standard of causation that applies to the offence of criminal negligence causing death requires that the “dangerous, unlawful acts of the accused [were] a significant contributing cause of the victim’s death”. The parties agreed, correctly, that the same causation standard applied at the time of Ms. Stansel’s death to the offence of impaired driving causing death.[2] .... . R. v. Tabanao
In R. v. Tabanao (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considers basics of criminal negligence, both 'causing death' and 'bodily harm':[26] The actus reus for criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm requires the accused to have done or omitted to do anything that it was their legal duty to do, and that the act or omission caused someone’s death or bodily harm: Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 219(1), 220, and 221; R. v. Javanmardi, 2019 SCC 54, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 3, at paras. 19-21. The fault element requires that the criminal act or omission represented a marked and substantial departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent person in circumstances where they either recognized and ran an obvious and serious risk to the public, or, alternatively, gave no thought to that risk: R. v. J.F., 2008 SCC 60, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 215, at para. 9; and Beatty, at para. 7.
....
[42] The fault element of criminal negligence is assessed by the degree to which the accused’s conduct departed from that of a reasonable person in the circumstances. For some negligence-based offences, such as dangerous driving, a “marked” departure satisfies the fault element: J.F., at para. 10; Beatty, at para. 33; R. v. Roy, 2012 SCC 26, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 60, at para. 30. For criminal negligence causing death, however, the requisite degree of fault is elevated to a “marked and substantial” departure: Javanmardi, at paras. 19-21.
[43] Both fault requirements ask whether the accused’s actions created a risk to others, and whether “a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk and taken steps to avoid it if possible”: Javanmardi, at para. 22; Roy, at para. 36. The distinction between the two standards is a matter of assessing the degree to which the conduct departs from that of a reasonable person: Javanmardi, at para. 21.
|
