R. v. Blenner-Hassett; R. v. Piluke
Court headnote
R. v. Blenner-Hassett; R. v. Piluke Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1995-01-31 Report [1995] 1 SCR 443 Case number 23923, 24070 Judges Lamer, Antonio; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank; Major, John C. On appeal from British Columbia Subjects Criminal law Notes SCC Case Information: 23923, 24070 Decision Content R. v. Blenner‑Hassett; R. v. Piluke, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 443 Lorne Douglas Blenner‑Hassett Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and between James Preston Piluke Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Blenner‑Hassett; R. v. Piluke File Nos.: 23923, 24070. 1995: January 31. Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia Criminal law ‑‑ Charge to jury ‑‑ Mens rea ‑‑ Serious misdirections with respect to mens rea. Cases Cited Referred to: R. v. Hundal, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867, aff'g (1991), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 214. APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (R. v. Blenner-Hasset) (1993), 37 B.C.A.C. 15, 60 W.A.C. 15, 86 C.C.C. (3d) 199, 50 M.V.R. (2d) 241, allowing an appeal from acquittal by Owen‑Flood J. sitting with jury. Appeal dismissed. APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (R. v. Piluke) (1993), 37 B.C.A.C. 1, 60 W.A.C. 1, 86 C.C.C. (3d) 1, 50 M.V.R. (2d) 255, a…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.scc-csc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
R. v. Blenner-Hassett; R. v. Piluke Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1995-01-31 Report [1995] 1 SCR 443 Case number 23923, 24070 Judges Lamer, Antonio; La Forest, Gérard V.; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank; Major, John C. On appeal from British Columbia Subjects Criminal law Notes SCC Case Information: 23923, 24070 Decision Content R. v. Blenner‑Hassett; R. v. Piluke, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 443 Lorne Douglas Blenner‑Hassett Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent and between James Preston Piluke Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Blenner‑Hassett; R. v. Piluke File Nos.: 23923, 24070. 1995: January 31. Present: Lamer C.J. and La Forest, L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia Criminal law ‑‑ Charge to jury ‑‑ Mens rea ‑‑ Serious misdirections with respect to mens rea. Cases Cited Referred to: R. v. Hundal, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867, aff'g (1991), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 214. APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (R. v. Blenner-Hasset) (1993), 37 B.C.A.C. 15, 60 W.A.C. 15, 86 C.C.C. (3d) 199, 50 M.V.R. (2d) 241, allowing an appeal from acquittal by Owen‑Flood J. sitting with jury. Appeal dismissed. APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (R. v. Piluke) (1993), 37 B.C.A.C. 1, 60 W.A.C. 1, 86 C.C.C. (3d) 1, 50 M.V.R. (2d) 255, allowing an appeal from acquittal by Owen-Flood J. sitting with jury. Appeal dismissed. D. Mayland McKimm, for the appellants. Robert A. Mulligan, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by 1 Sopinka J. ‑‑ These appeals are as of right. We are satisfied that the instructions to the jury in both cases contained serious misdirections of law with respect to the mens rea of dangerous driving. The misdirections constituted an error as to the state of the law as laid down at the time by the Court of Appeal of British Columbia in R. v. Hundal (1991), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 214. The question therefore as to whether the Crown can rely on an error of law by reason of this Court's statement of the law in R. v. Hundal, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 867, does not arise. The appeals are dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitor for the appellants: D. Mayland McKimm, Victoria. Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General of British Columbia, Victoria.
Source: decisions.scc-csc.ca
R v Brown
[2022] 1 SCR 506