This week, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear an assortment of four appeals. Three of these are criminal dealing with dangerous driving, bestiality, and the inferred credibility. The court will also be looking at contractual clauses that demand higher interest-rate payments upon default.
Nov. 9 — British Columbia — R. v. D.L.W.
Criminal law: The respondent was convicted of bestiality. At trial, he argued that no actual penetration had occurred. The conviction was overturned on appeal, with one judge in dissent. The Supreme Court will review whether bestiality necessarily includes penetration. A publication ban is in place.
Read the British Columbia appeal court decision:
Nov. 10 — Ontario — R. v. Riar
Criminal law: The appellant was convicted of driving a truck containing $3.5 million worth of cocaine from the United States into Canada. The accused and co-accused argued they were blind couriers and didn’t know what was in the truck. On appeal, one dissenting judge found that the trial judge had made a litany of errors in assessing the evidence and inappropriately inferred a lack of credibility. The top court will review whether the appellant had a fair trial.
Read the Ontario appeal court decision:
Drug smugglers land jail time: Brampton Guardian
Trucking drugs through the border: An ongoing problem: Windsor Star
Nov. 12 — Alberta — Krayzel Corp. v. Equitable Trust Co.
Interest rates: The applicants in this case owned a $27-million mortgage that was provided by the Equitable Trust Co. In 2008, when the mortgage matured, the lender and borrower entered into a series of renewal agreements that included clauses that would result in a higher interest rate payment upon default. The borrower was then unable to make a payment on the mortgage. The applicants argue that the clauses seeking a higher interest rate upon default are contrary to s. 8 of the Interest Act. The appeal was dismissed by a majority at the Alberta Court of Appeal.
Read the Alberta appeal court decision:
Nov. 13 — British Columbia — R. v. Hecimovic
Criminal law: Andelina Hecimovic was acquitted of dangerous driving causing death. It was alleged that she attempted to illegally bypass traffic and run a red light in order to get to her boyfriend’s place faster. The trial judge found that Hecimovic had failed to read the signs, leading only to a momentary error, not a criminal act. The majority at the Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge had applied a subjective test for determining mens rea rather than the required modified objective test. The top court will review the test for determining mens rea.
Read the British Columbia appeal court decision:
Andelina Hecimovic acquittal in deadly crash challenged: Huffington Post
Top court to hear case of B.C woman acquitted in fatal Pitt Meadows crash, Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Times
