Lawyer: Lolita Rudovica

The appellant appeals his dangerous driving conviction. The central issue at trial was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt the appellant was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. On appeal, the appellant argued that the verdict is unreasonable due to a number of illogical or irrational factual inferences drawn by the trial judge that were material to the trial judge’s conclusion that the appellant is guilty.

Held: Appeal allowed. The trial judge engaged in fundamentally flawed reasoning by concluding that the manner in which the vehicle was being driven could properly ground an inference that the appellant was the driver at the relevant time. Given the importance the trial judge attached to this point, this flawed reasoning materially contributed to the trial judge’s decision. The proper remedy is an order for a new trial.