R Vs Misaac Case Study

Good Essays
R. v. MacIsaac, 2015 ONCA 587
Her Majesty the Queen (R.) and Gordon MacIsaac (Apl.)
FACTS
The appellant (Apl.) and the complainant (Compl.) were both members of senior men’s “no-contact” hockey league, but belonged to different teams. On the day in question, these teams were facing off against each other with the Compl.’s team was up 2 points with less than a minute left in the game. The two players collided which resulted in the Compl. Being knocked to the ground and suffering several injuries. (para. 4)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Apl. was charged with aggravated assault. (para. 5) It was the Crown’s positions that the Apl. deliberately blindsided the Compl. (para. 6) The Apl. held that the collision was accidental and unavoidable. (para. 12)
…show more content…
of aggravated assault, after having rejected much of the evidence given on grounds that it was contradictory, contrary to trial judge’s understanding of hockey tactics, or inconsistent with the trial judge’s assessment of the injuries received by the Compl.
On appeal the Apl. submitted that the trial judge had failed to consider that the defence might have honestly believed that consent had been given even if that was a mistake (para. 30). The R. submitted that the trial judge did not make a mistake in the assessment of the evidence and that the defense’s argument, that there was a mistaken belief in consent, was inconsistent with the Apl. admittance that such hits fall outside what is expected in a non-contact hockey league. (para. 31)
ISSUES
a) Did the trial judge speculate beyond what was reasonable?
b) Did the trial judge reverse the onus of proof?
c) Did the trial judge make a mistake in not considering that the defence might have honestly believed that consent had been given even if that was a mistake? (para. 32)
HOLDING
a) The trial judge engaged in speculative reasoning while rejecting evidence which led to a conviction and denied the Apl. a fair trial, which justifies a retrial.
b) Not answered.
c) Not answered.(para.

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    For example, this is not a case where the erroneous jury instruction made it easier for the government to obtain a conviction. Instead, the core of Petitioner’s argument is that a conviction under a federal statute should be reversed even where there is no dispute that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under the plain language of that law. This argument, which is based on a clerical error in a jury instruction that erroneously increased the government’s burden of proof, seems to place form over substance. Petitioner is relying on an erroneous jury instruction not for the purpose of arguing that it would result in a grave injustice, such as a wrongful conviction or deprivation of due process, but to overturn a conviction that was consistent with the statutory scheme. In this circumstance, and resulting injustice would likely be to the…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    at 340-41. Moreover, not only was the legal question at issue well settled, but had the defendant’s counsel argued against the sufficient of the evidence, the court would have had no choice but to grant the defendant’s motion for judgment. Accordingly, we determined that it was objectively unreasonable and unprofessional for the attorney to fail to argue that the defendant did not elude police, and had he done so the outcome would have been different. We, therefore, reversed the defendant’s conviction on direct appeal because his counsel was…

    • 1873 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    At his first trial, Williams argued that his rights under the grounds of, ss.7, 11(d) and 15(1) of the charter, had been violated due to the fact that he was denied the right to challenge potential jurors for cause to conclude whether they displayed a racial bias against aboriginals which might impair their impartiality. Williams applied and challenged that potential jurors…

    • 828 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    F. 3d 581 Case Study

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Furthermore, when no reasonable jury can find substantial similarity between the original protectable elements of works, summary judgment is granted. Williams, 84 F.3d 581. Therefore, summary judgment may be granted when no jury would find the original protectable elements of two original works to be substantially similar and when access to the alleged work is a bare possibility. Therefore, summary judgment is appropriate for the defendant because it cannot be established that the defendant, in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq, is accountable of improper copying and there is insufficient evidence to support access by the defendant to the copyrighted material.…

    • 367 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Yes. Robert’s statements constituted an anticipatory repudiation of the exclusivity agreement because his refusal to perform was distinct, unequivocal, and absolute. II. Yes. Sheila elected to treat the repudiation as final when she materially changed position.…

    • 786 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The majority of the court’s opinion was presented by Justice Lewis Powell. In their analysis they concluded that the Baldus Study did not establish the clear intent of racial discrimination in the plaintiff’s case. They claimed that McCleskey failed to prove that any participating member in his case acted in a discriminatory manner against him. They concluded that discretion is crucial factor in the criminal justice process. Due to the critical need for discretion the plaintiff would have to provide clear and valid proof that discretion was abused before the court would take action.…

    • 902 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    R V G 2003 Case Study

    • 969 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The objective test of recklessness was adopted in Caldwell and extended mens rea to include inadvertence. A problem arising out of this approach was that it ran counter to the orthodox subjective approach to mens rea and recklessness was closely similar to that of negligence. Since the defendants give no thought to any risk an issue on appeal to the House Lords, completely challenging the Caldwell ruling, was whether a conviction could be upheld, because of the individuals age and personal characteristics such a risk would not have been obvious to him, even if he had thought about it. Lord Diplock in Caldwell took the view that the accused in that case was morally blameworthy. Lord Diplock extended recklessness by applying an objective test of what a reasonable person would have contemplated in order to bridge the gap between moral blame and legal guilt.…

    • 969 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    They however recognized that Officer Rombach had acted in good faith, the court then rejected the Government's suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply where evidence is seized in reasonable, good faith reliance on a search warrant. Then the case was taken to the Court of Appeals which also agreed that the officer did in fact act in good faith and also refused the Government's invitation to recognize a good faith exception to the rule. The Government then issued a petition for certiorari which went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court declared that their is a “good faith” exception to the exclusionary…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Several cases have shown that warnings alone do not neutralize the potential for jury contamination, so a trial court should not rely solely on the warnings it gives jurors. The court concluded that the “error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” and therefore revoked her conviction but placed Jacobson in custody for a new trial on her…

    • 500 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If the defendant offers no explanation, the court can direct a verdict for the plaintiff if the inference is so strong that reasonable jurors could not reach any other conclusion. Where the jury considers the question of negligence, it can decide that the facts do not logically lead to an inference of the defendant's negligence, even if the defendant did not offer any evidence in her defense. If the defendant presents evidence that makes it unlikely that she has acted negligently, the plaintiff will lose his case unless he can rebut the evidence, since such evidence destroys the inference of negligence created by res ipsa. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will remain an important weapon in the evidentiary armament of a plaintiff in personal injury…

    • 1346 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays