Drunk driver will be sentenced next month

[Tecumsehsbones]

And 229(c) doesn't exist in reality because it violates the Charter. When it was suggested you fill you boots and back your BS you said you did but never ran across the SCoC R. v Martineau?


At what point did the guy hop behind the wheel with the intent of crossing the centerline to kill?

What you have in bold is the reason why it was struck down. Thanks.

Martineau didn't strike down 229(c). It struck down 213(a).

You're welcome.

 

[petros]

in Martineau, the court specifically addressed section 229(c) by striking down the objective “ought to know” portion of the mens rea requirement, while leaving the subjective mens rea requirement intact.

 

[eh1eh]

OK, so you know this thread is f%cking done, right?