Comments

  1. Author

    Not really free to argue matters here! All I can say is that the finding at first instance was that he was not impaired – by drugs, alcohol or otherwise. That was not reversed by the Court of Appeal. The defence argument is that the other factors cited by the Court of Appeal were not proven to be a factor in the accident. The Crown argues otherwise.

  2. Hm. This is fascinating. But it does leave out the fact that Mr. Suter had been drinking rather heavily all that day. It leaves out the fact that he was taking prescription medications, which may have interacted with the alcohol. I think that’s relevant to understanding the Court of Appeal’s argument, no?

Leave a Comment