Reasons for Judgment — Wagner C.J. (Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Côté, Brown, Rowe and Martin JJ. concurring)
The Chief Justice — Mr. Seipp was convicted of the offence of failure to stop at the scene of an accident, contrary to s. 252(1) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 . The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld his conviction. We would not interfere.
We are all of the view that Mr. Seipp’s conviction was not a miscarriage of justice. Mr. Seipp had control of a vehicle involved in an accident. He fled the scene without providing his name or address. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, this was proof of the requisite intent for the offence.
The evidence on which Mr. Seipp relies is that he fled the scene to avoid criminal liability for possession of a stolen vehicle. This is not evidence to the contrary. Rather, it is evidence that Mr. Seipp intended to avoid criminal or civil liability from his care, charge, or control of the vehicle involved in the accident. Such an intent falls within the ambit of the mens rea established by the expression “intent to escape civil or criminal liability” in s. 252(1). As a result, Mr. Seipp suffered no prejudice from his trial counsel’s admission that the elements of the offence had been made out. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.