Ashley Galea

Margaret Park-Romain pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death.

The court considered victim impact statements, the offender's background, and sentencing principles, including the disparity between sentences for dangerous driving causing death and impaired driving causing death.

The judge emphasized general deterrence and denunciation, imposing a three-year penitentiary sentence and a five-year driving prohibition, plus the period of imprisonment.

The defendant, K.B., a 27-year-old first offender with no criminal record and significant family caregiving responsibilities, was found guilty of sexual assault involving two sleeping victims, one with digital penetration.

The Crown sought six months of real jail, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court, emphasizing proportionality and the individualized nature of sentencing for first offenders, determined that a conditional sentence was appropriate, capable of achieving denunciation and deterrence without requiring incarceration.

K.B. received a 12-month conditional sentence (9 months house arrest, 3 months curfew) followed by 18 months probation and community service.

Brent Armitage pleaded guilty to failing to remain at a collision that resulted in death.

The Crown sought 18-24 months real jail, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the impact on the victim's family, and the offender's background, including his genuine remorse and health issues (sleep apnea).

Applying the principles of proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the judge imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by 18 months probation, a 5-year driving prohibition, and other conditions, finding that a conditional sentence would better achieve the sentencing objectives than real jail given the specific circumstances.

The accused, Carly Delorme, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood-alcohol concentration over 80 mg%.

The trial judge dismissed both charges.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in officer testimony and the accused's normal behaviour on video.

Regarding the "over 80" charge, while the Certificate of Analysis was admitted (the court held that virtual exhibits could be "duplicate originals" and satisfied legal requirements), the Crown failed to prove that the operation occurred within the two-hour timeframe preceding the officer's arrival, which is a necessary element of the re-worded offence.

The presumption of care and control was also rebutted as the vehicle was inoperable and the accused was trapped.