Craig Sigurdson

The defendant pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death to two individuals (a mother and her five-year-old daughter), impaired driving causing bodily harm to a six-year-old child, dangerous driving causing death to both victims, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and possession of cannabis resin.

A head-on collision occurred on Highway 401 when the defendant's truck drifted across the median into oncoming traffic while travelling at 120 km/h in a 100 km/h zone.

The defendant had a blood-alcohol concentration between 60-96 mg per 100 mL of blood at the time of the collision.

The court imposed a joint submission of 8 years imprisonment, finding it appropriate given the aggravating circumstances including the defendant's extensive driving record (22 prior speeding convictions), excessive speed, aggressive driving behaviour, and the devastating impact on the victims' family.

The appellant pleaded guilty to mischief and uttering threats.

The Crown and defence made a joint submission for a conditional discharge with 18 months' probation.

The sentencing judge rejected the joint submission and entered convictions without notifying counsel of his concerns or allowing the appellant to withdraw his plea.

On appeal, the Superior Court found this violated the procedure set out in R. v. Anthony-Cook.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions and sentence were vacated, and the joint submission for a conditional discharge was imposed.

The court accepted a joint sentencing submission for the accused, Jason Daniel.

The sentence included credit for 189 days of pre-sentence custody (calculated at 1.5x, totaling 284 days), an additional 60 days of intermittent custody, and two years of probation.

Probation conditions included non-association with specified individuals, reporting requirements, residence approval, counselling, and prohibitions against possessing controlled drugs/substances or weapons.

A DNA order was issued, and a $200 victim fine surcharge was imposed.

Michael Larson was sentenced for an offence that significantly impacted the Ontario Provincial Police and Elgin County citizens, involving the destruction of the only OPP vessel.

Aggravating factors included the undermining of police authority and potential public safety risks.

Mitigating factors were numerous: Larson was a youthful first offender, had no prior criminal record, entered a guilty plea, provided fulsome statements, was on bail without incident for 2.5 years, had an excellent pre-sentence report, demonstrated remorse, and remarkably, had saved $15,000 towards anticipated restitution.

The court distinguished his case from a co-accused due to his lack of criminal record and proactive restitution efforts.

The sentence included 10 days credit for time in custody (concurrent on two counts), three years probation, a DNA order, a restitution order totaling $52,640.81 (less the $15,000 already saved), non-association with the co-accused, and a prohibition on weapons and incendiary devices.

A victim fine surcharge of $400 was also imposed.

The self-represented accused brought a Corbett application to exclude cross-examination on his extensive criminal record, which included 94 convictions.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing the trial was largely a contest of credibility.

The court balanced the probative value against the prejudicial effect, noting the accused had many convictions similar to the offences for which he was being tried.

The court ordered the redaction of convictions prior to 2000, impaired driving convictions, flight from peace officer, and certain driving disqualified convictions to ensure procedural fairness.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle contrary to section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The incident occurred in a Canadian Tire parking lot in St. Thomas, Ontario, when the accused's vehicle struck a cyclist from behind.

The Crown was required to prove that the accused operated the vehicle in a dangerous manner, constituting a marked departure from how a reasonable, prudent person would drive in similar circumstances.

The trial focused on the manner of driving immediately before the collision, not the result.

The court found that the accused became upset with the cyclist on the public roadway and followed him into the parking lot in an intimidating manner, either traveling at excessive speed throughout or accelerating before impact, without attempting to brake or maneuver to avoid the collision.

The court rejected the accused's testimony that the cyclist suddenly veered in front of the vehicle and found the driving constituted criminal conduct warranting conviction.