David Wilcox

Sigfrid Stahn was convicted by a jury of impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death.

The incident occurred on July 4, 2020, when Stahn, while impaired, veered into oncoming traffic on Highway 12, colliding with Mr. Guenter Naumann, who subsequently died.

Stahn had a significant criminal record, including two prior impaired driving convictions (1985, 1989) and a lengthy history of Highway Traffic Act infractions.

The court considered victim impact statements detailing the profound grief of the Naumann family.

Applying sentencing principles under the Criminal Code, particularly denunciation and general deterrence, and reviewing relevant case law (R. v. Muzzo, R. v. Altiman, R. v. Fracassi), the court identified aggravating factors including Stahn's prior record and apparent lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors were limited.

The Crown sought a 9-year custodial sentence and a 15-year driving prohibition, while the defence sought 6 years and a 10-year prohibition.

The court sentenced Stahn to 8 years imprisonment, an 11-year driving prohibition following release, and ordered a DNA sample.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug and breach of probation.

The accused was found sitting in his mother's vehicle in a farmer's field in the early morning hours.

Police observed dilated pupils, peculiar clothing, drug paraphernalia, and suspected drugs in the vehicle.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including the accused's physical presentation, dilated pupils, and items found in the vehicle to establish impairment.

The defence argued that the evidence amounted only to possibilities without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that while the accused's presentation was peculiar and possibly consistent with drug impairment, the absence of field sobriety testing, drug recognition expert evaluation, and chemical analysis of suspected substances, combined with limited evidence of actual incoordination, fell short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.