3 total
Suspended sentence and three years' probation imposed for criminal negligence causing death of child in farm accident.
The accused was found guilty of criminal negligence causing death after his four-year-old son fell from the bucket of a skid steer and was killed.
The court considered the tragic circumstances, the accused's lack of criminal record, his deep remorse, and the positive changes made to farm safety.
Finding that the accused's conduct was at the lowest end of the spectrum of deliberate endangerment and that a jail sentence would compound the family's grief, the court imposed a suspended sentence with three years of probation and a 10-year driving prohibition.
A father convicted of criminal negligence causing death after his child fell from farm equipment received a suspended sentence.
The defendant was convicted of criminal negligence causing death following the death of his four-year-old son on a farm.
The child fell from the bucket of a skid steer while the defendant was operating the equipment and was struck by the machine.
The defendant had placed both his young sons in the bucket untethered while actively working with the equipment.
The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day plus probation and a driving prohibition.
Defence counsel sought a suspended sentence with probation.
The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years of probation, a ten-year driving prohibition, and conditions including grief counselling and 240 hours of community service focused on farm safety education.
The court set aside the dismissal of a private prosecution and a substantial costs award against an informant who missed a court date.
A private prosecution appeal under the Provincial Offences Act concerning a charge of driving a motorized vehicle on a beach in violation of a municipal bylaw.
The appellant (informant and prosecutor) failed to appear on the trial date due to a genuine mistake regarding the date.
The justice of the peace dismissed the charge and awarded substantial costs against the appellant without notice or hearing.
The appeal court found that while the justice had discretion to dismiss, the circumstances—including unnecessary court-initiated adjournments, confusion about withdrawal versus dismissal authority, and an unjustified costs award—warranted intervention in the interests of justice.
The court set aside the dismissal and costs order, ordering a new trial before a different justice.
