Criminal negligence causing death

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving causing death and criminal negligence causing death arising from a fatal ATV accident.

The appellant was towing the deceased's disabled ATV using a short fabric sling when his vehicle drifted left, causing the tow strap to become caught and the deceased's ATV to flip, resulting in her death.

The trial judge found the appellant was impaired by alcohol, engaged in an inherently dangerous towing operation without proper concentration, and that his conduct constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable driver.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence, no error in the trial judge's treatment of expert and lay evidence regarding the tow setup, and that causation was properly established for both offences.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered an appeal by Sally Darosa from her sentence for criminal negligence causing death, specifically challenging the seven-year custodial sentence and the imposition of a lifetime driver’s licence suspension under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court upheld the custodial sentence, finding it was not demonstrably unfit given the egregious facts and Darosa’s record.

However, the court set aside the lifetime licence suspension, holding that the trial judge did not have a full understanding of the legal consequences of such an order, and remitted the matter for reconsideration.

The court sentenced Milton Urgiles to five years' imprisonment for criminal negligence causing death, following the fatal crash of a commercial truck with unroadworthy tires.

The decision reviews the facts, victim impact, aggravating and mitigating factors, and relevant sentencing principles and authorities, emphasizing the high degree of moral blameworthiness and the need for denunciation and deterrence in workplace safety offences.

The offender, Taran Hibma, was found guilty of criminal negligence causing death after inserting lit sparklers into a sleeping cabin, causing a fire that killed Genesis Young, 17.

The court considered principles of sentencing, including denunciation, general deterrence, and rehabilitation, particularly given the offender's youth and substance abuse issues.

Despite arguments for a conditional sentence, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately address denunciation and general deterrence, while also considering rehabilitation.

Hibma was sentenced to 18 months in custody followed by 18 months of probation with conditions aimed at addressing his substance abuse.

The Estate of Hermina Fletcher sought punitive damages against Lindsey Coyle, who had previously been found liable for $130,000 in compensatory damages and sentenced to two years imprisonment for criminal negligence causing death.

The court considered the objectives of retribution, deterrence, and denunciation, and the fact that Coyle had already received a significant criminal sentence and lost her profession.

The motion for punitive damages was dismissed, with no order as to costs, as the combination of compensatory damages and the prison sentence was deemed sufficient to achieve the objectives.

This motion concerned a claim for damages against a nurse, Lindsey Coyle, who falsified medication orders and failed to administer medication to patient Hermina Fletcher, leading to Ms. Fletcher's death from morphine toxicity.

Coyle had pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death.

The plaintiffs, Ms. Fletcher's Estate, her son, and granddaughter, sued Coyle for damages.

Coyle did not defend the action.

The court found that the common law doctrine of fraudulent concealment suspended the limitation period, making the action timely.

Coyle was found liable.

The court assessed general damages for the Estate at $25,000 and damages for loss of care, guidance, and companionship under the Family Law Act for the son at $40,000 and the granddaughter at $25,000.

The motion also granted a sealing order, a bar order preventing Coyle from seeking contribution or indemnity, and awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis ($40,000), with the balance of the motion adjourned for the determination of punitive damages.

The offender, a police officer, was found guilty of failing to provide necessaries of life after a conviction for criminal negligence causing death was quashed on appeal.

The court addressed the defence's application to re-open the case and decline conviction on the remaining charge, which was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

The court then proceeded to sentence the offender for failing to provide necessaries of life, imposing an 18-month conditional sentence, considering the reduced moral blameworthiness after the criminal negligence conviction was overturned, and the offender's mental health and the harsher impact of custody on a former police officer.

Caleb Burgler pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death after robbing an 86-year-old woman, Marion Fenwick, causing her to fall and sustain a hip fracture, which led to her death from pneumonia.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, foreseeability of harm, the offender's flight, and the significant impact on the victim's family and community.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, remorse, first offender status, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, and family support for rehabilitation.

The offender's long-standing opioid addiction was not considered a mitigating factor.

The court sentenced the offender to six years in jail, less pre-sentence custody, followed by three years of probation, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and public protection.

This is a sentencing decision following a trial where Derrick Adams was found guilty of manslaughter and trafficking fentanyl.

The court considered the appropriate sentence, balancing aggravating factors such as Adams' extensive criminal record, lack of full remorse, and the victim's young age, against limited mitigating factors including some remorse and a streamlined trial.

The judgment discusses the evolving sentencing ranges for fentanyl trafficking and related deaths, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The court also applied a "Duncan credit" to reduce the sentence due to harsh pre-trial detention conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A global sentence of 8 years for manslaughter (concurrent 6 years for trafficking) was imposed, with credit for pre-trial custody.

The accused, J.C., was sentenced for criminal negligence causing the death of his six-month-old son.

The child sustained severe burns from a butane torch and died due to the burns and lidocaine toxicity from an ointment applied by J.C., who failed to seek medical attention for two days.

The court accepted a joint submission for an eight-year sentence, emphasizing the high moral blameworthiness, prolonged abdication of parental responsibility, and the need for denunciation and deterrence, despite mitigating factors like a guilty plea and remorse.

The court also noted the inadequate care of the other children.

The appellant, Alain Joseph Boily, appealed a driving prohibition imposed following his guilty plea to criminal negligence causing death.

The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had jurisdiction to impose a driving prohibition under the amended s. 320.24(4) of the Criminal Code, which no longer explicitly lists criminal negligence causing death as an offence attracting such a prohibition.

The Court of Appeal found that despite the apparent legislative oversight and the resulting absurdity (where a less serious offence would attract a prohibition but a more serious one would not), the plain language of the statute did not grant the power to impose the prohibition.

The court emphasized that correcting such a legislative gap falls to Parliament, not the judiciary.

The appeal was allowed, and the driving prohibition was set aside.

The appellant, an overnight attendant at a group home, was convicted of criminal negligence causing the death of a resident with developmental disabilities who drowned in a bathtub.

The appellant had left the resident unsupervised, contrary to an "eyes-on" protocol.

On appeal, the court found the verdict unreasonable due to insufficient evidence of causation.

The forensic pathologist's opinion on drowning was based on information not fully supported by the record, and he could not eliminate other potential causes like a sudden cardiac event.

The court noted a risk of the jury reasoning backward from the death to infer causation without sufficient evidentiary basis.

The conviction was set aside, and an acquittal was entered.

Jason William Heffernan pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death after an incident in a shopping plaza parking lot where the victim, Corby Stott, was struck and killed.

Stott was attempting to direct traffic when a confrontation ensued, leading to Heffernan driving his vehicle with Stott on the hood, accelerating to a speed that caused Stott to fall and sustain fatal head trauma.

The court considered the principles of denunciation, general deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Aggravating factors included the verbal confrontation, aggressive driving, driving with the victim on the hood, failure to stop immediately, and the significant impact on the victim's family.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, expressed remorse, calling 911, remaining at the scene, the offence being out of character, and strong family support.

The court emphasized the high moral blameworthiness despite the absence of intent to kill.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of statements made by the accused, Eric Brown, concerning drug consumption and cell phone use prior to a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary and obtained in violation of Mr. Brown's Charter rights under ss. 10(a) and (b).

The court found that the Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily due to the police's failure to caution Mr. Brown about the use of his statements and the full extent of his jeopardy, especially after the victim's death was known.

Furthermore, the court determined that Mr. Brown was detained when placed in the police vehicle and that the police breached his ss. 10(a) and (b) Charter rights by not promptly informing him of the reasons for his detention or his right to counsel, nor of the victim's death.

Applying the Grant test, the court concluded that the Charter-infringing conduct was serious, the impact on Mr. Brown's rights significant, and that admitting the statements would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Consequently, both the statements made to police and the recorded telephone conversation with his mother were excluded from evidence at trial.

The accused, Gerald Quigley, was charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death following a multi-vehicle collision on Highway 400.

The court found that the accused failed to conduct a mandatory daily inspection of the tractor-trailer's air brakes, resulting in severely compromised braking ability.

This failure constituted a wanton and reckless disregard for public safety and a marked departure from reasonable driving conduct.

The court concluded that the accused's criminal negligence was a significant contributing cause of the victim's death.

Convictions were entered for both charges, with the dangerous operation causing death charge conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

Joanna Flynn, a registered nurse, was charged with manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death after discontinuing a patient's life support.

The Crown sought to examine hospital physicians and nurses regarding their awareness and understanding of hospital policies and practices concerning life support discontinuation, informed consent, and pronouncing death.

The defence argued this evidence was not logically relevant to the standard of care, which requires expert testimony, and that its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, ruling that the understanding and experience of other hospital staff could not establish the standard of care for a "reasonable" or "reasonably prudent" person, which must be determined by expert evidence.

The accused was found guilty of dangerous driving causing death, criminal negligence causing death, and manslaughter.

The court addressed the issue of multiple convictions, conditionally staying manslaughter and dangerous driving causing death, and entering a conviction for criminal negligence causing death.

The court also criticized the Pre-Sentence Report for inappropriate content.

Considering aggravating and mitigating factors, including the accused's youth, lack of prior criminal record, and the absence of alcohol, the court imposed a sentence of two years less a day imprisonment, followed by three years of probation, and a 15-year driving prohibition.

The accused pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death after driving at extreme speed, consuming alcohol, and texting, resulting in a fatal collision with a motorcycle.

The court considered mitigating factors, including the early guilty plea, genuine remorse, youth, and lack of prior record, alongside aggravating factors such as the "trifecta" of dangerous driving (drinking, excessive speed, distracted driving) and the devastating impact on the victim's family.

Emphasizing general deterrence as the predominant sentencing objective, the court analogized distracted driving causing death to impaired driving causing death, highlighting the voluntary nature of the risks involved.

The accused was sentenced to 3.5 years imprisonment, a 69-month driving prohibition, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

Richard Scott Gamble and David Paul Gregory were charged with multiple criminal offences, including possession of stolen property.

Gamble was additionally charged with criminal negligence causing death, driving while disqualified, and failing to stop at the scene of an accident.

The trial proceeded by judge alone.

The court meticulously reviewed witness testimony, forensic evidence (DNA from airbag, hair, blood), and post-offence conduct to determine the driver of a fleeing vehicle involved in a fatal collision.

The court found Gamble to be the driver, rejecting his claim of being a passenger and the existence of a third driver.

Gamble was found guilty of criminal negligence causing death, driving while disqualified, and failing to stop.

Gregory was found guilty of possession of stolen property.

Gamble was found not guilty of possession of stolen property due to reasonable doubt regarding his knowledge of the "burn and earn" scheme.

The defendant, Kyle Hazelton, was charged with criminal negligence causing death, dangerous driving causing death, and failing to stop at the scene of an accident, all stemming from an incident on July 18, 2013, that resulted in the death of Scott Shannon.

The Crown alleged that Hazelton intentionally or negligently accelerated his truck while Shannon was holding onto the driver's side, causing his death, and then failed to stop.

The defence argued that the Crown's inferences were speculative and that the key witness's evidence was unreliable.

The court found the Crown's evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the reliability of witness observations, the nature of the acceleration, and Hazelton's knowledge of the accident.