M.K. Wendl

The appellant appealed his conviction under section 141(5) of the Highway Traffic Act for making an unsafe left turn and colliding with a bicycle.

He argued the trial justice made an unreasonable finding of fact regarding the bicycle's speed and erred in applying the due diligence standard.

The appeal court found no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings and held that the trial justice properly applied the due diligence standard, noting the appellant turned while his vision was partially obstructed.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment by besetting or watching the workplace of his former partner.

Following a dispute over child support, the accused attended the complainant's home and workplace with signs calling her a 'deadbeat mom' and displaying her phone number.

The court found that the accused's conduct constituted 'besetting' under s. 264(2)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The court held that the complainant's fear for her psychological and emotional safety was objectively reasonable given the accused's intent to publicly humiliate her.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused pleaded guilty to criminal harassment, assault, and mischief in a domestic context.

At the time of the offences, the accused was on probation from a prior conditional discharge.

The court reviewed the law on the use of a prior conditional discharge in sentencing, concluding that while the accused is technically a first-time offender, the prior discharge and the fact that the accused was on probation are relevant to deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court accepted the joint submission of 11 days' pre-trial custody and probation.

The offender pled guilty to 'over 80' and driving while disqualified.

He had 12 prior drinking and driving convictions, but there was a 15-year gap since his last offence.

The court considered whether the 'gap principle' should mitigate his sentence.

Finding that the offender had continued to drink heavily and made no efforts at rehabilitation during the 15-year period, the court accorded little weight to the gap principle.

Emphasizing specific deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to 21 months' incarceration for the 'over 80' charge, 12 months concurrent for driving while disqualified, and imposed a lifetime driving prohibition.