N. Dietrich

The Crown appealed the sentence of the respondent, who pleaded guilty to four drinking and driving offences.

The sentencing judge had declined to treat the respondent's 1985 impaired driving conviction as a previous conviction under s. 255(4) of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to time served.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court allowed the appeal, finding that the 1985 conviction was a previous conviction by virtue of the Interpretation Act, triggering the mandatory minimum sentence of 120 days.

The court varied the sentence to 6 months in custody, 3 years' probation, and a 5-year driving prohibition.

The Crown appealed acquittals for impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100 ml.

The trial judge had rejected the accused’s testimony but nonetheless acquitted on the basis that the accused had the opportunity to consume alcohol after driving and before arrest.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge failed to properly consider the statutory presumptions under s. 258(1)(c) and the evidentiary requirements of s. 258(1)(d.1) of the Criminal Code, as well as the governing principles in St‑Onge Lamoureux.

The court found this omission constituted an error of law and that the reasons were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.

The acquittal on the “over .08” charge was set aside and a new trial ordered, while the acquittal for impaired driving was upheld.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences including sexual interference with a minor, making and possessing child pornography, smuggling obscene materials, and breaching recognizance conditions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the severe emotional impact on the victim and the accused's flagrant breaches of bail conditions by re-offending.

The accused was sentenced to a global term of 6 years in custody, reduced to 4.5 years net after applying a 1.5:1 enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody due to physical assaults suffered in jail.