R. v. Currell, 2010 ONCA 826

Court File and Parties

Citation: R. v. Currell, 2010 ONCA 826 Date: 2010-12-06 Docket: C52047

Court of Appeal for Ontario Laskin, Armstrong and LaForme JJ.A.

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

David Currell Appellant

Counsel: Howard C. Cohen, for the appellant Megan Stephens, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: November 29, 2010

On appeal from the sentence imposed on February 23, 2010, by Justice John R. Belleghem of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury.

Endorsement

Endorsement

1Mr. Currell submits that the trial judge erred in not imposing a conditional sentence. His main argument is that the trial judge failed to give enough weight to three important considerations: 1) the triggering incident for Mr. Currell’s decision to leave the party and drive; 2) the seemingly good prognosis for the child, Jaxon; and, 3) the stringent bail terms Mr. Currell complied with for two-and-a-half years. We do not accept this argument.

2The trial judge acknowledged that Mr. Currell started to drive because of his fear of his attacker. But the trial judge also found that Mr. Currell had enough control of his faculties to decide whether to continue driving or stop and get help. Although there were many places along the way for him to stop, Mr. Currell chose to keep driving and the tragic accident, which otherwise could have been avoided, needlessly occurred.

3The trial judge’s finding at para. 10 of his reasons of the catastrophic consequences of the accident for Jaxon are well supported by the catastrophic impairment assessment and by Ms. Reay’s victim impact statement.

4Finally, in his sentencing reasons, the trial judge took into account the stringent bail terms imposed on Mr. Currell.

5We recognize the several mitigating considerations to which Mr. Cohen referred in his argument. But the trial judge, too, recognized these considerations. Nonetheless, in reasons that are both thorough and balanced, he decided to impose a custodial sentence. His decision to do so is consistent with the jurisprudence of this court. We have no basis to interfere with it.

Disposition

6Accordingly, although leave to appeal sentence is granted, the sentence appeal is dismissed.