Court File and Parties

BARRIE COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-00000111 DATE: 20230614 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – SIGFRID STAHN Defendant

Counsel: Sarah Sullivan, for the Crown David Wilcox, for the Defendant

HEARD: May 31, 2023

Reasons for Sentence

MCKELVEY J.:

Introduction

[1] The afternoon of July 4, 2020 was a lovely afternoon. It was the Saturday just after Canada Day and the weather was sunny and warm. On that afternoon, however Mr. Stahn elected to drive his Toyota pickup truck while impaired. He was travelling eastbound on Highway 12 near Waubaushene. His vehicle as it entered into a corner on Highway 12 with a double yellow line suddenly veered into the westbound lane of travel and collided with a vehicle being driven by Mr. Guenter Naumann. Mr. Naumann was travelling westbound along Highway 12 enjoying what should have been an enjoyable drive in the country in his convertible with the top down.

[2] As a result of the accident, Mr. Naumann was initially taken to the local hospital and subsequently was transferred to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre where he died several days later.

[3] The accused was charged and convicted by a jury of impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death. Under s. 320.21 of the Criminal Code, the defendant is subject to a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life.

[4] As noted in the decision of Justice Fuerst in R. v. Muzzo, 2016 ONSC 2068, the sad reality is that more than 30 years ago the Ontario Court of Appeal declared that members of the public who travel the roadways of the Province should not live in fear that they may meet with a driver whose faculties are impaired by alcohol. However, the message that every drinking driver is a potential killer of innocent members of the community continues to go unheeded.

Circumstances of the Accident

[5] As noted previously, the defendant Sigfrid Stahn, was travelling eastbound on Highway 12. Behind the defendant’s vehicle was another vehicle being driven by Lecia Fagan. She noticed Mr. Stahn’s vehicle was swerving a lot. This caused her to move back a little bit from the black Toyota truck driven by Mr. Stahn. Suddenly the black Toyota pickup truck lost control and veered onto the other side of the roadway. At this point Mr. Stahn’s vehicle was fully in the westbound lane. There was a car coming the other way driven by Mr. Naumann and the two vehicles hit head on in the middle of the roadway.

[6] The accident occurred between 2:00 and 2:30 p.m. When Officer Morrison, the investigating police officer, attended at the scene he detected a strong odour of alcohol in the defendant’s vehicle. He then placed Mr. Stahn under arrest and provided a police escort for Mr. Stahn to the Georgian Bay General Hospital.

[7] At the Georgian Bay Hospital blood was drawn at 4:04 p.m. from Mr. Stahn. The blood test result was equivalent to 134 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. According to the evidence of Dr. Elliot from the Centre of Forensic Sciences, this result is equivalent to Mr. Stahn having a blood alcohol reading of 134 to 164 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood at the time of the accident.

[8] A breath sample was subsequently taken from Mr. Stahn at 6:18 p.m. which showed a reading of 70. Taking into account the provisions of the Criminal Code and the passage of time, Mr. Stahn’s blood alcohol concentration is deemed to have been 85 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood at the time of the accident.

[9] Based on this evidence it is clear that Mr. Stahn’s blood alcohol level was above the legal limit at the time of the accident. While the blood alcohol level taken from the sample at the hospital indicates a very high blood alcohol level, the disparity between the two readings leaves a reasonable doubt as to exactly how far over the limit Mr. Stahn’s alcohol level was at the time of the accident.

[10] What is clear, however is that Mr. Naumann was driving appropriately in his lane of travel prior to the accident. The jury clearly concluded Mr. Stahn’s impaired ability to operate a motor vehicle was a significant contributing cause of Mr. Naumann’s death.

Victim Impact Statements

[11] Rejeanne Lachapelle is Mr. Naumann’s wife. The loss of her husband has been very traumatic for her. In her victim impact statement she states,

They say you should forgive. I don’t know who they are but I can’t and I won’t. You took the love of my life and his name was Guenter. I hope when you sleep you see that name cause I do every night. He was my rock, a man that did right in this world and cause of you he is no longer here. I lost a family that I thought I had. I lost my home because of you. I find it hard to go on without my rock just because you like to break the law again. When I sleep I see his swollen black face and tubes and pins that was holding his body together. The pain he must have felt because of you. He worked at the same place for 50 ½ years just enjoying retirement. Then you decided to get drunk and drive and take his life.

[12] Ruth Roberts was the sister-in-law to Mr. Naumann. She described how his death has impacted her and her family. She also describes how Mr. Naumann was the one she turned to for advice and that she misses his guidance everyday. She states,

I hate seeing my sister as she suffers from depression and grief. I miss the glint in her eye that she had while Guenter was alive. I hate the fact that she lost her home. It was a very costly move to both of us when she had to move in with me. We had to do home renovations to accommodate her physical limitations.

Guenter was my sister’s spouse, friend, protector, and love of her life. She has not been the same since that horrific car crash.

[13] It is apparent that the impact on the Naumann family has been profound. The victim impact statements express anguish, fear, anger and consuming hatred. The family appears to be utterly crushed by grief.

Applicable Legal Principles

[14] The principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, which provides as follows:

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[15] Section 718.1 provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[16] It would also appear that s. 320.12 of the Criminal Code is relevant. In that section, the code recognizes and declares that operating a motor vehicle is a privilege that is subject to certain limits in the interest of public safety that include licensing, the observance of rules and sobriety.

[17] Section 320.12(b) specifically provides that:

The protection of society is well served by deterring persons from operating conveyances dangerously or while their ability to operate them is impaired by alcohol or a drug, because that conduct poses a threat to the life, health and safety of Canadians.

Position of the Parties

[18] The Crown takes the position that an appropriate sentence for Mr. Stahn is a custodial sentence of 9 years together with a 15 year driving prohibition. The defence submission is that a custodial sentence of 6 years and a 10 year driving prohibition would be appropriate.

Circumstances of the Offender

[19] A pre-sentence report was obtained with respect to Mr. Stahn. This report indicates that Mr. Stahn is currently 72 years old. He was born in Berlin, Germany and immigrated to Toronto when he was five years old. Mr. Stahn had a positive upbringing and explained that he worked for the family business at a young age to help his parents financially. He denied there were any physical or substance abuse issues in the family home. In the early 1960’s the family moved to Honey Harbour where his father purchased a marina which he owned and operated until he passed away. His mother passed away approximately 20 years ago, and his father approximately 5 years later.

[20] Mr. Stahn has been married for 50 years. He described their relationship as good. His wife is currently struggling with some health issues which affect her mobility. His daughter passed away just before the COVID-19 pandemic from cancer. His son currently lives with him. He has several grandchildren with whom he continues to have contact with. He described his family as being very supportive of him.

[21] The author of the pre-sentence report noted that Mr. Stahn’s sister related that their father was an alcoholic and that his drinking caused some issues. She believed that her father’s alcohol abuse was as a result of the war. She related, however, that Mr. Stahn got along well with their father.

[22] Mr. Stahn’s son denied any abuse in the childhood home. He described his parents as always being supportive of him and providing him with what he needed.

[23] Mr. Stahn has a grade 8 education. He admitted that he did not do well in school, partly due to not speaking English, and also possibly because of his German heritage following the war.

[24] Mr. Stahn currently operates a business building boats for customers.

[25] Mr. Stahn described himself as a “social drinker”. He denied that alcohol has ever been an issue.

[26] Mr. Stahn does have a criminal record. His criminal record includes two impaired driving convictions. One conviction was in 1985 and the other occurred in 1989. Mr. Stahn also has a lengthy history of Highway Traffic Act infractions. These started in 1974 and run until 2015. The infractions include numerous offences for speeding, a conviction for careless driving in 2005, driving without a proper license and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

[27] Mr. Stahn also has a number of other criminal convictions, most of which are dated. He was convicted of theft over $50 in 1968. He was convicted of breaking and entering in 1971. He was also convicted of breaking and entering in 1974. He was convicted of escaping lawful custody in 1986.

[28] I consider the two previous impaired driving convictions to be the most significant aspects of Mr. Stahn’s criminal record. It is interesting to note that in the pre-sentence report, when commenting on his previous convictions for driving under the influence, Mr. Stahn noted that, “living in Honey Harbour, there was no other option available to him at that time.”

[29] When discussing the details of the offence, according to the pre-sentence report, Mr. Stahn, “indicated that he feels sorry for the victim but believes that “[the victim] could have avoided the accident”.

Aggravating Factors

[30] There are a number of serious aggravating factors in this case. Mr. Stahn has two prior Criminal Code convictions for impaired driving. His comment to the pre-sentence report author that living in Honey Harbour, there were no other options available to him is frightening. Mr. Stahn seems to feel that he was entitled to drink and drive because there were no other convenient options available to him. The answer, of course, is that if he needed to drive somewhere, he ought to refrain from becoming impaired. This message seems to have been lost on Mr. Stahn. Mr. Stahn does not seem to appreciate that every time he gets into a vehicle and his abilities are impaired, he poses a serious risk to other users of the roadway. To a significant extent, it appears that Mr. Stahn was an accident waiting to happen.

[31] I have concluded, however, that it would not be appropriate for me to consider statements made by Mr. Stahn to the author of the pre-sentence report relating to prior offences as aggravating factors in this case. Nevertheless, Mr. Stahn’s two previous convictions for impaired driving clearly reflect that Mr. Stahn has not learned anything from his previous convictions for impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

[32] I have concluded that the prospects for rehabilitation of Mr. Stahn are very limited. This means that a lengthy period for a driving prohibition needs to be imposed on him following completion of his sentence.

[33] A further aggravating factor is Mr. Stahn’s driving history as summarized in a large number of Highway Traffic Act convictions. Mr. Stahn consistently ignores the rules of the road. He has been convicted of careless driving, speeding, failing to have proper insurance and failing to remain at the scene of an accident. Mr. Stahn appears to be proceeding on the basis that the rules of the road do not apply to him.

Mitigating Factors

[34] There are some mitigating circumstances in this case. Mr. Stahn does appear to have a supportive family. As noted by his defence counsel he takes care of his wife who is disabled. He has been described by others as social and hardworking. It was also suggested by his counsel that the accused is remorseful and accepts that it was his fault that he drove on the wrong side of the road. He sincerely regrets that he caused the death of Mr. Naumann. In this regard, however, I note that there is some reason to doubt whether Mr. Stahn is truly remorseful for the accident. As noted earlier, in the pre-sentence report when discussing the details of the offence Mr. Stahn stated that he feels sorry for the victim but he believes the accident was caused by the victim. He does not appear to accept responsibility for his actions. While this may not constitute an aggravating factor, it causes me to conclude that he is not truly remorseful and that this is not properly taken into consideration as a mitigating factor.

Analysis

[35] While Mr. Stahn did not mean to kill anyone, he did mean to drink and he did mean to drive. And the consequences in this case were fatal. Mr. Stahn has demonstrated that he does not accept that the rules of the road apply to him. He has a long history of driving infractions including drinking and driving offences. The result is the unfortunate death of Mr. Naumann.

[36] As noted at para. 58 of the Muzzo decision, in cases of drinking and driving, particularly where death is involved, denunciation and general deterrence are the paramount sentencing objectives. Denunciation refers to the communication of society’s condemnation of the conduct. General deterrence refers to the sending of a message to discourage others who might be inclined to engage in similar conduct in the future.

[37] Justice Fuerst also notes in the Muzzo decision that because the offence of impaired driving causing death can be committed in almost an infinite variety of circumstances, the Court of Appeal for Ontario has concluded that there is no range of sentences that applies to this crime. Having said that, the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Altiman, 2019 ONCA 511, explained that in their review of the case law, sentences for impaired driving causing death typically have fallen into the 4-6 year range, unless the offender has a prior criminal or driving offence record. Where the offender does have such a record, lengthier sentences have been imposed ranging from 7 ½ to 12 years.

[38] In the Altiman case, the appellant sped through a red light and collided with another vehicle. Two individuals in the other vehicle were killed and two others were very seriously injured. The speed of the appellant’s vehicle at the time of impact was 187 kilometres per hour. In that case, the Court of Appeal reduced the defendant’s sentence from 10 years to 7. It is to be noted, however, that in the Altiman decision, the mitigating factors included a guilty plea from day one, extreme remorse and the relatively young age of the offender, together with the absence of any criminal record or Highway Traffic Act convictions.

[39] In R. v. Fracassi, 2017 ONSC 28, Justice Boswell dealt with a case where the accused was convicted of impaired driving causing death and impaired driving causing bodily harm. The case involved a situation where the accused’s vehicle struck two construction workers on the roadway, one of whom died as a result of his injuries. The accused did not brake before hitting the workers, nor did he attempt to steer around them, nor did he stop after the collision. His blood alcohol level was in the range of 175 to 200 milligrams in 100 millilitres of blood. An aggravating factor was that the accused had a record for a number of prior driving infractions, mostly relating to speeding. Justice Boswell sentenced the accused to 6 years in custody. It would appear that the present case is more serious given the accused’s history of impaired driving offences, as well as his record of Highway Traffic Act convictions.

[40] In my view, the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Altiman makes it clear that where the offender has a prior criminal or driving offence record, lengthier sentences should be imposed ranging from 7 ½ years to 12 years.

[41] I have concluded that in this case, the appropriate sentence for Mr. Stahn is 8 years in custody. In addition, there shall be an order prohibiting Mr. Stahn from driving for a total of 11 years following his release from incarceration in accordance with s. 320.24(5) of the Criminal Code.

[42] Finally, as this offence is a primary designated offence under s. 487.051, there will be an order for Mr. Stahn to provide a sample for DNA analysis based on his conviction for an offence which has been designated as a primary designated offence under s. 487.04 of the Criminal Code.

Conclusion

[43] Mr. Stahn would you please stand.

[44] Taking into account the principles of sentencing and balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors, I have concluded that you should be sentenced to 8 years imprisonment. Pre-trial credit is to be given to you for two days in custody. In addition, you are subject to a driving prohibition for 11 years following your release from custody. Finally, you are required to provide a sample for DNA analysis.

[45] My previous order with respect to your driving prohibition pending sentencing is now vacated.

Justice M. McKelvey Released: June 14, 2023