DATE: 20010126

DOCKET: C34321

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) v. GARY LEO LEVESQUE (Appellant)

BEFORE: FINLAYSON, LABROSSE and LASKIN JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Murray H. Shore, for the appellant R. Graham Zoppi, for the respondent

HEARD: January 23, 2001

RELEASED ORALLY: January 23, 2001

On appeal from the sentence imposed on May 24, 2000 by Justice G. Palmer as a result of the conviction of the appellant on March 1, 2000.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant was involved in a serious motor vehicle accident when he made a left turn without warning and collided with an approaching vehicle. His passenger, his common-law wife, sustained significant bodily injuries as a result of the accident. The investigating officers formed the opinion that the appellant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by his consumption of alcohol. Registered blood alcohol readings of 294 and 288 (more than three times the legal limit) were obtained and were indicative of a conscious decision to drive despite severe intoxication.

[2] The appellant was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm. He pleaded guilty. On sentencing, the issue was whether or not a conditional sentence should be imposed. The sentencing judge emphasized the importance of a sufficient level of supervision in the community when considering conditional sentences. Having noted that the court had no such information before it, the appellant was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment and a twenty-one month driving prohibition. He appeals the sentence.

[3] The pre-sentence report indicated that the appellant began drinking at the age of sixteen and that there was ample evidence of a more longstanding substance abuse problem than the appellant would suggest. He admitted to a previous conviction for Over 80 mgs. and Care and Control in 1971-72. Contrary to the appellant’s perception, the information provided by his ex-wife and his common-law wife is indicative of alcohol-related problems right up to the time of the current offence.

[4] The sentencing judge was not satisfied that “on the whole” the appellant recognized the seriousness of his alcohol abuse. He noted there was no plan by which participation in any counselling program was to be monitored or supervised. It was reasonable for the sentencing judge to consider these factors in deciding whether the risk of having the appellant serve his sentence in the community could be safely taken.

[5] We recognize that, since the accident, the appellant has taken steps to straighten out his life. However, the sentencing judge addressed the relevant principles of sentencing. The sentence imposed is entitled to considerable deference and reflects no error in principle.

[6] The appeal is dismissed.

(signed) “G. D. Finlayson J.A.”

(signed) “J. M. Labrosse J.A.”

(signed) John Laskin J.A.”