DATE: 20040915
DOCKET: C39570
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – BERNARD JOSEPH ROWAN (Appellant)
BEFORE: WEILER, FELDMAN and ARMSTRONG JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Charles J.P. Ryall for the appellant
Susan G. Ficek for the respondent
HEARD: September 7, 2004
RELEASED ORALLY: September 7, 2004
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Margaret F. Woolcott of the Ontario Court of Justice dated January 24, 2003.
E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] The appellant pled guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm and was given a fine, probation and a licence suspension of 3 years. He appeals the three-year licence suspension on the basis that the sentencing judge erred in thinking that three years was the maximum sentence that could be imposed. In fact the maximum sentence is 10 years pursuant to s. 259(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.
[2] The appellant submits that the sentence in relation to the driving prohibition is outside the appropriate range. The appellant expressed remorse at the time of the accident, took treatment for his drinking problem, indicated an early intention to plead guilty and pled guilty, and has no criminal record. The injuries he caused were not as serious as in some cases where a driving prohibition of one or two years was imposed.
[1] In our opinion, having regard to the seriousness of the offence and the overall sentence imposed in this case, it was within the discretion of the trial judge to impose a three-year driving prohibition. The trial judge accepted a joint submission that a fine and period of probation, as opposed to a jail sentence, were sufficient to reflect the principles of general and specific deterrence but only with a driving prohibition period of three years. The trial judge was alive to the mitigating circumstances in this case. The extensive steps taken by the appellant to address his alcohol problem following the accident were commendable and were probably the reason why he was not incarcerated. The driving prohibition, while at the top end of the range for a first offender, was nevertheless within the range when the total sentence is considered.
[2] The appeal is therefore dismissed.
“Karen M. Weiler J.A.”
“K. Feldman J.A.”
“Robert P. Armstrong J.A.”