R. Burke

The offender was sentenced for Criminal Negligence Causing Death after pleading guilty to driving a truck at high speeds through residential streets while fleeing police, striking and killing a 69-year-old pedestrian.

The offender had a prior criminal record including drug offences, dangerous driving, and multiple driving-while-prohibited convictions.

The Crown sought eight years; the defence sought five years.

The court imposed eight years less pretrial custody, finding the offence was aggravated by the deliberate nature of the criminally negligent driving undertaken to evade police apprehension, the calculated manner in which the pursuit was initiated, continued reckless driving after police backed off, and the offender's conduct after striking the victim.

The court also imposed consecutive sentences for related driving-while-prohibited and obstruct police charges, resulting in a total sentence of six years and two months, plus a 15-year driving prohibition.

The accused pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and to refusing to provide a breath sample after a motor vehicle collision that killed a child passenger.

The collision occurred when the accused drove through a stop sign at excessive speed and struck another vehicle lawfully proceeding through the intersection.

Although alcohol had been consumed prior to the collision, the impaired driving causing death charge was withdrawn as part of a joint submission.

The court reviewed sentencing ranges for dangerous driving causing death and emphasized the high threshold for rejecting a joint submission.

Finding the proposed disposition within the reasonable range and not contrary to the public interest, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence totaling 27 months and a four‑year driving prohibition.

The defendant was charged with failing to comply with an approved screening device (ASD) demand after being pulled over for speeding and suspected impaired driving.

Despite multiple opportunities and instructions, the defendant was unable to produce an adequate breath sample, resulting in arrest.

The Crown sought conviction under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The court acquitted the defendant, finding that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally failed to comply with the demand.

The court adopted the Lewko/Soucy formulation of mens rea, requiring proof of intentional non-compliance rather than mere knowledge or recklessness.