Citation No.: R. v. Wood, 2013 ONSC 2636
Court File No. CR-12-061
(Owen Sound)
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- v. -
DAVID ANDREW WOOD
R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CONLAN
On February 21, 2013, at BRAMPTON, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
M.J. Martin Counsel for the Crown
K. Murray Counsel for David Wood
(i)
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
SENTENCING
3
Transcript Ordered: .....................February 22, 2013
Transcript Completed: ...................March 8, 2013
Ordering Party Notified: ................March 15, 2013
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2013
R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E
CONLAN J. (Orally): (11:54 a.m.)
Mr. Wood, you may remain seated throughout these remarks.
These are my oral reasons for sentence in the matter of David Andrew Wood.
First, dealing with the facts. On December 4, 2012, Mr. Wood appeared before me in court in Owen Sound and entered guilty pleas to Counts 4 and 5 as drawn on the indictment.
Count 4 is that Mr. Wood on or about the 11th day of February, 2011, at the Town of Blue Mountains in the Central West Region, did operate a motor vehicle in a manner that was dangerous to the public and thereby caused bodily harm to William Howes, contrary to section 249(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Count 5 is that Mr. Wood, on the same date at the same place, did operate a motor vehicle in a manner that was dangerous to the public, and thereby caused bodily harm to Meryl Howes, contrary to the same section of the Criminal Code.
The facts underlying the guilty pleas entered by Mr. Wood on December 4, 2012 may be summarized as follows:
On Friday, February 11, 2011, at approximately 11:30 a.m., Mr. Wood was operating his black Nissan SUV. The vehicle was travelling northbound into the Village of Clarksburg. At that time there were a number of people on the sidewalks, and a number of cars parked in the Village of Clarksburg. The SUV operated by Mr. Wood was initially travelling in the northbound lane. It drifted over into the southbound lane, turned on an angle and impacted a 2005 Dodge Caravan owned by Meryl Howes and her husband William Howes. The Howes vehicle had been parked in the southbound lane.
The SUV being driven by Mr. Wood then spun around and impacted the van a second time. That impact was to the rear of the van into the wall.
The SUV being driven by Mr. Wood also impacted the rear of a third vehicle, pushing it into a fourth vehicle.
There were no injuries as a result of the third and fourth impacts. There were serious injuries as a result of the impacts with the Howes motor vehicle.
At the time Mr. and Mrs. Howes were exiting out of the van. Mr. Howes was found with his feet inside the passenger side of the van, but his body was outside the van. He was bleeding from the mouth and nose, and was unconscious. His wife was underneath him with her head under the van, and feet in a different position.
It is agreed that Mr. Wood had alcohol in his system, but not to the point of impairment as defined under the Criminal Code.
It goes without saying that this incident caused serious bodily harm to both Mr. and Mrs. Howes. Meryl Howes had a one- to two-inch gash in her calf on the right leg and was admitted to hospital. Mr. Howes’ injuries were substantially more severe, spending nearly five months in hospital.
It is conceded by Mr. Wood and his counsel that Mr. Wood was driving too fast for the conditions prior to the impact with the Howes motor vehicle. The SUV being operated by Mr. Wood initially lost control after hitting a snowdrift.
I will next deal with the personal circumstances of Mr. Wood as reflected in the pre-sentence report and the medical documentation filed by his counsel.
It should be noted that Mr. Wood is currently fifty-four years old, born April 27, 1958. As I indicated previously, he entered guilty pleas to the two charges. Mr. Wood has no prior criminal record.
In the pre-sentence report, under the Assessment section it is noted that Mr. Wood has an alcohol problem. It is noted by the author of the pre-sentence report that Mr. Wood is attending counselling with a psychotherapist.
In addition, in the pre-sentence report it is noted by the author that Mr. Wood spoke about how badly he felt for the victims. He also spoke about his stress with the court process.
The pre-sentence report verifies a number of serious health concerns for Mr. Wood, and the fact that he is supported by Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.
In my opinion, Mr. Wood has shown some remorse throughout this process, as reflected in his guilty pleas and as reflected in the comments that he made before the court today.
There is correspondence from physician/ psychotherapist Dr. Cowen. In one item of correspondence from Dr. Cowen it is noted that, in general terms, Mr. Wood continues to attend Dr. Cowen’s office for psychotherapy sessions, and that Mr. Wood is making steady progress in maintaining improved sobriety. The prognosis for Mr. Wood’s situation, in the opinion of Dr. Cowen, is generally favourable.
In the letter from Dr. Cowen dated February 14, 2013, the doctor makes some of the following comments:
That Mr. Wood is looking for assurance and reassurance from Dr. Cowen that the doctor will be willing to continue to see Mr. Wood for psychotherapy and counselling sessions after Mr. Wood’s sentence. Dr. Cowen indicates that, yes, Dr. Cowen is willing to do that, and is also willing to do it if Mr. Wood is the beneficiary of any temporary release program.
Dr. Cowen points out that Mr. Wood has shown progress during the psychotherapy sessions, and with regard to following his medication. Dr. Cowen points out that Mr. Wood has been positive in wanting to continue to access the services of Dr. Cowen. And Dr. Cowen makes the following remark in his letter of February 14, 2013:
“He and his wife have both described significant improvement in him as a consequence.”
The letter from Mr. Wood’s father, Sydney Wood, dated November 26, 2012, indicates as follows: Sydney Wood is eighty-six years of age. He asks that the court show some leniency to Mr. Wood. The father points out that Mr. Wood suffered what the father describes as “a debilitating personal injury” in the past, and Sydney Wood makes this remark in the letter dated November 26, 2012:
“Unfortunately, both David and Terry are permanently disabled now and unable to work. In addition, David has other serious degenerative health issues. They live on disability and other government pensions, and for the last ten years or so I have supplemented their income.”
Both counsel have referred to some of the principles of sentencing. The Criminal Code sets out several principles of sentencing, four of which are specific deterrence of the offender, general deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation. In my view, the primary sentencing objective in this case is general deterrence. The secondary objective, also important in this case, especially in view of Mr. Wood’s health concerns and his lack of any prior record, is rehabilitation.
A joint submission on sentence ought not to be departed from unless it is contrary to the public interest and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The law is very clear in that regard. R. v Cerasuolo, 2001 24172 (ON CA), 2001 151 C.C.C. (3d) 445 (Ont. COA) para 8.
In my view, this joint submission is a reasonable one. It balances the principles of sentencing at play and takes into consideration the gravity of the offences and the mitigating factors at play. Acceptance of this joint submission is not contrary to the public interest, and acceptance of this joint submission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
This event has changed the lives of Mr. and Mrs. Howes and their family forever. The ramifications have been devastating. No sentence that this court imposes on Mr. Wood will erase that. I wish it could be otherwise.
The court accepts the joint submission submitted, and the sentence is as follows:
On Count 4 of the indictment, Mr. Wood is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of eighteen months. On Count 4 of the indictment the court imposes a driving prohibition order under the Criminal Code for a period of three years.
On Count 5 of the indictment, the sentence of the court is eighteen months imprisonment, to be served concurrently. On Count 5 of the indictment, a three-year Criminal Code driving prohibition order is made, again to run concurrent with that imposed on Count Number 4.
The court makes the following recommendations with regard to the sentence of imprisonment to be served by Mr. Wood:
First, there is a recommendation that the sentence be served at the Central North Correctional Centre in Penetanguishine.
Second, the documentation from Dr. Cowen shall be attached to the warrant of committal.
And, third, Mr. Wood is to be seen by a medical professional or nurse as soon as possible to ensure that his medication is available as required.
Mr. and Mrs. Howes, I am struck by the degree of strength and perseverance that you have shown throughout this process, and it really is a testament of not only the strength of your marriage but the strength of you individually as well. And I have been oh so impressed with the level of the support that the family members have shown to Mr. and Mrs. Howes throughout this process, not only here today, but since the very moment after this devastating incident that occurred in Clarksburg. It is very gratifying to see such strong family support, and I have no doubt that it will continue for many years to come. I wish Mr. and Mrs. Howes and their family years of health and happiness to follow today.
Mr. Wood, I hope that you are able to continue your path of rehabilitation in the correctional facility.
MR. DAVID WOOD: Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
THE COURT: Is there anything further?
MR. MARTIN: No, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Mr. Murray?
MR. MURRAY: No, sir. Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you.
A D J O U R N E D (12:10 p.m.)
FORM 2
Certificate of Transcript
Evidence Act, Subsection 5(2)
I, Chris A. Charles, CVR-CM, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcription of the recording of, R. v. David Wood in the Superior Court of Justice held at 7755 Hurontario St., Brampton, Ontario, taken from Recording No., 3199_408_20130221_090850, which has been certified in Form 1.
(Date) (Chris A. Charles)
Photostat copies of this transcript are not certified and have not been paid for unless they bear the original signature of Chris Charles and accordingly are in direct violation of Ontario regulation 587/01, Courts of Justice Act, January 1, 1990