S. Purohit

Following a jury conviction for second degree murder of the offender’s spouse, the court determined the appropriate period of parole ineligibility.

The Crown sought 15 years while the defence argued for 10 to 12 years.

Applying ss. 718–718.2 and 745.4 of the Criminal Code and considering comparable jurisprudence, the court assessed aggravating factors including the brutal domestic killing, breach of trust, and the victim’s defensive injuries, as well as mitigating factors such as the offender’s lack of criminal record and positive community reputation.

The jury’s recommendation of 15 to 20 years was considered but not followed.

The court fixed the parole ineligibility period at 13 years.

The appellant appealed a conviction for failing or refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to consider relevant jurisprudence regarding the “last chance” doctrine where an accused initially refuses but subsequently offers to comply with an approved screening device demand shortly thereafter.

The court held that the refusal was clear, repeated, and unequivocal, and that the subsequent offer to comply minutes later did not negate the completed offence.

The trial judge properly applied the jurisprudence, including the principle that compliance must be immediate and not at a time chosen by the driver.

The appeal was dismissed.