Steven Scharger

Heather Noganosh pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing two deaths and one bodily harm.

The court considered aggravating factors (deliberate passing, exceeding speed, obstructed view, novice driver, pregnant) and significant mitigating factors (first offender, remorse, strong community support, primary caregiver for disabled parents, Aboriginal heritage requiring Gladue considerations).

The Crown sought 42 months imprisonment, while the defence sought a minimal or suspended sentence.

The court rejected a fixed sentencing range for dangerous driving causing death, emphasizing individual factors and moral blameworthiness.

A 12-month concurrent sentence for the deaths and 3 months concurrent for bodily harm was imposed, along with two years probation and a five-year driving prohibition, considering her unique circumstances as an Aboriginal offender and the detrimental effect of a longer incarceration.

The Crown sought the forfeiture of a recognizance against the accused and a surety following a breach of a non-communication condition.

The breach occurred under a first recognizance, which was subsequently vacated and replaced by a second.

The Certificate of Default, required under section 770 of the Criminal Code, was mistakenly completed on the second recognizance instead of the one that was actually breached.

The court held that jurisdiction for estreatment requires the Certificate of Default to be endorsed on the specific recognizance that was breached, not a successor.

Due to this procedural error, the court lacked jurisdiction, and the Crown's application for estreatment was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a trial decision that stayed a charge of operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding 80 mg based on an alleged s. 9 Charter breach arising from prolonged detention after breath testing.

The appeal court held that the trial judge’s reasons for finding an overholding were sufficient and disclosed no reversible error.

However, the trial judge erred by ordering a stay of proceedings without articulating reasons or applying the governing legal framework for such an exceptional remedy.

The court concluded the breach occurred post‑offence, had no connection to the gathering of evidence, and caused minimal prejudice.

The stay was therefore set aside and a conviction entered, with a reduced fine imposed as a remedy for the Charter breach.