Tina Kaye

The appellant appealed a sentence of 90 days intermittent custody imposed following convictions for driving with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit and driving while suspended.

The appellant argued that the sentencing judge erred by overemphasizing deterrence and denunciation, failing to give adequate consideration to rehabilitation, and improperly rejecting a conditional sentence.

The court held that appellate intervention requires the sentence to be clearly unreasonable or demonstrably unfit and found that the sentencing judge properly considered all relevant principles and factors.

Given the appellant’s significant record for impaired driving and driving while suspended, the sentence fell within the appropriate range.

The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The Crown appealed an order staying an impaired driving charge for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial judge had calculated institutional delay at just over 10 months and found prejudice to the accused arising from employment consequences, travel issues, and personal stress.

On appeal, the court held that the correct method for calculating institutional delay reduced the period to approximately 8½ months, which fell within the Morin guidelines.

The court further found that the alleged prejudice was not causally connected to the delay but rather to the laying of the charge itself, and that the trial judge failed to balance the societal interest in a trial on the merits.

The stay was set aside and a new trial was ordered.