NECESSITY DEFENCE REJECTED - CONVICTION UPHELD

Mr. Lights was convicted of dangerous driving and criminal negligence causing bodily harm after running a red light at high speed and causing a serious accident involving two other cars. When the accident took place, Mr. Lights's friend was a passenger in the back seat. He had been shot in the chest. At trial, the issues were the identity of the driver and the defence of necessity. Necessity was rejected: there was no reasonable inference available to the trier of fact that the harm inflicted was proportionate to the harm avoided. The appellant argues that the harm he sought to avoid was harm to his wounded passenger, including potentially his death, from delay in receiving medical attention. Whatever delay may have been caused by proceeding safely through the intersection or not driving at all and calling an ambulance must have been relatively minor based on the evidence. We note that the ambulance arrived at the scene from the nearby hospital 58 seconds after being dispatched. R. v. Lights, 2020 ONCA 102

NOTICE OF INTENTION - CONVICTION RESTORED

Mr. Sirman was convicted of exceed .08 after a trial. His appeal, based on a notice of intention issue, was allowed and an acquittal was entered. But his conviction was restored by the Alberta Court of Appeal: The real test is that the notice must be reasonable in time and substance and must not be misleading, confusing or otherwise prejudicial. It must clearly and precisely bring home to the accused that the certificate may be used in relation to a charge arising from the incident. No particular form of notice is required. R. v. Sirman, 2020 ABCA 174

Interesting that Notice was an issue at all, as this was his second trial. The offence date was in September 2016. One wonders how he could not have known about the Crown's intention to produce the Certificate of a Qualified Technician.

RELEASE DENIED - COVID-19

Mr. Bear applied for release prior to his upcoming impaired trial. One of the reasons was "the Covid-19 Pandemic and the State of Emergency declared Provincially and Federally . . . the appellant herein is 75 years of age and has an underlying health condition, namely he is diabetic". His application was denied: Mr. Bear has a long history of non-compliance with prohibition orders. As the Provincial Court judge noted, Mr. Bear has repeatedly ignored his responsibility to society. I similarly have no confidence that he will behave responsibly in relation to health precautions such as distancing or remaining in his residence. R. v. Bear, 2020 SKQB 109

Regarding his "long history", he is the same person from the precedent setting case of R. v. Bear, 1994 CANLII 4609 (SKCA) where his original sentence of six months jail was increased to three and a half years.

RELEASE PENDING APPEAL - COVID-19

Mr. Shingoose was charged with impaired opertation causing bodily harm, convicted after trial, and sentenced to 15 months jail, with a 4 year driving prohibition. His application for release pending appeal was granted: In Mr. Shingoose’s case, I find on the basis of the evidence placed before me that he is particularly vulnerable to the risks posed by COVID-19 in the prison facility. He is 69 years old. He is diabetic and his condition appears to have worsened in custody. In this case, including the potential effect of COVID-19 on Mr. Shingoose’s health, a reasonable member of the public would agree that his detention pending his appeal is not necessary in the public interest. Any residual concerns about public safety can be overcome by his undertaking and the affidavits filed by his son and granddaughter. R. v. Shingoose, 2020 SKCA 45

SENTENCE - IMPAIRED CAUSING SENTENCE DECREASED

Mr. Randhawa appealed the sentence imposed on him by the sentencing judge of nine years concurrent on three counts of impaired driving causing death and five years concurrent on one count of impaired driving causing bodily harm. After a night of drinking, Mr. Randhawa drove his car, with four other occupants, at a high rate of speed through a residential neighbourhood. He had approximately twice the legal limit for alcohol in his system. Eventually, his car clipped another car, he lost control of the vehicle, the vehicle went airborne and crashed. All four passengers were ejected from the car. Three of them died and one was seriously injured. The appeal court focused on the issue of parity and reduced the sentence: In my view, the proper application of the parity principle would lead to a sentence of seven years being imposed on the appellant. R. v. Randhawa, 2020 ONCA 38