R. v. Chikie, 2011 ABQB 420

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: R. v. Chikie, 2011 ABQB 420 Date: 20110705 Docket: 100473875Q1 Registry: Edmonton Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and - Curtis Jordan Chikie Accused Editorial Notice: On behalf of the Government of Alberta personal data identifiers have been removed from this unofficial electronic version of the judgment. _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Sentence of the Honourable Mr. Justice Brian R. Burrows _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr.

Chikie pled guilty to the charge that he: On or about the 13 th day of July, 2009, at or near Edmonton, Alberta, did unlawfully operate a motor vehicle in a manner that was dangerous to the public and did thereby cause the death of Brant Grandbois, contrary to s. 249(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada . Circumstances of the Offence

[ 2 ] The circumstances of the offence are the subject of an agreed statement of facts which I quote in its entirety: 1. On July 13, 2009, at approximately 7:02 p.m. Curtis Chikie, (D.O.B. - [...], 1978) (hereinafter “the Accused”) was operating his 2008 Suzuki GSXR 750 motorcycle bearing Alberta license [...], southbound on 178 Street from 100 Avenue in the City of Edmonton, Province of Alberta. Brant Grandbois (D.O.B. - [...], 1988) (hereinafter “the Victim”) was riding as a passenger on the rear seat of the motorcycle. 2.

Multiple witnesses reported that the Accused was driving at a high rate of speed (with estimates ranging from 100 - 200 km/hour in a 60 km/hour zone), as well as changing lanes and travelling between vehicles. Further, the Accused attempted to pass when there was no lane available to him as he travelled southbound on 178 Street. There was a moderate flow of traffic in the area at the time. 3. At approximately 96 Avenue, the Accused lost control of the motorcycle while passing between two southbound vehicles and then attempting to change lanes again.

The motorcycle swerved, hit the right curb and sideswiped a tree on the west boulevard. Both occupants were thrown from the motorcycle. One of the helmets and glove worn by the Accused or the Victim was found a significant distance away in a back yard located at 95[...] - 180A Street. 4. The Victim slid across the grass and collided with a second tree approximately 20 meters south of the first tree. He died instantly. The Accused came to rest just south of this second tree. He subsequently had his left leg amputated at the knee level as a result of the impact from the first tree.

The motorcycle was written off. 5. Initial toxicology records from the hospital confirmed that the Accused had alcohol in his system. These records were forwarded to the RCMP Forensic Laboratory for an expert opinion. The results from Kerry Blake, Forensic Alcohol Specialist, estimated that at the time of driving the Accused’s blood alcohol level was between 200 - 232 mg%. 6. The road was paved, bare, and there were no unusual conditions present. The weather conditions were clear, winds were light, and visibility was unobstructed. The ambient temperature was 18 degrees Celsius.

Given the above, neither road nor weather conditions were factors in the collision. 7. A mechanical check revealed that the motorcycle was in adequate operating condition at the time of the accident. 8. The above facts as alleged are admitted as proven. Circumstances of the Offender [ 3 ] Mr. Chikie is 32 years old. He was 30 at the time of his offence. [ 4 ] After he pled guilty, at counsel’s request, I ordered a Pre-Sentence Report. The report was prepared by Mr. Mikk Peek, a probation officer. Mr. Peek notes that Mr. Chikie cooperated fully with the preparation of the report. [ 5 ] Mr.

Chikie was born in Edmonton, the youngest of three sons. His parents separated when he was 8 years old. Thereafter he continued to live with his mother until he was 18 at which time he began to live on his own. He returned to live in his mother’s home for short periods. He maintains regular contact with his mother and older brother who lives with his mother. He also has fairly regular contact with another brother who lives in Brandon. He has occasional contact with his father who lives in the U.S.A.

[ 6 ] Mr. Chikie now lives with his partner, Holly Paranich. They were dating at the time of the accident. Mr. Chikie attributes the considerable progress he has made in coping with the serious consequences the accident has had for him to the support he has received from Ms. Paranich. [ 7 ] Mr. Chikie also has a good relationship with his grandparents who also give him valuable support. [ 8 ] Mr. Chikie completed about half of Grade 12. He has worked continuously since he was 12 years old, in a wide variety of jobs.

He gradually became qualified for jobs requiring more skills and became a heavy equipment operator in the oil industry and then a supervisor on an oil rig. When the economy slowed down he returned to heavy equipment operating. He has not been employed since the accident because of the injuries he suffered. His present financial circumstances are modest. He and his partner receive some financial support from her parents. [ 9 ] Mr. Chikie has no criminal record.

He does have a record of five previous convictions for motor vehicle offences: three speeding convictions, one failing to signal a lane change and one failing to stop for a red light. These all occurred between January 2004 and October 2005. He had a demerit point suspension of his driver’s license for one month starting December 12, 2005. [ 10 ] Mr. Chikie advised Mr. Peek that before the accident his lifestyle involved significant use of alcohol. He had a personal rule which limited the rate of his alcohol consumption and by which he would not drive after drinking. Mr. Peek reports that Mr.

Chikie acknowledged to him that the toxicology report establishes that he broke his own alcohol use rule and that doing so resulted in the accident. Mr. Chikie has no memory of the accident or of anything that happened for about a week preceding the accident. [ 11 ] Mr. Chikie was hospitalized for several months after the accident. As noted, his leg was amputated. He also suffered a brain injury and some spinal injury. His hands were paralysed for months. His rehabilitation is continuing. He continues to have serious health problems associated with his injuries.

His treatment involves use of prescription drugs including methadone, mortazapine for sleeping and pain, and a muscle relaxant. [ 12 ] The knowledge that he caused the death of a very close friend has been extremely difficult for Mr. Chikie to live with. He has received psychological counselling which he believes has helped him a great deal. He has taken the initiative to find a way to help others learn from his experience and avoid similar consequences.

He has participated as a speaker in a program designed to teach young people to make wiser decisions in their lives so as to avoid the kind of accident and tragedy that he caused. This is called the PARTY Program at the Misericordia Hospital. [ 13 ] Mr. Peek concluded his Pre-Sentence Report as follows: The subject is considered to be a suitable candidate for community supervision. He has been very cooperative with the preparation of this report. He has no previous criminal record. His family collateral contacts confirm he is remorseful about having made the decisions which caused this accident.

He accepts responsibility for his behaviour. Family collateral contacts indicate he has always been a hard worker and supportive of others in his family. His family and Holly Paranich remain supportive of him. Professional collateral contacts indicate that he has progressed reasonably well in his physical and emotional recovery from his injuries and the overall consequences of the accident. He certainly appears to be remorseful for having caused another person’s death. [ 14 ] The materials include a letter concerning Mr. Chikie’s condition from Dr.

Rajpal Thiara, of the Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital and the University of Alberta. Dr. Thiara’s purpose in writing the letter was to ensure that the Court and those who would be responsible for Mr. Chikie’s welfare if his sentence involves imprisonment are aware of the specific details of his medical condition. In

summary, the major points Dr. Thiara made in his letter are: - That Mr. Chikie suffers ongoing neurologic complications from the injuries to his spinal cord which he suffered in the accident. He has “incomplete quadriplegia” which affects sensation and motor function of both arms as well as his trunk and both lower extremities.

- That though he has recovered much of the strength he lost following the accident, he has muscle control and tone issues which interfere with his physical function. - That he has significant bladder and bowel control problems which are likely permanent. - That as a result of the amputation of his left leg he uses a prosthetic limb. The spinal cord injury and the injury to his right knee increases the challenge of mobility generally and of using the prosthetic limb specifically. He requires a cane to walk long distances. He is prone to falling and has further injured himself doing so.

He has residual limb or stump pain as well as phantom limb pain, which is difficult to control with medication. - That Mr. Chikie also had significant brain injury. He had post-traumatic amnesia. He was in a complete coma at the time of his injury. He has made good cognitive recovery but individuals who have suffered the degree of head injury Mr. Chikie suffered are very susceptible to further head injury, even with more minor trauma. [ 15 ] After describing Mr. Chikie’s medical situation, Dr.

Thiara said: Due to the above neurological as well as orthopaedic issues, as well as the sensitivity of Curtis’ brain to injury, I would really hope that the court would see fit to not put Curtis in prison with dangerous or violent criminals, as he is quite vulnerable in multiple ways. [ 16 ] Mr. Chikie’s psychologist, Ms. Jean McLeod has also written a helpful

summary of her findings concerning Mr. Chikie. She reports that when she initially saw Mr. Chikie he presented with “clinically significant levels of depression, intermittent suicidal ideation, and anxiety regarding the terrible accident which took the life of a close friend and left Mr. Chikie gravely injured.” She notes that as he recovered from his brain injury he became increasingly aware of the consequences of the accident and his responsibility for the death of his friend. His request for counselling assistance arose from the emotional distress this awareness generated. Ms. McLeod says, “Mr.

Chikie was spending time daily imagining how difficult this loss was for the family and friends of this young man. He felt he had robbed his friend of the life he should have been able to have.” [ 17 ] Ms. McLeod comments on Mr. Chikie’s efforts to affect the attitude and conduct of others. She says, “I have been very impressed with Mr. Chikie’s desire to work towards making a difference by sharing his story with young people to help them learn the importance of making good choices in life.

He has been volunteering with the Party Program over the last few months and on a number of occasions has made presentations to young audiences where he talks openly and honestly about what happened and the terrible consequences. He takes comfort I think in the hope that by ‘baring his soul’ if he can make a difference in even one young person’s life and perhaps even save a life, he can make amends to his friend and himself.” [ 18 ] The materials filed include letters from the coordinator of the Party Program, Ms. Carrie Chamberlain, the Edmonton City Police officer who is assigned to St.

Francis Xavier High School, Constable Jason Singh, and a Grade 9 teacher at Vimy Ridge Academy, Ms. Lindsay McAlpine, all of whom have witnessed Mr. Chikie’s presentations to students and have been very significantly impressed by the impact he has had on the students who attended. Constable Singh’s unsolicited letter describes Mr. Chikie’s impressively effective presentation to the 289 graduating students of St. Francis Xavier. Ms. McAlpine says, [Mr. Chikie’s] presentation to the students about the repercussions of drinking and driving was very powerful, and left most students, as well as myself in tears.

The emotional impact of his presentation was brought on by his raw recollection of the vivid details of his personal experience. After debriefing with the students about this program, I can say without a doubt that every one of these grade 9 students will think twice before ever getting behind the wheel intoxicated. This may seem like a minimal impact, but if this program can reach thirty people a day, the long term implications will be drastic. [ 19 ] Mr. Chikie’s assistance to others following this tragic event has taken a second form.

He has become involved in helping people who have had limbs amputated, to cope with the consequences they experience. After a short training course he was certified as a peer visitor. He provides a role model for amputation patients and gives them emotional support. He has taught physical therapy students at the University of Alberta and Grant MacEwan University. The quality of his assistance and the sensitivity with which he gave it was described in letters from a hospital physiotherapist filed by Mr. Pringle.

Crown’s Position [ 20 ] Ms. Downey for the Crown identified three aggravating factors in her submissions: - that Mr.

Chikie’s blood alcohol level was very significantly over the legal limit; that it was over 160 mg% is expressly deemed to be an aggravating factor by s. 255.1 of the Code; - that he had a history of driving offences and lost his license for demerit points in 2005; - that the nature of the driving in which he engaged on his motorcycle and which resulted in the accident was particularly reckless involving as it did, excessive speed and passing between vehicles travelling in the driving lanes and fully occupying them. [ 21 ] Ms. Downey identified the following three mitigating factors: - that Mr.

Chikie pled guilty; - that his remorse is great and genuine; - that he has done very significant and valuable work in the community. [ 22 ] Ms. Downey cited several authorities:

a) R. v. Stimson , 2011 ABCA 59 Ms. Stimson pled guilty to impaired driving causing death and driving without a license. She was initially a passenger in a vehicle being driven by her friend after a night of drinking. Her friend asked her to drive. She lost control of the vehicle, it rolled and her friend was killed. Her blood alcohol was 184 mg%. There was a positive pre-sentence report. She had endured a tragic and unstable childhood and had a significant alcohol abuse problem. She breached the terms of her bail.

At trial the Court imposed a 90-day intermittent period of incarceration, two years probation and a three-year driving prohibition. The Court of Appeal noted that the fundamental principle of sentencing is that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The Court found that the range of sentences for impaired driving causing death was 12 months to 8 years (excluding from consideration R. v. McCormick , 2006 ABCA 410 , which the Court held to be “somewhat of an anomaly”).

For the case before it, the Court held that the appropriate range was two to four years. Given the accused’s background, a fit sentence was two years less a day. I should note that impaired driving causing death, the offence in Stimson , is a more serious offence than Mr. Chikie’s offence, dangerous driving causing death. The maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death is life imprisonment (CC s. 255(3.1)). The maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing death is 14 years imprisonment (CC s. 249(4)).

b) R. v. Marona , 2010 ABQB 588 (Manderscheid J.)

Mr. Marona, who was 29 years old, was observed to drive very erratically for a significant distance on the highway before colliding withanother vehicle killing its driver and injuring its passenger. The evidence indicated that Mr. Marona was falling asleep at the wheel. Hepled guilty to dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. He had a history of drug and alcohol abusebut was not using either at the time of the accident. He had a history of driving offences and a significant criminal history. He had littlefamily support. He had little remorse.

A pretrial report concluded he was not a good candidate for community supervision. The Courtconcluded that there was a significant risk of re-offence. Manderscheid J. reviewed the authorities thoroughly and concluded that the appropriate range for similar cases was 18 to 24 months. Heconcluded that concurrent sentences of two years for the dangerous driving causing death and one year for the dangerous driving causingbodily injury were appropriate before considering credit for pretrial custody.

c) R. v. Robillard (2009) 2009 ABCA 152 , 457 A.R. 10 (Alta. C.A.) Here the Alberta Court of Appeal allowed a Crown appeal from a trial decision by which the accused was sentenced to three monthsincarceration after he pled guilty to dangerous driving causing bodily harm. The 19-year-old accused, who was on probation and did nothave a driver’s license, was driving an uninsured and unregistered vehicle when he struck a cyclist from the rear. The cyclist becametrapped under the vehicle and was dragged screaming for 20 metres.

The accused tried to dislodge the cyclist by moving his vehicleforwards and backwards but this failed. The accused fled the scene. He also pled guilty to leaving the scene and the fitness of the trialsentence of one year for that offence was not disputed on appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had been wrong in principle in concluding that the accused’s driving pattern was not veryserious.

That was true of the driving before the collision but the driving after the collision - in not stopping for 20 metres while thecyclist was trapped and in attempting to dislodge the cyclist in the manner he did - was serious. The Court of Appeal increased thesentence to two years.

d) R. v. Williams (2003) 2003 ABCA 218 , 330 A.R. 178 (Alta. C.A.) The accused pled guilty to dangerous driving causing death. He was driving a truck pulling a trailer, turned left across the path of trafficand collided with a motorcycle, killing its driver. He panicked and attempted to drive away from the scene but was blocked by anothervehicle with which he collided. He was 28 years old, had no prior record, was remorseful, was employed, had complied with the termsof his bail, and had family and church support.

The trial judge had concluded that the appropriate range of sentences for dangerous driving causing death was 18 to 30 months and thatin this case a sentence of 18 months was appropriate. She imposed a conditional sentence. On the appeal the Crown contended that the trial judge had erred as to the range of fit sentences and mis-characterized the seriousness ofthe offence and the degree of the accused’s responsibility, and gave inappropriate weight to the various elements of the mix ofsentencing goals as they applied to the case. The Court of Appeal found no error.

It observed that the sentence was on the low end butnot in error. The 18-month sentence was upheld.

e) R. v. Sand (2002) 2002 ABCA 263 , 317 A.R. 328 (Alta. C.A.) The Alberta Court of Appeal again affirmed a trial sentence of two years (conditional sentence order imposed) where the accused pledguilty to two counts of dangerous driving causing death and one count of dangerous driving causing bodily harm. The accused had maderepeated attempts to pass vehicles in foggy conditions and during one such attempt collided with an oncoming vehicle killing twopassengers and seriously injuring the driver. There was no evidence of alcohol involvement.

The accused was at the time of theaccident on bail with respect to a charge of impaired driving for which he was later convicted. In finding that the trial judge made noerror, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge’s conclusion that the range of sentences was between 15 and 30 months.

f) R. v. Teague (1994), unreported, November 22, 1993, Lutz, J., Alta. Q.B.; affirmed, unreported, February 14, 1994,Hetherington J.A., Shannon and Trussler JJ. (ad hoc), Appeal # 14686

The accused was driving several friends around Red Deer after the bar at which they had been drinking closed, looking for a party. Travelling at an excessive speed he collided with a barrier in the road and one of his passengers was killed. He himself suffered injurieswhich rendered him paraplegic. He pled guilty to dangerous driving causing death. He was 24 years old. He had a previous convictionas a youth for impaired driving causing bodily harm. The trial judge found that he was not remorseful. The fact that the accused was paraplegic and would have difficulty being in custody was raised.

The trial judge rejected the submissionthat this made the case exceptional. The suggestion is that it had no effect on the sentence he imposed, which was two years less a day. [23] Relying on these authorities, Ms. Downey submitted that a fit sentence in this case would be in the range of 18 months to 2years. Defence Position [24] Mr. Pringle submitted that this case has features which, in the individualized process of sentencing, should be seen as unique. First, that Mr. Chikie’s injuries are extensive and permanent. They constitute a severe punishment in themselves.

Second, that Mr.Chikie has made exceptional efforts and progress toward rehabilitation. The lengths to which he has gone in that regard, in hispresentations to young people to help them avoid the tragic mistakes he made, demonstrate that the danger he presented to society beforethe accident is no more. [25] That an accused lost a close relative or friend and himself suffered serious and permanent injuries in the accident he causedhave been considered relevant in the determination of a fit sentence: R. v. Proulx 2000 SCC 5 , [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61 at para. 130;R. v.

Page (2003) 2003 ABCA 212 , 330 A.R. 192 (C.A.) at paras. 1 and 3. [26] That an accused makes public education presentations dissuading others from engaging in the conduct which leads to andconstitutes the crime can constitute exceptional circumstances and can have a very significant impact on the sentence imposed: R. v.Hollinsky (1995) (ON CA), 103 C.C.C. (3d) 472 (Ont. C.A.). [27] As to the appropriate range of sentence, Mr.

Pringle observed that in the 11 years that it was possible for the Court to imposea conditional sentence for dangerous driving causing death, there may have been some “range” inflation for this offence. In the yearspreceding the availability of conditional sentence orders, cases where there were strong mitigating factors sometimes resulted inrelatively short sentences: R. v. Lewis, (1992) (NB KB), 125 N.B.R. (2d) 141 (N.B.Q.B.) - 12 months imprisonment;R. v. Eiffert [1992] M.J. No. 59 (Man. C.A.) - 6 months imprisonment; R. v. McKay (1993) (MB KB), 84 Man. R.(2d) 246 (Man. Q.B.) - 3 months imprisonment; R. v.

Fleming [1995] O.J. No. 3055 (Ont. Gen. Div) - 9 months imprisonment; R. v.Hollinsky (1995) (ON CA), 103 C.C.C. (3d) 472 (Ont. C.A.) - suspended sentence, 3 years probation; R. v. Driscoll[1996] O.J. No. 2314, (Ont. Gen Div) - 6 months imprisonment. After conditional sentences became available, the duration of sentencesappear to have increased by comparison to the cases just listed: R. v. Russell (1997) 1997 ABCA 337 , 209 A.R. 168 (Alta.C.A.) - 18-month conditional sentence; R. v. Reed [1997] B.C.J. 2821 (B.C.S.C.) - 18-month conditional sentence; R. v. Forward, 2000BCCA 153 - 2-year conditional sentence; R. v.

Doust [2001] O.J. No. 4389 (Ont. Superior Ct) - 18-month conditional sentence; R. v.Williams [2003] ABCA 218 - 18-month conditional sentence; R. v. Sand, [2002] ABCA 263 - 2-year conditional sentence; R. v. Iftody2003 ABPC 22 , [2003] A.J. No. 100 (Alta. P.C.) - 2-year conditional sentence; R. v. Zayezierski [2006] ABPC 150 - 2-yearconditional sentence; R. v. Young [2006] A.J. No. 1205 (Alta. Q.B.) - 18-month conditional sentence; R. v. Carr (2008) 2008 ABQB 228 , 93 Alta. L.R. (4th) 54 (Alta. Q.B.) impaired driving causing death - 2-year conditional sentence; R. v.

Penner (2010) 2009ABQB 535 , 465 A.R. 279 (Alta. Q.B.) - 2-year conditional sentence. [28] Mr. Pringle cited R. v. McCormick (2006) 2006 ABCA 410 , 68 Alta. L. R. (4th) 64 (Alta. C.A.). This is the casewhich the same Alberta Court of Appeal referred to as an anomaly in its decision in R. v. Stimson, supra. In McCormick the majority ofthe Court upheld the trial judge’s imposition of a sentence of six months incarceration followed by two years of probation with strictrestrictions.

On appeal the Crown argued that the trial judge had not given sufficient priority to the sentencing goals of denunciation anddeterrence which, the authorities agree, are paramount in a case of dangerous driving causing death. The majority of the Court of Appealrejected this argument and held that in the individual circumstances of the case the sentence was within the range of possible fitsentences. [29] The following passage from McCormick is significant to Mr. Chikie’s case: paras. 28 and 29:

With regard to the Crown’s proper concern that the sentence denounce and deter conduct of the criminal nature where causing the loss of life of an innocent victim, it may be noted that the sentencing judge had regard to the fact that since the offence, Ms. McCormick has been a regular speaker to groups of young people attempting to influence them not to act as she had done.

While this does not appear to have been a large factor in her decision and, while such activity is no guarantee of more lenient treatment for future offenders who may undertake it, it was appropriate in the circumstances of this case that the sentencing judge have regard to the efforts of this offender to deter others. In should be pointed out that Ms. McCormick’s effort at deterring others was not prefunctory. Lynda Vowell, the program coordinator of P.A.R.T.Y. Calgary (Prevent Alcohol and Risk Related Trauma in Youth), advised the sentencing court that Ms.

McCormick had each week for several weeks spoken to groups of young people for an hour and one-half and that her presentation was often cited by students as “the most powerful and impacting element of the program”. Roland Lahaye, an instructor at Mount Royal College, where Ms. McCormick also spoke to students, stated that he had “rarely seen a class of young adults more impacted by a presentation” made by Ms. McCormick. The sentencing judge in directing the 150 hours of community service could reasonably anticipate a continuation of these efforts at deterrence.

Incarceration is not the sole means of promoting deterrence. [ 30 ] On the basis of these authorities Mr. Pringle submitted that a fit sentence in this case would be much lower than the 18 months to 2 years proposed by the Crown. He submitted that a sentence in the nature of that imposed in McCormick would be appropriate, given the very significant similarities between the cases. A Fit Sentence [ 31 ] The fundamental principle governing the determination of a fit sentence is that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

The aggravating and mitigating circumstances respectively increase and decrease the sentence. [ 32 ] In cases of dangerous driving causing death determining a fit sentence depends very much on the individual circumstances of the case. For that reason the Court of Appeal has set no starting point. For that reason as well, the range of fit sentences imposed in the cases is extremely broad. [ 33 ] Everyone involved in this case, Mr. Chikie, Mr. Grandbois’ family and friends, Mr. Chikie’s family and friends, the lawyers and the Court, recognize this matter as a great tragedy. Mr.

Chikie, by extremely reckless and dangerous conduct, caused the death of a young man who was loved by his family and friends, including Mr. Chikie. The crime is in the recklessness and dangerousness of Mr. Chikie’s conduct - driving his motorcycle in an obviously reckless manner after drinking a lot of alcohol. The gravity of Mr. Chikie’s offence is great because it caused the death of another person. The degree of Mr. Chikie’s responsibility is high because he chose to drive his motorcycle in a manner which was so obviously dangerous. [ 34 ] Everyone knows and accepts that Mr.

Chikie did not intend to cause anyone harm. In that respect, his criminal conduct is very much different from most criminal conduct. In most crime the offender intends to cause another person harm. Paradoxically, this is perhaps what makes Mr. Chikie’s offence so serious.

Dangerous driving is an offence that people who would consider themselves, and who would be considered by others, to be generally law abiding, can easily engage in when their judgment is impaired by alcohol, the thrill of driving a powerful vehicle, the excitement of an opportunity for a moment of adventure, or the combination of these and similar elements. [ 35 ] Because normally law abiding citizens can so easily cross the line between responsible driving and dangerous driving, because the consequences when they do can be so tragic, and because it would take so little foresight, self control and restraint to prevent the tragedy, the principal goals which the sentence seeks to achieve are denunciation and deterrence: communicating a simple but vitally important message to persons who might cross the same line Mr.

Chikie crossed – the message that the community strongly denounces dangerous driving and strongly wants people to stop driving dangerously. [ 36 ] Where the primary goal is denunciation and deterrence the Court normally imposes a significant period of incarceration. The theory is that doing so will broadcast the community’s simple but vitally important message.

[ 37 ] Though denunciation and deterrence are the primary goals in a case of dangerous driving causing death, there are also other goals. Where there is a significant risk that the offender will continue to offend, the sentence tries to protect society for a time by separating the offender from society for a time. The sentence is also intended to assist in rehabilitating the offender, to provide reparations for harm done to victims, to promote a sense of responsibility in the offender and to promote acknowledgement by the offender of the harm he has done to his victim and the community. [ 38 ] Mr.

Chikie’s crime was very grave. He caused a death. His degree of responsibility was very great. His driving very significantly deviated from that of a responsible driver, he drove when his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit by more than 2.5 times, he had previous convictions for driving offences and the penalties imposed on those occasions don’t appear to have taught him any lessons. These features all aggravate the sentence. [ 39 ] On the other side, his guilty plea and his obvious genuine remorse are very significant mitigating factors.

So too is the fact that he himself suffered serious and permanent injury and lost a very close friend. [ 40 ] I am also of the view that the very valuable effort he has made and continues to make to instill in young people an understanding of how easily their lives could be horribly damaged by a simple but bad decision taken when their judgment is impaired is of enormous value. In my view the focussed and sharp message of Mr.

Chikie’s presentations to youth provides a much greater prospect of achieving the community’s goal of denunciation and deterrence than does the unfocussed and blunt message communicated by his incarceration. [ 41 ] After considering the fundamental principle of sentencing, the goals of sentencing, the aggravating factors, the mitigating factors, and the authorities cited, I have concluded that a fit sentence in this case is 10 months imprisonment followed by 2 years probation. [ 42 ] Mr. Chikie I sentence you to 10 months in gaol.

When your term in gaol is complete I direct that you comply with the terms of a probation order for 2 years. The terms of your probation order shall be that you: 1. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour; 2. Appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court; 3. Notify the Court or the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the Court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation; 4.

Report to a probation officer within two days after you have completed your term in gaol and thereafter when required by the probation officer and in the manner directed by the probation officer; 5. Remain within the Province of Alberta, unless written permission to go outside Alberta is obtained from the Court or the probation officer; 6. Abstain from the consumption of alcohol or other intoxicating substances and from the consumption of drugs except in accordance with a medical prescription; 7.

Perform 240 hours of community service before the end of the 18 th month of the period of your probation and provide evidence of doing so to your probation officer. [ 43 ] I have intentionally not imposed any house arrest or curfew as was imposed in the probation order in McCormick because in

my view it would be unjust to do so given the restrictions on your liberty imposed by the injuries you suffered in the accident. That was not the case in McCormick . [ 44 ] I also make an order under s. 259(2) (

b) of the Criminal Code prohibiting Mr. Chikie from operating a motor vehicle for five years. [ 45 ] I also make an order under s. 487.04(

a) requiring Mr. Chikie to provide a sample of his DNA. [ 46 ] I waive the victim fine surcharge given Mr. Chikie’s financial situation, previously mentioned, the fact that he has himself suffered serious injury, and the fact that he will be incarcerated. Heard on the 6 th day of June 2011. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 4 th day of July 2011. Brian R. Burrows J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Carrie-Ann Downey for the Crown Alexander D. Pringle, Q.C. for the Accused