R. v. Joyce, 2019 NLSC 77

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : R. v. Joyce , 2019 NLSC 77 Date : April 2, 2019 Docket : 201704G0209 Her Majesty The Queen v. Walter ALFRED Joyce Before: Justice Brian F. Furey Reasons for Judgment Given Orally Place of Hearing: Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador Date of Hearing: March 4, 2019 Date of Oral Judgment: March 28, 2019

Summary: The Offender was convicted of two counts of impaired driving causing death contrary to section 255(3) of the Criminal Code . Held: The Offender was sentenced to imprisonment for two years less a day for each of the two counts of impaired driving causing death. The sentence for Count No. 4 is to be served concurrently to the sentence for Count No. 3. The Court also imposed a driving Order of Prohibition for a period of two years after the term of imprisonment is served and a Probation Order for three years which will also be served after the term of imprisonment.

Appearances: Adam J. Sparkes, Q.C. Appearing on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen Robby D. Ash Appearing on behalf of Walter Alfred Joyce Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: R. v. Shears-Decker, 2018 NLSC 59; R. v. Bernshaw, (SCC), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254; R. v.Alexander, 2010 NLTD 96; R. v. Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58; R. v. Mitchell, 2016 ONCJ 731; R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64; R. v.Woodward (1993), (NL CA), 108 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 240, 83 C.C.C. (3d) 75 (Nfld. C.A.); R. v. Cluney, 2013 NLCA 46;R. v. Ralph, 2007 NLTD 42; R. v. Hynes, 2006 NLCA 10; R. v.

McCarthy (1997), (NL CA), 157 Nfld. & P.E.I.R.222, 36 W.C.B. (2d) 403 (Nfld. C.A.); R. v. Thistle, 2015 NLTD(G) 44; R. v. Whalen, 2017 NLTD(G) 100; R. v. Tanner, 2018 BCSC583; R. v. Moore, 2010 BCSC 930; R. v. Stephens, 2013 ONCJ 575; R. v. Stimson, 2011 ABCA 59; R. v. Gregoire, 2009 NLTD 21; R. v.Wallace, 2012 MBCA 54; and R. v. Maxwell-Smith, 2012 YKTC 107. STATUTES CONSIDERED: Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46; and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

Part I of theConstitution Act, 1982 being

Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Furey, J.: INTRODUCTION [1] On October 15, 2018, counsel for Mr. Joyce entered guilty pleas on the following two charges under the Criminal Code,R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46: Count No. 3 on or about the 26th day of December, 2016, A.D., at or near the town of Lark Harbour, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,while his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol, did operate a motor vehicle and thereby did cause the death ofMarilyn Sheppard, contrary to s. 255(3) of the Criminal Code.

Count No. 4 on or about the 26th day of December, 2016, A.D., at or near the town of Lark Harbour, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,while his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol, did operate a motor vehicle and thereby did cause the death ofMerle Sheppard, contrary to s. 255(3) of the Criminal Code. [2] In R. v. Shears-Decker, 2018 NLSC 59, I stated the following at paragraph 1: 1 Cases involving impaired driving and all the consequences which flow from these are particularly disturbing to society. These havetragic, devastating and life lasting consequences.

However, one might say that these matters are not disturbing enough because suchcases continue to occur at an alarming rate. [3] The matter now before this Court relates to impaired driving causing death and the resultant tragic consequences. [4] In R. v. Bernshaw, (SCC), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254, Cory, J. of the Supreme Court of Canada commented atparagraphs 16 and 19:

16 Every year, drunk driving leaves a terrible trail of death, injury, heartbreak and destruction. From the point of view of numbers alone, it has a far greater impact on Canadian society than any other crime. In terms of the deaths and serious injuries resulting in hospitalization, drunk driving is clearly the crime which causes the most significant social loss to the country. Statistics Canada recently noted: Impaired driving is a serious crime. Every year thousands of Canadians are killed and many more injured in traffic-related accidents.

Alcohol is a contributing factor in an average of 43% of these cases (Traffic Injury Research Foundation -- D. R. Mayhew et al. [Alcohol Use Among Persons Fatally Injured in Motor Vehicle Accidents: Canada 1990] 1992:33). ("Impaired Driving -- Canada, 1991" (1992), 12:17 Juristat 1, at p. 2.) 19 . . . The social cost of the crime, great as it is, fades in comparison to the personal loss suffered by the victims of this crime through the death and injury of their loved ones.

The gravity of the problem and its impact on Canadian society has been so great that Criminal Code amendments were enacted aimed at eliminating or, at least, reducing the problem. [ 5 ] The following was the wording of sections 253(1) (

a) and 255(3) of the Criminal Code at the time the charges were laid : 253(1)(

a) Operation while impaired – Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not, (

a) while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; 255(3) Impaired driving causing death – Everyone who commits an offence under paragraph 253(1) (

a) and causes the death of another person as a result is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life. [ 6 ] The sentencing hearing was scheduled for March 4, 2019. [ 7 ] An Agreed Statement of Facts signed by Mr. Joyce as well as his counsel and Crown counsel was filed with the Court. [ 8 ] I heard evidence from Mr. Steven Tan of Recovery Science Corporation. Mr. Tan described his company’s involvement in offering electronic monitoring and alcohol monitoring in the Canadian legal system, including bail, conditional sentences, probation, and parole.

He outlined two alcohol programs: a. continuous alcohol monitoring with an ankle bracelet; and b. remote breath testing. [ 9 ] Six Victim Impact Statements were filed with the Court. Two of the individuals read their statements in court. [ 10 ] Counsel for Mr. Joyce filed a book containing 73 statements in support of Mr. Joyce. These statements were written by family, friends, teachers, and co-workers. Crown counsel agreed that these statements could be reviewed by the Court without the necessity of calling witnesses. [ 11 ] I questioned Mr. Joyce in relation to his guilty pleas in accordance with

section 606 of the Criminal Code . I was satisfied he was making the pleas voluntarily and that he understood the nature and consequences of the guilty pleas. Convictions were entered on the two charges noted in paragraph 1 above. [ 12 ] I heard submissions from counsel. I reserved my decision on sentencing until March 28, 2019. issue [ 13 ] The sole issue for consideration is a fit and proper sentence for Mr. Joyce. the offender [ 14 ] A Pre-Sentence Report regarding Mr. Joyce was prepared by Ms.

Monica Weinmann, a probation officer with the Alberta Department of Justice and Solicitor General in Fort McMurray, Alberta. It was filed with the Court on February 23, 2019. [ 15 ] Mr. Joyce was born in 1971 in Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador. He grew up in Lark Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador, with his parents and his two younger sisters. He described his childhood as being very positive. He had many wonderful memories. His family frequently participated in activities together.

[ 16 ] He graduated from high school in Lark Harbour in 1988. Some of the statements of support were written by former teachers of Mr. Joyce. They described him in positive terms – a model student, a conscientious student with a strong academic background, a kind and caring individual, and a hard-working and goal-oriented young man. [ 17 ] After high school, Mr. Joyce worked in Ontario for a short period of time. He attended Grenfell College in Corner Brook for one year. He worked in the fishery in Lark Harbour with his father for several years. In 1994, he attended the Cabot College of Applied Arts in St.

John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, for three years obtaining a diploma in automotive technology. [ 18 ] Mr. Joyce has been living and working in several locations in Alberta since he relocated there in 1997. He has been working with his current employer in Fort McMurray as a control room operator since 2009. His supervisor described Mr. Joyce as a great employee. He has never presented any issues. Mr. Joyce has always performed his job very well. [ 19 ] He continued his education while working ultimately receiving his third class power engineer certificate of competency on August 11, 2014. [ 20 ] Mr.

Joyce is the father of four children. The three older children (ages 23, 21, and 18) were from his first family. He has a good relationship with the two oldest daughters and a distant relationship with his son, the youngest of the children from his first marriage. [ 21 ] He also has a daughter, who is ten years of age, with his current wife. He has been in a relationship with his current wife for 14 years and they were married in August 2012. He has a very positive family-oriented relationship with his wife and his daughter. [ 22 ] Mr. Joyce stated the first time he used alcohol was when he was 16 years old.

He tried it at a dance but denied drinking much. He indicated he was never big into drinking throughout his life. His wife confirmed that she has never known him to be a big drinker. [ 23 ] The author of the Pre-Sentence Report stated that Mr. Joyce does not have a criminal record. One of the exhibits filed with the Court was a

Summary of Driving Record issued by the Province of Alberta showing that Mr. Joyce has received two speeding tickets since 2013. sentencing submissions [ 24 ] Counsel for both the Crown and Mr. Joyce have acknowledged that a period of incarceration is warranted for these offences. Position of the Crown [ 25 ] The Crown seeks a sentence of imprisonment of three years for each offence to be served concurrently. The Crown also requested a four year driving prohibition effective at the end of Mr. Joyce’s sentence. Position of Mr. Joyce [ 26 ] Counsel for Mr.

Joyce submits that the appropriate sentence of imprisonment for each offence is 18 months. The sentences should be served concurrently. He proposed a probation order for three years to begin when Mr. Joyce is released from prison. During the first year of probation, Mr. Joyce would be subject to twice daily remote breath testing for 365 days. Mr. Joyce would be responsible to arrange and pay for the remote breath testing. Mr. Joyce would be required to make a donation of $1,000 to MADD Canada to be paid before the probation order expires. Counsel noted that Mr.

Joyce has been under a driving restriction for the past two years. He proposed that a two year driving prohibition be imposed. the principles of sentencing [ 27 ]

Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out the purpose and principles of sentencing. It states in part: 718. Purpose – The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. . . . 718.1 Fundamental principle – A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the

offender. 718.2 Other sentencing principles – A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, . . . … (

b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; (

c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh; (

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and (

e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims should be considered for all offenders … [ 28 ] The maximum term of imprisonment for offences under section 255(3) is life. analysis [ 29 ] On Christmas night, 2016, at about 10 p.m., Walter Joyce, his wife, Merle Sheppard, and Marilyn Sheppard, attended a party in Lark Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador. Ms. Joyce and Ms. Sheppard are sisters. There were a number of people at the party and most of them were drinking alcohol. Mr.

Joyce consumed alcohol at the party. [ 30 ] There was a minor altercation at the party between Mr. Sheppard and another guest. Mr. Sheppard’s son, Michael, witnessed the altercation and was involved in the ensuing argument. [ 31 ] Mr. and Mrs. Sheppard and their son left the party to walk to their home, which was about 1.5 kilometres from the location of the party. Michael Sheppard returned to the party shortly after leaving with his parents looking to confront the individual who had been in the altercation with his father. The two were separated. Mr. Joyce and his wife were asked to take Michael home.

They agreed to do so. On the way to the Sheppard’s home, the vehicle being driven by Mr. Joyce collided with Merle Sheppard and Marilyn Sheppard. They were walking in the middle of the road which was covered by snow and ice. The accident occurred at about 1:25 a.m. on the morning of December 26, 2016. Merle Sheppard and Marilyn Sheppard were pronounced deceased between 2:05 a.m. and 2:15 a.m. [ 32 ] The police arrived at the scene of the accident at 2:50 a.m. Mr. Joyce was in his parents’ car near the accident location. A paramedic who was at the scene told the police alcohol was involved. Mr.

Joyce identified himself as the driver of the vehicle. He was arrested for impaired driving causing death and read the breath demand. [ 33 ] Mr. Joyce was brought to the R.N.C. detachment in Corner Brook. He provided two samples of his breath. The two readings were 100 mgs% and 90 mgs% at approximately 5 a.m. A toxicologist subsequently provided an opinion that at the time of the last operation of the motor vehicle that struck and killed Mr. and Mrs. Sheppard, Mr.

Joyce would have had a BAC of 88 mgs% to 128 mgs%. [ 34 ] The Agreed Statement of Facts concluded as follows: There were a number of factors that led to the accident, the impairment of his ability to drive as a result of alcohol consumption was one of them. It impaired his ability to react as quickly as he otherwise would have been able to in the circumstances. [ 35 ] The maximum term of imprisonment for these charges is significant. This, in my view, is to reinforce the serious nature of this type of offence and to deter individuals. [ 36 ] On December 26, 2016, Mr.

Joyce chose to drive after drinking at the party. He might have been trying to defuse a situation involving Mr. and Mrs. Sheppard’s son. It might have been a stormy morning. But, in my view, the most significant factor is that Mr. Joyce drove a motor vehicle striking and killing his sister-in-law and her husband. That occurred after he had consumed alcohol at a party and in circumstances where he was determined subsequently to be impaired. [ 37 ] Victim Impact Statements were presented by Mr. and Mrs. Sheppard’s son, three of Mr. Sheppard’s sisters, and two of his brothers.

Their Statements expressed grief, sorrow, and torment for the deaths of Merle Sheppard and Marilyn Sheppard. The Statements also indicate a loss of home, in their community of Lark Harbour, because of the sad memories arising from the deaths of their loved ones.

[ 38 ] The primary focus when sentencing for this type of offence is general deterrence and denunciation. That has been set out in many of the cases cited by counsel. In R. v. Alexander , 2010 NLTD 96 , Goodridge, J. (as he then was) stated in

part in paragraph 40: 40 . . . The offence of impaired driving causing death is a gravely serious offence. A person's life has been taken. The consequences do not get any more serious or any more final. . . . after serious consideration I am of the view that a period of incarceration is required in this case to adequately reflect society's abhorrence of and intolerance for such behavior and to send a clear message to everyone that the only choice to make when you are going to be drinking is to not drive. [ 39 ] I find there is no need for specific deterrence. Mr.

Joyce will have to live with the consequences (and the memories) of his actions on the early morning of December 26, 2016 for the rest of his life. He will carry guilt and remorse with him. The death of his family members and friends will likely cause Mr. Joyce never to drink and drive again or repeat this incident. [ 40 ] I agree with both counsel that a period of imprisonment is warranted and is necessary for this sentence to be consistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing. [ 41 ]

Section 718.2 (

a) of the Criminal Code provides that a sentence should be increased or reduced to take into account any aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. [ 42 ] The aggravating circumstances in this matter are: a. Mr. Joyce was impaired – he chose to drink alcohol at a party. b. Mr. Joyce made a deliberate decision to drive a motor vehicle after drinking. c. Mr. Joyce’s impairment resulted in two deaths, his sister-in-law and her husband. d. The impact on the victims’ family. [ 43 ] The mitigating circumstances are: a. Mr.

Joyce was cooperative with the police at the scene of the accident. b. Mr. Joyce entered guilty pleas to these charges. This was not done at the earliest opportunity. He did file an application under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ,

Part I of the Constitution Act , 1982 being

Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11 . That was certainly his right to do so. Most importantly, the guilty pleas did spare everyone, particularly the victims’ family and friends and the community of Lark Harbour, the potential ordeal and emotional hardship of a trial. c. He was cooperative during the process of completing the Pre-Sentence Report. The Report itself is very positive about Mr. Joyce. d. He has no criminal record. He has a good driving record. He has complied fully with his Recognizance. e.

He is at a low-risk to re-offend because of his family circumstances and his lengthy employment status. f. He has participated in counselling since the accident. g. Mr. Joyce is very remorseful for the accident. He has taken full responsibility for the matter. That was clearly outlined in the Pre- Sentence Report. The author stated the following at pages 4 and 5: “The subject expressed that he accepts full responsibility for the offence and indicated that he understands the immense and unforgiving impact that his actions had on himself, his family and the loved ones of the victims.

JOYCE alluded that he understands the danger he placed on all parties involved, from the moment he made the decision to drive the evening of the offence. JOYCE said that not only did he lose his very close friends and relatives, Marilyn and Merle, but he knows how important these individuals were to his wife, his daughter, and all of their other family members and friends”. . . . [ 44 ] Following the submissions of counsel, I asked Mr. Joyce if he had anything to say to the Court. Mr. Joyce said he was very sorry for what happened that night. He wished there was something he could have done to change it.

He was ready for whatever penalty the Court decides. He and Merle and Marilyn were good friends, then they became family, and he misses them a lot. He loves them and he thinks about them every day and every night. Lark Harbour is not the same. He cannot go visit them anymore. [ 45 ] Counsel for the Crown and Mr. Joyce provided the Court with the cases listed in

Schedule “A” to these Reasons for Judgment, each of which I have reviewed. The cases were very helpful. Each case has its own unique features. I will not review the cases set out in

Schedule “A” individually in these Reasons. [ 46 ] Society’s views may have changed in the years since Cory, J. made his statement in R. v. Bernshaw , which is set out in paragraph 4 above, but they have certainly not gotten to the point where individuals have stopped drinking and driving. It still continues as do the consequences of such actions, including criminal charges. [ 47 ] In my view, the bottom line is that you cannot drink and drive. Having that attitude would make our streets and highways safer for everyone.

The only choice a person should make when he or she is going to be drinking is to not drive. [ 48 ] To reiterate, the Crown is seeking a sentence of three years’ imprisonment and a driving prohibition of four years. Counsel for Mr. Joyce is seeking a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, a probation order for three years, and a driving prohibition of two years. [ 49 ] I have carefully considered the submissions of counsel, the case law, and the facts in this matter. I have determined that the appropriate sentence for Mr. Joyce for each offence is as follows:

a. Count No. 3 – while his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol, operating a motor vehicle and thereby causing the death of Marilyn Sheppard, contrary to section 255(3) of the Criminal Code – two years less a day; and b.

Count No. 4 - while his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol, operating a motor vehicle and thereby causing the death of Merle Sheppard, contrary to section 255(3) of the Criminal Code – two years less a day. [ 50 ] Based on sentencing principles, I am satisfied that it is appropriate that a fit and proper sentence in the circumstances is to make the sentence for Count No. 4 concurrent with the sentence for Count No. 3, resulting in a total sentence of two years less a day imprisonment. [ 51 ] I find that Mr.

Joyce should receive credit for the time he has already been on remand since March 4, 2019. The time is 24 days credited at the rate of 1.5 for a total of 36 days. I order that the total sentence of two years less a day be reduced by 36 days. [ 52 ] For the offence of impaired driving causing death where Mr. Joyce is liable to a period of imprisonment for life, under section 259(2)(a.1) of the Criminal Code , a court may impose a driving prohibition for “any period” plus the period of imprisonment imposed. I find that a driving prohibition is warranted. It has a two-fold purpose.

It is designed to protect the public and to deter an individual from engaging in the type of conduct that led Mr. Joyce to be in this court. It is an alternative to using the ultimate remedy of incarceration. Therefore, I order, pursuant to section 259(2)(a.1) of the Criminal Code , that Mr. Joyce is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle on any street, road, highway, or other public place for a period of two years plus the period of imprisonment imposed. [ 53 ] Pursuant to section 260(1) of the Criminal Code , I direct the Court Officer to cause the driving Order of Prohibition made under

section 259 to be read by or to Mr. Joyce and a copy thereof be given to him and that he be informed of the provisions of subsection 259(4) of the Criminal Code which states: 259(4) Every offender who operates a motor vehicle, vessel or aircraft or any railway equipment in Canada while disqualified from doing so, other than an offender who is registered in an alcohol ignition interlock device program established under the law of the province in which the offender resides and who complies with the conditions of the program, (

a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (

b) is guilty of an offence punishable on

summary conviction. [ 54 ] Pursuant to section 731(1) (

b) and

section 732.1(2) of the Criminal Code , a Probation Order for a period of three years is imposed. The conditions of the Probation Order are as follows: a. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour; b. Appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court; c. Within two working days of the commencement of this Probation Order, Mr. Joyce must report in person to a probation officer and thereafter as required; d. Mr. Joyce must comply with all instructions received from a probation officer and he must attend all counseling or treatment sessions or programs as recommended by a probation officer; e. Mr.

Joyce must refrain from the possession or consumption of alcohol for the first 24 months of this Probation Order; and f. Mr. Joyce must make a donation of $1,000 to MADD Canada, the amount to be paid before the expiry of the Probation Order. [ 55 ] There will be no victim fine surcharge in light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Boudreault , 2018 SCC 58 . [ 56 ] No sentence can adequately compensate for the loss of the lives of Merle Sheppard and Marilyn Sheppard on December 26, 2016. The sentence I have imposed is a significant one.

It is a combination of imprisonment, a driving prohibition, and probation. It sends a clear message to those persons who drink and drive and end up being charged with a criminal offence that there are consequences. [ 57 ] The period of imprisonment is a clear indication of the seriousness of this matter. A person who is sentenced to imprisonment is confined. The person loses his freedom. He loses his right to go freely wherever he wishes on a particular day. The person is subject to rules and regulations imposed by correctional officials. [ 58 ] A driving prohibition restricts a person’s right to drive.

Those who now have a driver’s licence take that for granted. As I noted above, a driving prohibition is intended to protect the public and to deter an offender from his previous conduct. [ 59 ] A probation order also restricts a person’s activities. The person is required to follow the conditions of the probation order for the length of time it is in effect. [ 60 ] The whole series of events that unfolded on December 26, 2016 in the town of Lark Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador, has had major life-altering consequences for many people.

I read that in the Victim Impact Statements of the members of the deceased persons’ family filed with the Court. There is a sense of loss. I read that in the letters of support on behalf of Mr. Joyce. I also read that from the statements Mr. Joyce made to the author of the Pre-Sentence Report and I heard what he said in this court on March 4, 2019.

[61] There is no going back from what happened on December 26, 2016 in Lark Harbour. The accident that occurred and the deathsof Merle Sheppard and Marilyn Sheppard have changed many lives forever. [62] Mr. Joyce, I sincerely hope this matter will be your only involvement in the criminal justice system. [63] I wish to thank counsel for their assistance and professionalism throughout this very difficult matter. _____________________________ Brian F. Furey Justice

Schedule “A” Authorities Submitted by the Crown 1. R. v. Mitchell, 2016 ONCJ 731; 2. R. v. Bernshaw, (SCC), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254; 3. R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64; 4. R. v. Woodward (1993), (NL CA), 108 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 240, 83 C.C.C. (3d) 75 (Nfld. C.A.); 5. R. v. Cluney, 2013 NLCA 46; 6. R. v. Ralph, 2007 NLTD 42; 7. R. v. Hynes, 2006 NLCA 10; 8. R. v. McCarthy (1997), (NL CA), 157 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 222, 36 W.C.B. (2d) 403 (Nfld. C.A.); 9. R. v. Thistle, 2015 NLTD(G) 44; and 10. R. v. Whalen, 2017 NLTD(G) 100. Authorities Submitted by the Defence 1. R. v. Tanner, 2018 BCSC 583; 2. R. v. Moore, 2010 BCSC 930; 3.

R. v. Stephens, 2013 ONCJ 575; 4. R. v. Alexander, 2010 NLTD 96; 5. R. v. Stimson, 2011 ABCA 59; 6. R. v. Gregoire, 2009 NLTD 21; 7. R. v. Wallace, 2012 MBCA 54; and 8. R. v. Maxwell-Smith, 2012 YKTC 107.