R. v. Mangat, 2022 BCPC 25

Citation: R. v. Mangat 2022 BCPC 25 Date: 20220216 File No: 260691-1 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Criminal Court) REGINA v. SUMEET MANGAT REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R. HARRIS Counsel for the Crown: M. Myhre Counsel for the Defendant: P. McMurray Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: December 21, 2021 Date of Judgment: February 16, 2022 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Mr. Mangat entered guilty pleas to impaired driving causing death and failing to stop at the scene of an accident with the

knowledge the accident resulted in a death. The Crown and the defence depart on what is a fit sentence. [ 2 ] This case is tragic. The sentencing outcome will not change what has occurred. Specifically, there is nothing this Court can do to ease the grief felt by the families, the friends, and the communities who are suffering the loss of Mr. Masala. Those impacted must understand that the sentence imposed is not to be equated with the value of the life lost and the harm suffered.

Such a feat is impossible, nor is it the aim of sentencing. [ 3 ] The task for this Court is to consider all of the circumstances and impose a fit sentence. With this in mind, the sentencing hearing was emotional for all, nevertheless, the focus of this Court is to apply the appropriate principles and impose a sentence that is proportional to the gravity of the offence and Mr. Mangat’s level of blameworthiness. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE [ 4 ] On June 29, 2019, Mr. Mangat was 22 years old and working at an automobile dealership.

On this date, he was at work, and in the morning hours, he was observed drinking a can of vodka. At around noon, he had a text argument with his then girlfriend, and he stated that he was going to get “fucked up”. [ 5 ] After the argument, Mr. Mangat suggested to a fellow employee, Mr. Teny, that they go and get some food. Mr. Teny agreed and the pair left the dealership with Mr. Mangat driving. As they drove, Mr. Teny played loud music and, according to Mr. Teny, Mr.

Mangat was driving “fast” but not so fast that he had to hold on. [ 6 ] The pair initially went to the Lougheed Mall but changed their minds and opted to go to a restaurant near Simon Fraser University (SFU). With this in mind, they started travelling up Gaglardi Way, toward SFU. As the pair passed Broadway, they encountered a long curve. At this point, the roadway consisted of four lanes with two lanes in each direction. On the right side of the roadway was a 1-meter wide shoulder that was separated from traffic by a marked solid white line. The speed limit was 60 km/h. [ 7 ] While driving through the curve, Mr.

Mangat passed another vehicle at an estimated speed of 90 km/h. As Mr. Mangat approached the end of the curve, the right side of his vehicle crossed the delineated white solid line and entered .66 of a meter onto the shoulder. Then, and while a portion of his vehicle was on the shoulder, Mr. Mangat struck Mr. Masala, who was cycling uphill toward SFU. [ 8 ] Mr. Masala was hit from behind and thrown onto the hood of Mr. Mangat’s vehicle, thereafter, he struck the windshield the pillar and he was ultimately thrown 43 meters from the point of impact. Mr.

Masala suffered a skull fracture, multiple bone fractures and his death was instantaneous. It is estimated, that Mr. Mangat was driving 71-85 km/h when he struck Mr. Masala. [ 9 ] Immediately before the collision, Mr. Teny had his head down and after it occurred he looked up and started to panic. Mr. Mangat told him to calm down and Mr. Teny told him to stop so they could look at the car. Mr. Mangat slowed but then sped up continuing up the hill. [ 10 ] Once he was near the top of the hill, Mr. Mangat pulled into a parking lot and stopped. Mr. Teny got out and inspected the damage to the vehicle.

The damage was extreme and Mr. Teny got back into the vehicle at which point Mr. Mangat told him that it was ok and that they would fix it. Mr. Mangat then continued driving saying he wanted to find a place to park. [ 11 ] Eventually, Mr. Mangat’s vehicle became inoperable and it stopped. A security guard who noticed the damage to Mr. Mangat’s vehicle and the bike parts trapped underneath approached Mr. Mangat and told him the vehicle matched the one that had been involved in a collision and that he should go back to the scene. Mr. Mangat told the security guard to leave.

The security guard then called the police. [ 12 ] Before the police arrived, Mr. Teny found a 375 ml bottle of vodka in the vehicle and he took it and the keys and threw them into a trashcan. When the police arrived, Mr. Mangat was in the driver’s seat and Mr. Teny was outside of the vehicle. [ 13 ] While interacting with Mr. Mangat, the police observed that his speech was slow and slurred, that his eyes were glossy, and that he had a smell of liquor on his breath. It was also noticed that Mr. Mangat had difficulty standing.

In fact, he was so unsteady that he needed to lean on the officers for support. [ 14 ] The police arrested Mr. Mangat and when asked if he understood why he was being arrested, Mr. Mangat responded that he was not driving. Mr. Mangat was taken to the police detachment where breath tests were performed and it was determined that his blood alcohol concentration was 200 and 190 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. After the tests, Mr. Mangat told the police that he had not been driving and that his buddy had been driving. [ 15 ] The police searched Mr. Mangat’s vehicle and they located pieces of Mr.

Masala’s bicycle trapped in the undercarriage. They also located a two-thirds, full 375 ml bottle of vodka in the pocket of the driver’s door. Photographs of the vehicle confirm the vehicle sustained significant body damage. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT [ 16 ] Pursuant to s. 722 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985 c. C-46 , this Court must consider any victim statement describing the harm done, or loss suffered. The Court received 30 written victim impact statements. Each statement was read in Court and I have re-read them. The statements speak to Mr. Masala’s great qualities and his worldly contributions.

It is through this lens that one comes to appreciate the immeasurable impact that his loss has had on those who loved him, admired him and relied on him. Below, I touch on some of the sentiments contained in the statements and despite my best efforts; I appreciate my observations fall short in conveying the grief, the loss, and the suffering. [ 17 ] Mr. Masala was born in Zambia, Africa, his family had 10 children and as a result he had a large immediate and extended family.

Mr. Masala attended university in Africa and Canada. He was a civil engineer and he had two master’s degrees, he was an avid cyclist, he was a father, a husband, he was a friend to many, and he was a visionary. Innumerable persons were impacted by his loss. [ 18 ] Mr. Masala came to Canada in 1994 and although living in Canada, he actively contributed to his community of origin. In this regard, he founded Dwankhozi Hope, a non-profit organization that built a high school and a medical clinic. He was a pillar in his community of origin and the community feels his loss. The Chief of Mr.

Masala’s village made these comments: The demise of the deceased has left the community helpless, hopeless, and stranded. He transformed the community by aid buil[d] a school, connect water (safe water), impact the community with kind and hope giving acts. His death has left the community mourning over and over again. [ 19 ] Further to the above, Mr. Masala provided financial support and guidance to his family. He provided financially to the care of his parents and he contributed financially to the education of his many relatives. Clearly, Mr.

Masala’s passing has left a financial void and the family has lost his voice of reason. As for his siblings, they speak of headaches, ill health, grief and a sense of loss since his passing. [ 20 ] Locally, Mr. Masala was a father, husband, mentor and colleague. Michelle Masala, Mr. Masala’s wife, speaks of her overwhelming grief, she worries about raising two young children and she fears for her children. Notably, she questions who will show her daughter how to be treated in a relationship and who will teach her son what it means to be a black male in today’s world. Ms.

Masala noted that since her husband’s death, her son has struggled in that he is uncharacteristically angry and violent. [ 21 ] Further to the above, Ms. Masala would find herself crying uncontrollably and she would find herself on the floor sobbing and unable to breath for fear that her grief would crush her. She is now being treated for anxiety, depression, and PTSD. [ 22 ] Apart, from the emotional impact of Mr. Masala’s passing, his family has suffered financially. Ms. Masala had to take time off of work and efforts to return proved impossible.

She could not afford to maintain the family home and she had to move to more affordable housing. Mr. Masala died intestate and there have been issues involving his life insurance with the result that the insurance proceeds went to the estate and not directly to Ms. Masala. [ 23 ] Victim impact statements from colleagues and friends speak to their sadness. They explain that they feel lost over losing a friend and a mentor. They also expressed grief and worry for Mr. Masala’s children and wife. [ 24 ] From the victim impact statements, it is clear that Mr. Masala’s passing has caused tremendous grief and suffering.

It has also robbed many of Mr. Masala’s support, guidance and contributions. The breadth of his loss is noted in Ms. Masala’s statement: The loss of Charles was a global loss and both the impact of his life and death will be experienced for decades to come. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER [ 25 ] I have had the benefit of a pre-sentence report prepared by Susan Hauser, letters from Mr. Mangat’s family, medical documents and submissions of counsel. [ 26 ] Mr. Mangat is 26 years old and he was 22 at the time of his offences. He grew up in a loving, stable environment.

In 2010, his family moved from Winnipeg to Surrey, British Columbia with the transition being challenging for Mr. Mangat. [ 27 ] In terms of education and employment, Mr. Mangat graduated from high school and he has been taking courses related to obtaining an engineering degree. In this regard, he has taken courses in pre-engineering with the idea of pursuing his education in geo- technical science. As for work, he has limited experience beyond working for his father. [ 28 ] Recently, Mr. Mangat’s family has undergone challenges.

His father was diagnosed with a cancerous tumour on his spinal cord with the result that his fine motor skills are impacted, thus, making work challenging. As such, Mr. Mangat assists him with his work. Mr. Mangat’s mother is disabled and she is incapable of working. [ 29 ] As for Mr. Mangat’s use of alcohol, he started drinking when he was 16 and this evolved to him drinking on a regular basis. Around the time of the offence, Mr. Mangat was consuming, approximately 375 millilitres of alcohol nightly. He attributes his consumption as a means of dealing with his anxiety. The offences have awakened Mr.

Mangat’s recognition that he has a problem with alcohol. Immediately after the offences, he sought the assistance of a doctor, he stopped drinking and he has participated in counselling in an effort to address his anxiety, which he sees as the underlying cause of his drinking. [ 30 ] Further positive steps taken by Mr. Mangat include; he spends more time at home, he regularly attends his gurdwara for prayer and service work, and he is also endeavouring to learn new skills through automotive work and home renovations. [ 31 ] As for his physical health, letters confirm Mr.

Mangat has experienced various health issues. Of significance, he has experienced bouts of dizziness and despite various diagnostic efforts; doctors have not identified the cause. Additionally, Mr. Mangat was hospitalized in 2018 with pericarditis and although there has been no reoccurrence, there is concern that his heart issue is a source of his dizziness. [ 32 ] Letters filed in support of Mr. Mangat confirm he has made post offence changes in his life. Specifically, the letters confirm he is more family focussed, he has changed his circle of friends and he has stopped drinking. Those close to Mr.

Mangat observe that he is remorseful for what he has done. They also confirm Mr. Mangat’s general character as kind, gentle and loving. [ 33 ] I recognize that Mr. Mangat does not have a criminal record and that he leads a pro-social life. Nevertheless, his driving history is problematic. On the day that Mr. Mangat struck Mr. Masala, he had a “Novice” licence designation meaning he was restricted from driving with any alcohol in his system. Additionally, in 2016 and 2018, he was prohibited from driving for 90-days after failing roadside alcohol screening tests. As for the 2018 prohibition, Mr.

Mangat collided with a lamppost and when the police investigated they noticed

symptoms of alcohol impairment. A blood demand was made and charges were forwarded to the Crown; however, charges were notapproved. POSITION OF THE PARTIES [34] The Crown seeks a custodial sentence in the range of 3 to 4 years, a 10-year driving prohibition (less the time he has not driven)for the impaired causing death and a concurrent 9-12 month sentence for leaving the scene of an accident. In support, the Crown relieson the aggravating circumstances, the harm caused, and the need to impose a sentence that strongly denounces and deters. The Crownrelies on: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, R. v.

Suter, 2018 SCC 34, R. v. Gourlay, 2019 BCSC 884, R. v. Tanner, 2018 BCSC 583, R. v.Fox, 2020 BCPC 15, R. v. Warren, 2012 BCPC 483, R. v. Fenton, 2017 BCPC 216. [35] Counsel for Mr. Mangat argues that a sentence of 2 years, less one day, probation for 3 years, and an effective 5 year drivingprohibition achieves the requisite degree of denunciation and deterrence while supporting Mr. Mangat’s continued rehabilitation. Insupport, counsel emphasises Mr. Mangat’s age, his post offence rehabilitative steps and his family support. Counsel relies on: R. v.Berner, 2013 BCCA 188, R. v.

Suter, 2018 SCC 34, Tanner, 2018 BCSC 583, R. v. Lewis, 2019 BCPC 114, and R. v. Laliberte, 2018BCSC 318. SENTENCING PRINCIPLES [36] A visceral response to the tragic loss of Mr. Masala would be to impose the maximum custodial sentence available; however,such a response would not bring Mr. Masala back, nor would it ease the grief felt by those who knew him.

Moreover, to respondemotionally would ignore the purpose and principles of sentencing and result in an unjust sentence. [37] With the above in mind, s. 718 to s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code provides guidance with respect to imposing a just andappropriate sentence. Below, I briefly discuss some of the provisions.

Fundamental purpose of sentencing [38] As per s. 718, the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime preventioninitiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one ormore 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. Fundamental sentencing principle [39] As per s. 718.1, a fundamental principle of sentencing is that the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of theoffence and the degree of offender responsibility.

In Lacasse, Justice Wagner, now Chief Justice, commented on the importance ofproportional sentences at paras. 128-129: [128] The principle of proportionality has a long history as a guiding principle in sentencing, and it has a constitutional dimension: R. v.Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, at para. 41; R. v. M. (C.A.), (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 41. Aperson cannot be made to suffer a disproportionate punishment simply to send a message to discourage others from offending: Nur, atpara. 45. As Rosenberg J.A. wrote in R. v.

Priest (1996), (ON CA), 30 O.R. (3d) 538 (C.A.), at pp. 546-47: The principle of proportionality is rooted in notions of fairness and justice. For the sentencing court to do justice to the particularoffender, the sentence imposed must reflect the seriousness of the offence, the degree of culpability of the offender, and the harmoccasioned by the offence. The court must have regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in the particular case.

Careful adherenceto the proportionality principle ensures that this offender is not unjustly dealt with for the sake of the common good. [Footnote omitted.] Although a court can, in pursuit of the objective of general deterrence, impose a harsher sentence in order to send a message with a viewto deterring others, the offender must still deserve that sentence: R. v. Paré, 2011 QCCA 2047; G. Renaud, The Sentencing Code ofCanada: Principles and Objectives (2009), at para. 3.13.

If a judge fails to individualize a sentence and to consider the relevantmitigating factors while placing undue emphasis on the circumstances of the offence and the objectives of denunciation and deterrence,all that is done is to punish the crime: R. v. R. (M.), 2010 QCCA 16, 73 C.R. (6th) 136. Proportionality requires that a sentence notexceed what is just and appropriate in light of the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the gravity of the offence.

From thisperspective, it serves as a limiting principle: Nasogaluak, at para. 42. [129] My colleague states that the principle of proportionality means that the more serious the crime and its consequences, or the greaterthe offender’s degree of responsibility, the heavier the sentence will be (para. 12). I would qualify this statement somewhat. In my view,an offender’s degree of responsibility does not flow inevitably and solely from the gravity of the offence.

The gravity of the offence andthe moral blameworthiness of the offender are two separate factors, and the principle of proportionality requires that full consideration begiven to each of them: Proulx, at para. 83. As s. 718.1 Cr. C. provides, “[a] sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of theoffence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.”

[130] Whereas the gravity of the offence concerns the harm caused by the offender to the victim as well as to society and its values, theother aspect of the principle of proportionality involves factors that relate to the offender’s moral culpability: The “degree of responsibility of the offender” as used in s. 718.1 certainly includes the mens rea level of intent, recklessness or wilfulblindness associated with the actus reus of the crime committed. For this assessment, courts are able to draw extensively on criminaljustice principles.

The greater the harm intended or the greater the degree of recklessness or wilful blindness, the greater the moralculpability. However, the reference in s. 718.1 is not simply to the “mens rea degree of responsibility of the offender” at the time ofcommission of the crime. Parliament evidently intended “degree of responsibility of the offender” to include other factors affectingculpability. These might relate, for example, to the offender’s personal circumstances, mental capacity or motive for committing thecrime.

Where else does the Code provide for an offender’s degree of responsibility generally to be taken into account? Here, too, theanswer takes us to s. 718.2.

Section 718.2 directs the sentencing judge to take into consideration a number of principles. All are either components of theproportionality principle or properly influence its

interpretation and application. Either way, all are relevant in determining a just sanctionthat satisfies the proportionality principle. [Citation omitted.] (R. v. J.L.M.A., 2010 ABCA 363, 499 A.R. 1, at paras. 58-59; see also Nasogaluak, at para. 42; M. (C.A.), at para. 40.) [131] The application of the proportionality principle may therefore cause the two factors to conflict, particularly where the gravity ofthe offence points strongly to a sentence at one end of the range while the moral culpability of the offender points in the otherdirection: R. v.

Hamilton (2004), (ON CA), 72 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), at para. 93, quoted in C. C. Ruby, G. J. Chan andN. R. Hasan, Sentencing (8th ed. 2012), at pp. 26-27. In short, although it is true that the gravity of the crime is a relevant factor, it mustnevertheless be considered in conjunction with the offender’s degree of responsibility, a factor that is unrelated to the gravity of theoffence. Other sentencing principles

Section 718.2 sets out other sentencing principles that a court shall take into consideration. Relevant to the instant matter are: (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offenceor the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, … (iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, includingtheir health and financial situation, … shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances; (

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 tovictims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginaloffenders.

APPLICATION Sentencing objectives [40] The need for denunciation and deterrence for offences involving impaired driving is underscored in Lacasse, where JusticeWagner stated: [73] While it is true that the objectives of deterrence and denunciation apply in most cases, they are particularly relevant to offences thatmight be committed by ordinarily law-abiding people. It is such people, more than chronic offenders, who will be sensitive to harshsentences.

Impaired driving offences are an obvious example of this type of offence, as this Court noted in Proulx: … dangerous driving and impaired driving may be offences for which harsh sentences plausibly provide general deterrence. Thesecrimes are often committed by otherwise law-abiding persons, with good employment records and families. Arguably, such persons arethe ones most likely to be deterred by the threat of severe penalties: see R. v. McVeigh (1985), (ON CA), 22 C.C.C.(3d) 145 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 150; R. v. Biancofiore (1997), (ON CA), 119 C.C.C. (3d) 344 (Ont. C.A.), atparas. 18-24; R. v.

Blakeley (1998), (ON CA), 40 O.R. (3d) 541 (C.A.), at pp. 542-43. [para. 129] [41] Similarly, in R. v. Johnson (1996), (BC CA), 112 C.C.C. (3d) 225, Justice Ryan commented at para. 30 onthe appropriateness of denunciation and deterrence when sentencing for the offence of impaired driving causing death: [30] Drinking [and] driving causing death or bodily harm offences are senseless crimes because they are so easily avoided and at thesame time they are so easily committed by ordinary citizens. They are unlike any other crimes in the sense that nothing much can beoffered to justify driving drunk.

Crimes of theft may be motivated by poverty, crimes of assault may be motivated by fear, but whatexcuse can be offered for driving drunk, except that alcohol allowed the offender to lose all sense of judgment? It is for this reason thatcommunities rightfully express outrage when victims are killed or injured as a result of such conduct. It is for this reason that bothdeterrence and denunciation are legitimate objectives to pursue for this type of offence.

[42] Finally, and consistent with the pressing need for denunciation and deterrence, I acknowledge the comments of the SupremeCourt of Canada in R. v. Bernshaw, (SCC), [1995] 1 SCR 254 where the Court observed: [16] Every year, drunk driving leaves a terrible trail of death, injury, heartbreak and destruction. From the point of view of numbersalone, it has a far greater impact on Canadian society than any other crime.

In terms of the deaths and serious injuries resulting inhospitalization, drunk driving is clearly the crime which causes the most significant social loss to the country. … [43] Despite the need for a sentence that denounces and deters, I acknowledge Mr. Mangat’s rehabilitative prospects. Specifically, heis young, he does not have a criminal record, he has the support of his family, he has stopped drinking and he has taken counselling. Seriousness of the offence and Mr. Mangat’s level of responsibility [44] Turning to proportionality, Mr. Mangat’s offences are serious.

The seriousness of his conduct is highlighted by the availablepenalty and his actions. The maximum available penalty for impaired driving causing death is life imprisonment. As for his actions, Mr.Mangat’s behavior not only placed the general community at significant risk it also claimed the life of Mr. Masala. [45] As for Mr. Mangat’s level of responsibility, counsel suggested Mr. Mangat’s anxiety and his self-medicating with alcoholreduces his moral culpability. While I accept Mr. Mangat was suffering from anxiety and this contributed to his alcohol use, the evidencefalls short of satisfying me that Mr.

Mangat’s response to his anxiety deprived him of the ability to make reasonable decisions. [46] Although Mr. Mangat’s conduct clearly demonstrates poor decisions, there is no evidence to suggest a link between his anxietyand his decisions. I observe, Mr. Mangat chose to go to work, he chose to drink at work, he planned to go out for lunch, he decidedwhom to invite, he chose to drive after drinking, he chose to flee the collision and he chose to lie to the police about who was driving.Simply, there is nothing to suggest that Mr.

Mangat’s anxiety negatively affected his decision-making abilities. [47] For the above reasons, I find the offence serious and Mr. Mangat’s degree of responsibility high. Aggravating and mitigating circumstances [48] I find the following to be aggravating: • Mr. Mangat was “Novice” driver and therefore prohibited from operating a motor vehicle with alcohol in his system. • Mr. Mangat had been involved in two other driving events involving alcohol events (2016, 2018) and these failed to deter him. • The context of Mr. Mangat’s offence. Mr.

Mangat committed his offence early on a Saturday afternoon in a location that istypically busy with vehicle and bike traffic. • Mr. Mangat lied to the police. Significantly, he tried to escape liability by telling the police that his passenger had been driving. • Mr. Mangat’s blood alcohol concentration was more than double the legal limit. Specifically, 200 and 190 milligrams of alcoholper 100 millimeters of blood. Pursuant to s. 320.22 (

e) of the Criminal Code, this is statutorily aggravating. • Mr. Mangat’s offences have had a significant financial and emotional impact on Mr. Masala’s immediate family and his extendedfamily. Pursuant to s. 718.2 (iii.1) of the Criminal Code, this is statutorily aggravating. [49] I find the following to be mitigating: • Mr. Mangat’s guilty plea is significantly mitigating. He has saved the time and expense associated with a trail. He has also savedMr. Masala’s family from the emotions generated by a trial. • Mr. Mangat is genuinely remorseful for his conduct. • Mr.

Mangat has the support of his family. • Finally, Mr. Mangat has taken steps to address his drinking. He has taken counselling, medication, he has changed his circle offriends, and he has stopped drinking. Range of sentence [50] The sentencing range for impaired driving causing death is two to three years to more substantial sentences of eight to ten yearsdepending on the circumstances: Suter at para. 90. The sentencing range identified in Berner is between eighteen months and eight years:para 37.

This variability in the sentencing ranges is reflective of the variety of the circumstances in which the offence can be committed:Lacasse, para. 66. [51] In considering the authorities submitted, I recognize sentencing ranges are not “straight jackets”; rather, the circumstances of aparticular case may justify going outside a particular range.

As per Lacasse, this perspective reflects that the determination of a just andappropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a purely mathematical calculation wherein a variety ofcircumstances are at play including the offender’s circumstances at para. 58. [52] In Tanner, the offender was sentenced to two years less a day and one-year probation for impaired driving causing death. Theoffender was 18 years old and he had been out drinking with friends. On leaving the bar, he drove in tandem with a vehicle driven by hisbrother.

The offender attempted to pass his brother’s vehicle at high speed and he collided with his brother’s vehicle causing bothvehicles to leave the roadway ultimately killing a passenger in the offender’s vehicle. The offender did not have a criminal record, he hadfamily support, he had a strong work background, he had a 24 hour roadside prohibition on his driving abstract and he had taken steps to

curb his alcohol use. [ 53 ] In Fox , the offender received a 30-month sentence after pleading guilty to dangerous driving causing death and driving with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in his blood and causing death. The offender was 27, he was a qualified journeyman, he did not have a criminal record, he had a minor and unrelated driving abstract and he had the support of family and friends. As for the offences, after consuming alcohol, the offender entered a curve at an excessive speed causing his vehicle to leave the roadway and roll killing the passenger.

The offender’s blood alcohol concentration was 168 milligrams percent. [ 54 ] In Warren , the offender received a 34-month sentence for dangerous driving causing death and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams percent. She also received a 3-month consecutive sentence for leaving the scene of the accident. The offences involved the offender entering an intersection against a red light at high speed and colliding with the victim’s vehicle causing the victim’s death. The offender checked the victim but shortly thereafter fled the scene hiding nearby.

Testing revealed a blood alcohol concentration of 140 milligrams percent. The offender was 35 years old, she did not have a criminal record, she had a supportive family, she stopped drinking after the offences, she was attending school and she volunteered in the community. [ 55 ] In Fenton , the offender pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death and dangerous driving causing death. He was sentenced to imprisonment for four years for impaired driving and a consecutive sentence of three years for dangerous driving.

As for the offences, the offender was driving a truck late at night and he entered an intersection against a red light at a spread of between 72 and 90 km/h. He collided with an on duty police officer who died. The offender was 28, he did not have a criminal record, he was employed and he had a young son.

The offender had a lengthy driving history including two prohibitions related to drinking and driving. [ 56 ] In Lewis , the Court acceded to a joint submission and imposed a sentence of two years, plus a day for impaired driving causing death and a concurrent six-month sentence for leaving the scene of an accident. The offences involved the offender failing to negotiate a curve causing his vehicle to leave the roadway and roll. One passenger was killed and the other had minor injuries. After the collision, the offender hid empty beer tins and ran from the scene.

When the offender was arrested testing revealed a blood alcohol concentration range of 145 milligrams to 167 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The offender was 22 at the time of the collision, he had a dysfunctional upbringing, and he suffered from ADHD, depression, mood disorders and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Noteworthy is, the sentencing judge acknowledged the offender’s background as mitigating and its role in reducing his moral culpability. [ 57 ] In Laliberte , the offender was convicted of impaired driving causing death and bodily harm.

The offender was charged after she accelerated away from a traffic light, mounted the curb, struck and killed a pedestrian, thereafter, she collided with a number of cars. The offender’s blood alcohol concentration was 120 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, and 100 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The offender was 49, at the time of the offence, she was an untreated diabetic and she was aware that she had an addiction to alcohol. The offender did not have a criminal record, she was Indigenous, and she had a challenging upbringing where she witnessed violence and regular drinking.

For the offence of causing death, the offender received a 25-month custodial sentence and an 18-month concurrent sentence for offences involving bodily harm. [ 58 ] In Berner , the Court upheld a global sentence of two and a half years with a 5-year driving prohibition. The offender was a 58 with no criminal record, who was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and impaired driving causing death. The offences involved the offender driving at 91 km/h in a 50 km/h zone when she hit a speed bump, lost control of her vehicle and thereafter responded by accidently hitting the gas rather than the brake.

The offender’s vehicle struck a parked car, a woman and a child. The woman was seriously injured and the child was killed. The offender had a blood alcohol concentration of between .063 and .117 milligrams percent.

SUMMARY [ 59 ] The sentence that I impose must protect the public. In this regard, the sentence must denounce Mr. Mangat’s conduct while deterring him and others from committing the serious offence of drinking and driving. Specifically, those who drink and drive and cause death or serious bodily harm must appreciate, absent exceptional circumstances, that they will receive a jail sentence.

With this in mind, restraint must not be abandoned and care must be taken to ensure the sentence imposed is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and to the offender’s degree of responsibility. [ 60 ] Applying the cases provided, Mr. Mangat’s circumstances are highly distinguishable. First, he has a constellation of aggravating features including; speeding, the time of day, the attempt to blame an innocent person, previous driving prohibitions (which failed to alter his behaviour), being a Novice driver and his high blood alcohol concentrations. Second, and unlike Lewis and Leliberite, Mr.

Mangat does not have personal circumstances that attenuate his moral culpability. Lastly, and also distinguishing is, many of the cases cited involved the additional aggravating feature of extremely high speed. CONCLUSION [ 61 ] After considering the circumstances of the offence, the victim impact, the materials filed and the authorities; for the offence of impaired driving causing death, I impose a custodial sentence of 30 months. I have declined to impose the higher sentence suggested by the Crown because it fails to account for Mr. Mangat’s rehabilitative prospects and the mitigating features of the case.

As for the sentence suggested by counsel for Mr. Mangat, I find that it is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence and Mr. Mangat’s degree of responsibility. [ 62 ] Turning to the offence of leaving the scene of an accident, I impose a concurrent 15-month sentence of imprisonment. In my view, Mr. Mangat’s behaviour displayed a cold and calculated disregard for the life of another human being. Simply, and only to avoid the consequences of his behaviour, Mr. Mangat fled the scene thereby leaving a human soul at roadside. This disregard was further aggravated when Mr.

Mangat selfishly tried to escape liability by blaming an innocent person. Mr. Mangat’s actions related to this offence were cowardly at best. For these reasons, I conclude to impose a lesser sentence would impact the public confidence in the administration of justice and would be unfit. ANCILLARY ORDERS

Driving prohibition – s. 320.24 (5) [ 63 ] For the offence of impaired driving causing death and pursuant to s. 320.24 (5) of the Criminal Code , I recognize that Mr. Mangat has been prohibited from driving for a period of two and half years, accordingly, I impose a prohibition of 54 months, plus 30 months for a total court imposed prohibition of 84 months. DNA [ 64 ] Pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code , and after considering the circumstances of the offences and Mr. Mangat’s circumstances, I conclude the best interests of the administration of justice outweighs Mr.

Mangat’s privacy and security of his person and I order that a sample of his DNA be taken. VICTIM FIND SURCHARGE [ 65 ] I observe Mr. Mangat has been living at home and he has been working. There is no information to suggest that the victim fine surcharge would be a hardship. Accordingly, he must pay the requisite victim fine surcharge on or before September 30, 2024. ____________________________ The Honourable Judge R. Harris Provincial Court of British Columbia