2014 QCCQ 1961, 2014 QCCQ 1961

R. c. Iserhoff 2014 QCCQ 1961 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF ABITIBI TOWN OF MISTISSINI Criminal Division No.: 640-01-027281-121 DATE: Sentence hearing: January 31, 2014 Rectified written judgment: February 20, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE LUCILLE CHABOT J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN COMPLAINANT v.

CHARLIE ISERHOFF ACCUSED ______________________________________________________________________ RECTIFIED JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The accused pleaded guilty to four counts, which are: Two counts of operating a motor vehicle while his ability to do so was impaired by alcohol and causing bodily harm to two young women, W. L. (1994-[...]) and Wa.

C. (255(2) Criminal Code (Cr.C.)); Two counts of having left the scene of the accident while in the care of the motor vehicle involved, knowing that bodily harm had been caused, with the intent to escape civil or criminal liability (252(1.2) Cr.C.). [ 2 ] THE FACTS [ 3 ] On September 9, 2012, three young women were walking along a street in Mistissini. One of them had just turned 19 that very day. The other victim was 18 years old. [ 4 ] The age at which everything is possible, the best things in life are still to come, and plans, dreams and goals are achievable.

The age where young people have confidence in their future and their ability to realize their dreams. [ 5 ] Wa. C. was an athlete and playing hockey was an important part of her life. She performed at a high level and still hoped to improve and upgrade. She had the talent to succeed. In a few seconds, her dreams shattered. She was hit by the accused and left lying in the street. [ 6 ] First assessed by the CLSC, she was transferred by ambulance to Chibougamau's hospital. Once her condition was stabilized, she wastransfered to Montrela by helicopter, where she underwent surgeries.

She suffered from a dislocated hip and a badly broken leg. [ 7 ] She was sent back to Chibougamau's hospital, from which she was released on September 26. [ 8 ] A few weeks in a wheelchair were followed by crutches. She could resume school only in October. [ 9 ] She lives with a piece of metal and four screws in her leg. More than one year after the event, she has not totally recovered. Pain is still present. [ 10 ] She is no longer able to play hockey or any other sport. Will it be possible one day?

No one knows, but it is doubtful that she will ever resume playing hockey at her former level. [ 11 ] The second victim was also injured but to a lesser extent. [ 12 ] The third young woman was not struck because one of her friends pushed her away. [ 13 ] That night, the accused, along with co-workers, celebrated the end of the season at Sépaq. He had six to seven glasses of wine

and six to seven beers. [ 14 ] Around 1:45 a.m., he left the camp driving his own pickup truck. He headed to Chibougamau to the Cab Arrêt Bar, where he had three to four beers. [ 15 ] He left the bar at around 3 a.m. to come back to Mistissini, which is one hour away. Again, he decided to drive his vehicle, even if he felt that he could not drive. From the statement he gave to the police, it appears that it was not the first time Mr. Iserhoff drove under the influence of alcohol.

He stated that there was only one time in the past when he felt that he could not drive and took a taxi. [ 16 ] On his way back, while driving, he had two small cans of beer. [ 17 ] The weather was inclement, with pouring rain and a strong wind. Nonetheless, he drove to Mistissini. [ 18 ] He heard a loud bang. He swerved, slowed down a few seconds and finally sped up and went home. [ 19 ] He knew that he had hit someone. He decided not to stay at the scene. [ 20 ] A few hours later, when police came knocking at his door, Mr. Iserhoff told his spouse not to answer, suggesting that it must be drunks.

He was finally arrested and gave an incriminating statement to the police. [ 21 ] POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES [ 22 ] The prosecution suggested a term of 18 months of imprisonment. That position is based on the necessity of meeting the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. The Crown attorney emphasized that the accused not only drove when he knew he should not, he also had beers on his way back to Mistissini. The prosecution also underscored that it was not the first time the accused had driven while intoxicated by alcohol.

This time he hit people and showed a total disregard for his victims by leaving the scene of the accident. The Crown attorney also asked for a five-year prohibition to drive. [ 23 ] Counsel for the defence acknowledged the gravity of the offences.

She invoked Gladue [1] and Ipeelee , [2] decisions of the Supreme Court, reminding the Court that, the accused being an Aboriginal, all sanctions other than imprisonment should be contemplated. [ 24 ] Pleading Nasogaluak , [3] she underlined that sentence ranges are not hard and fast rules but guidelines. [ 25 ] Given the character of the accused, his age and background, and the fact that a conditional order of imprisonment is not an available sentence, she was of the opinion that a substantial fine, a probation order involving a large amount of community work and a follow-up with the Justice Committee would be a fit sentence for this particular accused.

A three-year prohibition to drive would be sufficient. [ 26 ] PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACCUSED [ 27 ] The Court had the benefit of a pre-sentence report, dated September 9, 2013 and signed by Martine Lanthier, probation officer. At the request of the accused's counsel, the Court also ordered that a Gladue report be available for the sentencing hearing. [ 28 ] Unfortunately, Mr.

Iserhoff declined this opportunity, feeling that to look back at his past, particularly the loss of loved ones, would be too difficult. [ 29 ] The Court draws no negative conclusions about the accused's position, respecting the fact that it can be difficult to go through such a process and that the accused is not emotionally ready to take this step.

It can be difficult to open up to past traumas and, when a person does so, there can be arduous consequences that should be dealt with by a professional such as a psychologist or therapist. [ 30 ] The accused is 67 years old, member of the Cree First Nation of Mistissini and father of 11 children. [ 31 ] He worked at Sépaq for 30 years. The sworn statement provided by his employer is impressive. Mr. Iserhoff is described as a responsible and reliable employee. He had never been late for work or missed a day of work in relation to alcohol consumption. The employer had full confidence in Mr. Iserhoff. As Mr.

Iserhoff is now retired, everyone misses him, his experience and his knowledge. [ 32 ] Mr. Iserhoff had been sober for 25 years. In 2011, he resumed his alcohol consumption. He stopped drinking after the event that led to the case at bar. [ 33 ] Since he retired, he is often in the bush building cabins. [ 34 ] He has been in a relationship with his wife for 46 years. Together, they raised 11 children and are the grandparents of 15 grandchildren. Mr. Iserhoff teaches them traditional activities. [ 35 ] As a child, he was mainly raised in the bush. He describes his parents as loving and caring.

He attended school for only three years. During that period, he lived with a foster family in Chibougamau. He was bullied by non-Native children. [ 36 ] He has a heart condition for which he has a pacemaker. [ 37 ] He has no prior convictions.

[ 38 ] The pre-sentence report states that he acknowledges his responsibility but not fully the illegal aspect of the event of September 2012. The probation officer wrote that he seems to downplay the consequences for the victims. [ 39 ] In the opinion of the probation officer, Mr. Iserhoff's rehabilitation plan is realistic: she assessed the risk of recidivism as being low. [ 40 ] Mr. Iserhoff shows genuine remorse.

He is sorry for what he has done and willing to work with the Justice Committee. [ 41 ] OBJECTIVE GRAVITY OF THE OFFENCES [ 42 ] A person found guilty of impaired driving causing bodily harm is liable to 10 years of imprisonment in accordance with section 255(2) Cr.C . [ 43 ] A person found guilty of failing to stop at the scene of an accident with the intent to escape civil or criminal liability, while knowing that bodily harm has been caused to another person, is also liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. [ 44 ] As admitted by the defence counsel,

section 742.1 Cr.C rules out the availability of a conditional sentence of imprisonment in relation to

section 752, pursuant to which an offence involving conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person constitutes a serious personal injury offence in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii). [ 45 ] GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING [ 46 ]

Section 718 Cr.C states the following: 718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is 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; (

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 and to the community. [ 47 ]

Section 718.1 provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Section 718.2 adds other principles that the Court has to consider when sentencing an offender. The Court must take into account any aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, in addition to the principle that the sentence should be similar to other sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar crimes committed in similar circumstances. The Court has to consider all alternative sanctions other than imprisonment, with particular attention to the situation of Aboriginal offenders. [ 48 ] Sentencing is an individual process.

The Court must craft a sentence that will take all relevant factors into account.

In Gladue , [4] the Supreme Court expressed these principles in the following questions: • What is the appropriate sentence for this offence committed by this offender, harming this victim, in this community? • What understanding of criminal sanctions is held by the community? • What is the nature of the relationship between the offender and his or her community? • What combination of systemic or background factors contributed to this particular offender coming before the courts for this particular offence? • How has the offender who is being sentenced been affected by substance abuse in the community, or poverty, or overt racism, or family or community breakdown? • Would imprisonment effectively serve to deter or denounce crime in a sense that would be significant to the offender and community? [ 49 ] Later in the same decision, the Court wrote: Sentencing must proceed with sensitivity to and understanding of the difficulties aboriginal people have faced with both the criminal justice system and society at large. [5] [ 50 ] Again, in 2012, the Supreme Court stated in Ipeelee [6] that judicial notice of the systemic and background factors must be taken.

These have an impact on the sentence that the Court has to determine.

[ 51 ] Even if the Court was not provided with a Gladue report, there are systemic factors that are known to the judge, who has sat in the same communities for over eight years. [ 52 ] The Court was given such reports in other cases and the particularities of the community of Mistissini and its members have been explained. [ 53 ] The Court also read the study written by Janie Pachano, The Cree and Social Impacts of Historic Events in James Bay . [7] [ 54 ] These particular factors have to be taken into consideration when crafting an appropriate sentence. [ 55 ] ANALYSIS [ 56 ] Mitigating factors • Mr.

Iserhoff pleaded guilty and acknowledges his responsibility; • He is 67 years old and has no prior convictions; • He is remorseful; • He stopped drinking; • He has an adequate and supportive family and social network; • He worked all his life and raised 11 children, showing stability and responsibility; • He was cooperative and honest when he stated to the police that he has already driven when under the influence of alcohol; • He gave an incriminating statement; • He is at low risk of recidivism; • Rehabilitation is realistic. [ 57 ] Aggravating factors • He decided to drive even if he knew he should not because he was in no condition to drive; • He drank beer while driving on his way back to Mistissini; • There are two victims, one of whom has not completely recovered; • He fled the scene, trying to avoid the consequences; • He had already driven in the same condition in the past. [ 58 ] It is important to note that some aggravating factors listed above are intrinsic to the offences (fled the scene) and that the existence of two victims led to two different counts, so that the Court should not give undue weight to these two elements. [ 59 ] The crimes committed by the accused generally call for sentencing aimed at denunciation and general deterrence, although all other factors must also be given due consideration. [ 60 ] In R. v.

Blouin [8] , the Appeal Court stated that for the dangerous driving causing bodily harm, a range of sentence between 9 and 18 months are usually imposed. A parallel can be drawn between cases involving dangerous driving causing bodily harm and those related to alcohol [9] . [ 61 ] In Ferland [10] , the Appeal Court wrote: [37] La peine variera en fonction des faits particuliers de chaque affaire.

Il sera notamment tenu compte des circonstances de l'infraction, de ses conséquences, de la situation du délinquant dont l'usage d'alcool ou de stupéfiant lors de l'infraction et des antécédents judiciaires en semblable matière. [ 62 ] Some court decisions imposed intermittent imprisonment for a duration of 90 days in such circumstances [11] . The accused in this case was an Aboriginal offender and he was facing a count of impaired driving causing bodily harm. [ 63 ] In R. v. Petiquay [12] , the accused was a young man member of the Atikamekw First Nation.

He killed two people while driving his ATV under the influence of alcohol. He was driving fast and had a beer in his hand when the accident occurred. The facts revealed that the police officers had arrested him one month before for driving under the influence of alcohol but they gave him a chance and no charges were laid. The accused had some prior convictions but not in related matters. The judge took into consideration the teachings in the Gladue ruling and sentenced the offender to a term of imprisonment of 10 months.

As we can see in this file, the facts were notably more serious than the case at bar. [ 64 ] In R. v. Palliser [13] , Justice Claude Bigué imposed on an Inuit accused a term of imprisonment of 10 months for dangerous driving causing the death of one person. [ 65 ] In Kawapit [14] , Justice Renée Lemoine imposed to a young Cree accused a probation, with a large amount of hours of

community work, instead of a term of imprisonment. In this file the accused was facing 3 charges of driving under the influence of alcohol and one of dangerous driving for 3 different events, one from April 2009, one from September 2009 and December 2009. [ 66 ] Many court decisions have stressed the principle of denunciation, in order to make it unattractive for others to get behind the wheel when intoxicated. This is the result of less tolerance in our society for drinking and driving.

In Bernshaw , [15] the Supreme Court wrote: 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.... [ 67 ] In the case at bar, specific deterrence is not a significant objective, given the fact that the risk of recidivism is low. [ 68 ] Rehabilitating the offender is significant, given its feasibility, as assessed by the probation officer in the pre-sentence report. [ 69 ] The fact that there are no prior convictions in any matter has an undeniably greater weight in the case of an offender who is 67 years old than in the case of a much younger offender. [ 70 ] The fact that Mr.

Iserhoff was able not to drink for a period of 25 years tells us that he can achieve a goal of abstinence for the future, thus ensuring the safety of other members of his community. He quit drinking since these events. [ 71 ] The Court must also consider that an order prohibiting Mr. Iserhoff from operating any motor vehicles is part of the sentence and likely to protect his fellow citizens. [ 72 ] The reading of a number of courts decisions (listed in the annex to this judgment) makes it clear that terms of imprisonment are generally imposed for such crimes. [ 73 ] Exceptions, though not numerous, do exist.

The fact of their existence proves that sentencing is an individualized process and that each case has to be assessed on the basis of its facts and circumstances, while taking into account the character of the offender. [ 74 ] A court sentences a person for a crime, not only the crime itself. Otherwise, sentences would be the same for similar crimes in all the cases brought before the courts. [ 75 ] Does the offender in the case at bar need to be separated from society in order to protect it?

The answer is clearly no. [ 76 ] The circumstances of this case clearly demonstrate that even otherwise law-abiding citizens can find themselves facing criminal charges for drinking and driving. [ 77 ] In Proulx , [16] the Supreme Court wrote: I point out that the offences here were very serious, and that they had resulted in a death and in severe bodily harm. Moreover, dangerous driving and impaired driving may be offences for which harsh sentences plausibly provide general deterrence. These crimes are often committed by otherwise law-abiding persons, with good employment records and families.

Arguably, such persons are the ones most likely to be deterred by the threat of severe penalties. [ 78 ] In Gladue , [17] the Court,in reference to the goal of denunciation, wrote: In cases where such factors have played a significant role, it is incumbent upon the sentencing judge to consider these factors in evaluating whether imprisonment would actually serve to deter, or to denounce crime in a sense that would be meaningful to the community of which the offender is a member.

In many instances, more restorative sentencing principles will gain primary relevance precisely because the prevention of crime as well as individual and social healing cannot occur through other means. [Emphasis added.] [ 79 ] In Paré , [18] the Court of Appeal, discussing the deterrent effect of incarceration, quoted Justice Antonio Lamer in Proulx : . . .

The empirical evidence suggests that the deterrent effect of incarceration is uncertain: see generally Sentencing Reform: A Canadian Approach , supra , at pp. 136-37. . . . [ 80 ] For his part, Justice Doyon wrote: [51] Indeed, it is rather well established that the harshness of a sentence is only a mild deterrent. Rather, this effect is achieved through the likelihood of being arrested and punished. For example, in Sentencing in Cases of Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm or Impaired Driving Causing Death , an important report prepared for the Canada Safety Council in February 2005, Professors David M.

Paciocco and Julian Roberts made the following comment at page 49: However, when a correlational analysis is performed on crime rates and average sentence lengths the same result emerges: no significant relationship between sentence severity (in the case average sentence length) and crime (impaired driving) rates. If the severity to penalties has little marginal deterrent effect, how then can offenders be deterred?

Consistent with earlier reviews, the authors of the Cambridge review concluded that the certainty of penalties is most likely explanation for deterrent effect. … In other words, making offenders aware of the likelihood of apprehension and conviction is the most effective way of preventing crime through general deterrence. [52] Valerie Wright, Ph.D., expresses the same perspective in a study she prepared in 2010 for The Sentencing Project in Washington, D.C., entitled Deterrence in Criminal Justice : Evaluating Certainty vs. Severity . Here are a few excerpts:

…Research to date generally indicates that increases in the certainty of punishment, as opposed to the severity of punishment, are more likely to produce deterrent benefits. ... One problem with deterrence theory is that it assumes that human beings are rational actors who consider the consequences of their behaviour before deciding to commit a crime; however, this is often not the case. ... … If there was 100% certainty of being apprehended for committing a crime, few people would do so.

But since most crimes, including serious ones, do not result in an arrest and conviction, the overall deterrent effect of the certainty of punishment is substantially reduced. Clearly, enhancing the severity of punishment will have little impact on people who do not believe they will be apprehended for their actions.

Researchers also find an increased likelihood that lower-risk offenders will be more negatively affected by incarceration. ... [53] In Mandatory Minimum Penalties: Their Effects on Crime, Sentencing Disparities, and Justice System Expenditures , a report submitted to the Department of Justice Canada in 2002, authors Thomas Gabor and Nicole Crutcher wrote the following regarding MMPs (mandatory minimum penalties), at para. 4.3.1: The research on both sentence certainty and severity are relevant to MMS and, on balance, the evidence suggests that severity may be less critical to deterrence than initiatives boosting the certainty of punishment (Miller and Anderson, 1986; von Hirsch et al., 1999). [54] The effectiveness of the very principle of general deterrence is also a matter of debate, as noted by Charron J. in R . v.

B.W.P.; R . v. B.V.N ., supra , at para. 3: While general deterrence as a goal of sentencing is generally well understood, there is much controversy on whether it works or not. Those who advocate its abolition as a sentencing principle, particularly in respect of youth, emphatically state that there is no evidence that it actually works in preventing crime.

Those who advocate its retention are equally firm in their position and, in support, point to society’s reliance on some form of general deterrence to guide young people in making responsible choices on various matters, for example, about smoking, using alcohol and drugs and driving a motor vehicle. ... [19] [ 81 ] Justice Doyon shared the opinion of Justice Rosenberg of the Ontario Court of Appeal writing in Wismayer : [20] In my view, the enactment of the conditional sentence regime represents a concession to the view that the general deterrent effect of incarceration has been and continues to be somewhat speculative and that there are other ways to give effect to the objective of general deterrence. . . . [ 82 ] The Supreme Court also stated in Gladue that the restorative approach is not necessarily a lenient sentence. [ 83 ] Facing the community on a daily basis, working with a justice committee and following its advice can be seen as elements of deterrence and denunciation. [ 84 ] Mr.

Iserhoff experienced racism when he was sent to a foster family to attend school in a non-Native environment. As a result, he dropped out of school.

To this day, he can barely read or write. [ 85 ] He has lived most of his adult life in the bush practising traditional activities. [ 86 ] He is 67 years of age and raised 11 children, 10 of whom are still alive, all described as pro-social members of the community. [ 87 ] Can the objectives of denunciation and deterrence be met with a non-custodial sentence? [ 88 ] The Court does not think that imprisonment is, in the case at bar, the only type of sentence that can provide denunciation and general deterrence. [ 89 ] A strong message can be conveyed through a significant fine and a substantial number of hours of community work, in addition to working with the Justice Committee. [ 90 ] Imposing a large number of hours of community work on a 67-year-old accused cannot be seen as lenient, as might have been the case had he been in the prime of life. [ 91 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 92 ] SENTENCES Charlie Iserhoff to a fine of $625 on each of the four counts for a total fine of 2 500$. [ 93 ] In addition, Mr.

Iserhoff will have to comply with the conditions of a probation order for a period of two years, that is: • Keep the peace and be of good behaviour; • Appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court; • Report to the Justice Committee of Mistissini and the probation officer within five working days and thereafter as required by the Justice Committee and the probation officer; • Notify the Court, the Justice Committee and the probation officer of any change of name, address, employment or occupation; • Be at your residence between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. during the first 12 months, except for traditional activities or if given prior authorization by the probation officer for any special event;

• Follow the recommendations of the Justice Committee and the probation officer; • Meet with the Justice Committee twice a month during the first year; • Perform 240 hours of community work within a period of 16 months; • Prohibition to consume alcohol or any other intoxicating substances for the duration of the probation period. [ 94 ] The Court hereby issues an order prohibiting Charlie Iserhoff from operating a motor vehicle on any road, street or highway or in any public place for a period of five years. [ 95 ] The accused shall pay the victim surcharge fine, as it was before October 24, 2013, within 45 days. __________________________________ LUCILLE CHABOT J.C.Q.

Mtre. Jean-Claude Latraverse Counsel for the prosecution Mtre. Myriame Gaudreault Counsel for the accused Date of hearing: November 8, 2013 Annex Case Counts / Context / Aggravating and mitigating factors Sentence 2013 R. v.

Kawapit 2013 QCCQ 5935 - Cree, young (22-year-old accused) - Faces charges in 3 different files : o D.U.I. on April 11, 2009 o D.U.I. on September 20, 2009 o Dangerous driving when being pursued by police officer did fail to stop and did cause bodily harm on December 5, 2009 o D.U.I. and causing bodily harm - Pleaded guilty -Described as impulsive and easily influenced - Underwent a therapy - Participation in a Circle of Justice Accused is in a rehabilitation process dysfunctional facility (alcohol abuse) - Remorse Suspended sentence; 2-year probation; Curfew; 240 hours of community work; Follow-up with the Justice Committee; Obligation to hunt for the benefit of the community; Prohibition to drive for a period of 3 years.

R. v. Landry 2013 QCCQ 3725 -D.U.I. causing bodily harm -One victim seriously injured - 26 -year-old accused -No prior convictions -Pleaded guilty -213 mg/ 100ml -Stable job -Positive pre-sentence report - Low risk of recidivism 18 months R. v. Martin 2013 QCCQ 11046 -One count of D.U.I. causing bodily harm -Accused is a mature person, (age unknown). -Pleaded guilty -Remorseful -Quit drinking -Priors not in similar matters -Drove even if he knew that he was in no condition to drive - 265 mg/100ml 12 months 2012 R. v.

De Launière 2012 QCCQ 7372 - D.U.I. causing bodily harm - one victim, no total recovery foreseeable - Pleaded guilty -126 mg / 100 ml - Positive pre-sentence report - Stable job - 24 -year-old accused - No prior conviction 6 months of imprisonment R. v. Michaud 2012 QCCA 891 - D.U.I. causing bodily harm - No guilty plea - 207mg/100ml -One victim with chronic pain -No prior conviction -73 -year-old accused First instance: 90 days intermittent imprisonment and a fine of 2000$. Court of Appeal: 12 months of imprisonment and 12-month probation. Faucher v.

R. 2012 QCCA 1294 - D.U.I. causing bodily harm -2 victims First instance: 30 months. Leave for appeal: Dismissed Case Counts / Context / Aggravating and mitigating factors Sentence

R. v. Dubé 2012 QCCQ 3490 - 33 -year-old accused - No priors -181mg/100ml - One victim 15 months 2011 Paré v. R. 2011 QCCA 2047 - One count of dangerous driving causing death -One count of D.U.I. causing death - 36 -year-old accused -Speeding -160mg/100ml -No prior conviction -Good social network -Positive pre-sentence report -Low risk of recidivism -Quit drinking First instance: 5 years Court of Appeal: 3 years (because the crime was considered as an isolated event) 5-year prohibition to drive 2009 R. v.

Busque 2009 QCCQ 5110 - Non-aboriginal - 63 -year-old accused - Pleaded guilty - No criminal history - Positive pre-sentence report - One victim, seriously injured, no full recovery foreseeable. 48 months Prohibition to drive 3 years. Brutus v. R. 2009 QCCA 1382 - Woman, age: 38 years old -176 mg/100ml - 2 victims seriously injured - No valid driver's license - No prior convictions -No rehabilitation process started - Accused try to minimize her responsibility First instance: 4 years Court of Appeal : confirmed the sentence Case Counts / Context / Aggravating and mitigating factors Sentence

R. v. Papatie2009 QCCQ 4491- One count of D.U.I. causing death - One count of D.U.i. causing bodilyharm - Accused is Algonquin, father of 3children under his custody -Pleaded guilty -Speeding -No valid driver's license -116 mg/100ml -Had driven under the influence ofalcohol prior to the event -Underwent a 5 week therapy -Remorse although he tries tominimize his responsibility -Stable job 2 years of imprisonment 5-year-prohibition to drive Ferland v. R.2009 QCCA 1168 The Appeal Court makes anextensive review of Court decisionsin matters of drinking and driving 2008 R. v.

Boileau2008 QCCA 28 - 2 counts of dangerous drivingcausing bodily harm -1 of D.U.I. -2 victims - 68 -year-old accused -He left the scene of the accident - One prior of D.U.I. in 1997 12 months R. v. Veitch 2008ABPC 4, [2008]A.J. no51(Alberta) - D.U.I. causing bodily harm - One victim -Left the scene - No prior convictions - Quit drinking One year of imprisonment 4-year prohibition to drive R. v. Comeau2008 QCCQ 4804 Extensive review of decisions inmatter of drinking and driving madeby Justice Gosselin2007 R. v.

Gilbert 2007QCCA 1607 - Hit two persons - Left the scene - Pleaded guilty -Remorseful First instance: 20 months C.S.O. Appeal: 18 months of imprisonment 2006 Case Counts / Context / Aggravating andmitigating factors Sentence

Lepire v. R. 2006 QCCA 1465 - No guilty plea - 3 victims: 1 deceased and 2 injured. - Drove without valid driver's license - Prior convictions in similar matters 8 years imprisonment (plus one year for public mischief). R. v. Pepabano 2006 QCCA 536 - D.U.I. causing 3 deaths - 34 -year-old accused - Member of Cree First nation - Mother of 5 children raised in a dysfunctional family -Pleaded guilty -Quit drinking after the crime -Has a supportive family -Remorseful -Participated in a healing circle -Underwent a therapy -Positive pre-sentential report Sentence : 42 months of imprisonment R. v.

Petiquay 2006 QCCQ 506 - 2 counts of D.U.I. causing deaths -Atikamekw, 21-year-old accused - Pleaded guilty -No driver's license -135mg/100ml -No priors in similar matters -Remorseful -Police officer intervened two weeks prior the event, for driving while impaired but no charge was laid. -Difficult background Prosecution's recommendation : 3 to 4 years Defence's recommendation: 2 years less a day in the community 10 months of imprisonment 2004 Case Counts / Context / Aggravating and mitigating factors Sentence

R. v. Sasseville(C.Q. 2004-08-19), (QC CQ),AZ-50266586(Azimut), J.E.2004-1992 - One count : D.U.I. causing death - Two counts D.U.I. causing bodilyharm - 39 -year-old accused - Mother of one child - Stable job -150mg/100ml -Became suicidal -Remorseful -Low risk of recidivism Prosecution's recommendation: 4years Defence's recommendation: 2 yearsless a day in the community. First count: 42 months Counts of D.U.I. causing bodilyharm: 20 months 2002 R. v.

Bélanger(C.Q., 2002-05-14), AZ-50128155(Azimut), J.E.2002-1309 - 2 counts D.U.I. causing deathD.U.I. causing bodily harm - 19 -year-old accused -pleaded guilty -177mg/100ml -Speeding -Difficult background -Positive pre-sentence report -Quit drinking -Remorseful 16 months on the first count. 6 months on the second count Case Counts / Context / Aggravating andmitigating factors Sentence Other decisions submitted by the defence counsel Case Counts / Context / Aggravatingand mitigating factors Sentence

R. v. Harris J.E.2002-834 - 29 -year-old accused - Single - 2 victims - No prior convictions - No risk of recidivism - Positive pre-sentence report - Remorseful - Accused also injured in the accident 2000$ fine -14 months probation with 180 hoursof community work R. v. Riel J.E. 96-1322 (CA - 2 victims -Accused attended a therapy centre - Quit drinking First instance: 3-year probation; 180 hours of community work 5-year prohibition to drive Appeal Court: 500$ fine One year probation 180 hours of community work 5-year prohibition to driveR. v.

Morin J.E.92-22 - 47-year-old accused - Father of 3 children - No prior convictions -Remorseful - No risk of recidivism First instance: 3-year probation Court of Appeal: Fine of 2000$ R. c. Manelli, (Qc CA) - 29 -year-old accused - No priors -No habit of alcohol consumption - No speeding First instance: Fine of 1000$ Court of Appeal: Fine of 1000$ and60 hours of community work R. v.

Thomas JE89-47 - 22 -year-old accused -Stable job -The victim is deceased -130mg/100ml -Remorseful - Positive pre-sentence report Probation of 2 years 300 hours of community work and1000$ on the second count Case Counts / Context / Aggravatingand mitigating factors Sentence [2] R. v. Ipeelee,2012 SCC 13 , [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433 [Ipeelee]. [7] Janie Pachano, The Cree and Social Impacts of Historic Events in James Bay, Cree Board of Health and Social Services James Bay,orientation document for employees, 2011. [11] R. v. Anderson, 2004 BCPC 542 , [2004] B.C.J. No. 2861 (B.C. Prov. Ct.) [15] R.v.

Bernshaw, (SCC), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254 at para. 16 [Bernshaw].