R. v. Sawchuk, 2019 BCPC 381

Citation: R. v. Sawchuk 2019 BCPC 381 Date: 20190731 File Nos: 32667-1 Registry: Cranbrook IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. MACKENZIE ROCHELLE HOLMES JASON GARY MYRON SAWCHUK File No: 32667-2-A Registry: Cranbrook REGINA v. JASON GARY MYRON SAWCHUK ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE G. SHEARD (Re Accused Jason Sawchuk) Counsel for the Crown: P. Corbett Counsel for the Defendant: B. Suffredine Place of Hearing: Cranbrook , B.C. Dates of Hearing: February 19, 20, April 19, May 25, 2018

Date of Judgment: July 31, 2019 Corrigenda were released by the Court on April 14 and 29, 2021. The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigenda are appended to this document. [ 1 ] THE COURT: These are reasons for sentencing following a trial on various charges and on a guilty plea entered yesterday for failing to attend court on October 23, 2018. At the outset of the trial, Jason Sawchuk pled guilty to Count 2 on Information 32667-1 to possession of stolen property under $5,000, a television of the Skookumchuk Inn. The trial proceeded on the remaining counts. I found Mr.

Sawchuk guilty on Counts 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, that is on May 30, 2017, at or near Skookumchuk, British Columbia, possession of stolen property of a value under $5,000, a pickup truck; flight from a police officer in a motor vehicle; dangerous driving; assault of RCMP Corporal Hreherchuk using a weapon, a motor vehicle; assault of RCMP Constable Slunt using a weapon, a motor vehicle, and resisting RCMP Constable Zinn. [ 2 ] The facts from the trial matter are that on May 29, 2017, the pickup truck in question was stolen from Invermere, British Columbia.

On May 30, 2017, a pickup truck with an appearance similar to the stolen one was observed being driven in an erratic manner by a male with a female passenger in the Skookumchuk campground. Investigating the complaint of that driving, the police attended the Fort Steele Campground. The accused was driving the stolen pickup truck with a female passenger. [ 3 ] When Corporal Hreherchuk entered the Fort Steele Campground in his marked police truck with emergency lights activated at about 4:00 p.m., he directed the accused to stop the vehicle he was driving.

The accused saw Corporal Hreherchuk and failed to stop for him. Instead, the accused accelerated to about 70 kilometres per hour across the path of Corporal Hreherchuk immediately and very close in front of him narrowly missing a collision. The accused drove onto a lawn behind the Fort Steele Campground convenience store and gas bar. He turned and continued on the lawn along the side of that building.

He went through the gas pumps into the ditch, up onto the shoulder of Fort Steele Road at a high rate of speed overtaking and passing on the right three vehicles stopped at a stop sign there. [ 4 ] The accused then drove through the stop sign on the Fort Steele Road at Highway 93/95 turning right into traffic, accelerating, fishtailing, and sideswiping Staff-Sergeant Lee who was driving an unmarked police vehicle with its emergency lights activated and which the accused saw. The speed limit on the highway was 100 kilometres per hour. The accused then accelerated to what were described as high speeds.

Staff Sergeant Lee's left shoulder was injured in this collision. [ 5 ] Staff Sergeant Lee had been driving north on Highway 93/95 and had tried to cut the accused off, but realizing that a collision was imminent, Staff Sergeant Lee had maneuvered back to his left and was straddling the centreline or entirely in the oncoming lane of traffic when the accused's vehicle struck his police vehicle. Staff Sergeant Lee's vehicle was damaged in the collision as depicted in Photo #1 of Exhibit 2.

That damage consisted of dents and scratches essentially the entire length of the driver's side of his vehicle. [ 6 ] The accused then accelerated heavily northbound on Highway 93/95 with Corporal Hreherchuk driving about 100 metres behind him, but after continuing about 500 metres, Staff Sergeant Lee called off the pursuit and the accused drove on with the police losing sight of him. [ 7 ] About one hour later, Corporal Hreherchuk was driving on the Wasa Sheep Creek Forest Service Road when he saw the accused driving towards him on this narrow gravel road only wide enough for one vehicle.

The emergency lights in the officer's vehicle were no longer activated. The accused stopped his vehicle as did the officer with about 300 yards between them. The accused then accelerated to 60 to 70 kilometres per hour towards the officer in his vehicle and, just before reaching the officer's vehicle, steered to the right. Corporal Hreherchuk moved his vehicle at 10 to 20 kilometres per hour attempting to block the accused and the accused collided with the officer.

The accused then accelerated heavily away and Corporal Hreherchuk pursued him at about 50 kilometres per hour following the cloud of dust created by the vehicle driven by the accused. The only other people or vehicles in the area were two campers that Corporal Hreherchuk had seen at a campsite nearby not long before. [ 8 ] Fortunately, Corporal Hreherchuk was not injured. The front driver's side headlight of his vehicle was broken and the fender damaged. After driving a short ways, the motor in his vehicle seized. The oil had leaked from it and the vehicle was disabled due to damage from the collision.

That damage is depicted in Photo #10 of Exhibit 2. [ 9 ] A short time later, Constable Dylan Cross drove a marked police vehicle to the entrance of Premier Lake where he met Constable Ayers and established a roadblock deploying a spike belt. They heard the accused approach them in the same pickup truck at a high rate of speed and, coming into sight, screech to a halt three or four metres before the spike belt. The accused then turned back towards the Premier Lake campground.

Constable Cross and Constable Ayers recovered the spike belt and then pursued the accused. [ 10 ] Jake Selman, the Premier Lake Provincial Park campground attendant, then heard the accused screeching the tires of the vehicle he drove as he went around a corner and came into the day use area of the campground. The accused drove past a number of campsites and "flew past" Mr. Selman's truck towards a parking lot where he turned around. As the accused began to drive back towards Mr. Selman, Mr. Selman stepped into the middle of the road holding up his hands in an attempt to speak with the accused.

The accused accelerated and Mr. Selman had to step back to avoid being struck and the accused drove by him about three feet away. [ 11 ] Carrying on, the accused drove past a playground where the speed limit was five kilometres per hour. The speed limit sign at the entrance to the campground was 20 kilometres per hour. The accused drove at 50 to 70 kilometres per hour in the park.

At least three sites in the campground were occupied at the time. [ 12 ] As the accused left the Premier Lake campground at about 5:22 p.m., Constable Cross heard a radio transmission indicating that the accused was coming towards him once again. Therefore, Constable Cross and Constable Ayers stopped their vehicles and again attempted to deploy their spike belts on a narrow gravel road.

The accused drove towards them and swerved to avoid both the police vehicles and spike belts and carried on by them. [ 13 ] At about the same time, Constable Trevor Slunt was driving an unmarked black police pickup truck with Corporal Parker and

Constable Zinn driving behind him in another unmarked police vehicle. At a bridge on the Sheep Creek Road near the junction with thePremier Lake Road, Constable Slunt approached in his vehicle with the emergency lights in his grill activated in search of the accused.Corporal Parker and Constable Zinn also had the emergency lights activated in the car they were in.

As Constable Slunt arrived there, hesaw the accused driving towards him slowly and so, thinking to block the accused, Constable Slunt turned his vehicle 90 degrees to theroad with the nose of his vehicle up against a barrier of the bridge, almost entirely in the southbound lane. The accused then acceleratedand drove directly towards Constable Slunt's vehicle at approximately 60 to 80 kilometres per hour and smashed into the front driver'sside fender area of Constable Slunt's vehicle.

The accused could have avoided Constable Slunt's vehicle if the accused had remained inhis own lane. [14] Constable Slunt was injured in the collision. He has had pain on the side of his head, in his right arm, his ribs, and his buttocks.For six weeks after the collision, he had difficulty finding words when he spoke. For three months he had daily headaches, nausea, andbalance issues.

As of the date of his evidence, February 21, 2018, his condition was improving, but he described himself as "still not 100percent." [15] The damage to the vehicles driven by the accused and Constable Slunt is also depicted in Exhibit 2. There was heavy damage tothe front end of the vehicle the accused drove.

A deep dent was caused to the front driver's side fender of Constable Slunt's pickup,essentially, at the front driver's wheel tire. [16] After the collision with Constable Slunt, Constable Zinn, Corporal Parker, and Corporal Sullivan acting together pulled theaccused out of the window of the driver's door of the truck he was in. The accused did not immediately come out of the vehicle becausehis leg or some part of him was caught on something or his seatbelt was on.

Once out of the vehicle, the accused was placed on theground and Corporal Parker and Corporal Sullivan went over to deal with the accused's passenger and to attend to Constable Slunt. [17] Constable Zinn told the accused that he was under arrest, but the accused got up and grabbed Constable Zinn by the waist in anattempt to get away. Constable Zinn threw the accused back down on the ground and demanded that he lay on the ground.

However, theaccused got back up at least once more and Corporal Sullivan returned and assisted Constable Zinn in subduing and controlling theaccused while Constable Zinn placed the accused in a headlock. At some point during this time, Constable Zinn was rolling andwrestling with the accused on the ground and the police dog bit the accused on his leg, which bite later required stitches. The accusedwas handcuffed and transported to the Cranbrook detachment. [18] Given the criminal history for Mr.

Sawchuk and stressing denunciation and deterrence, the Crown seeks a cumulative sentenceof four-and-a-half years' jail less credit for pretrial custody and various ancillary orders. In support of its position, the Crown relies on thefollowing cases: R. v. I.J.W.C., 2008 BCCA 373; R. v. Leclerc, 2017 BCCA 228; R. v. Suel, 2010 BCSC 1054; R. v. Vandervalk, 2006BCCA 431; and R. v. Roberts, [2005] A.J. No. 15, 2005 ABCA 11. [19] Mr. Sawchuk seeks a cumulative sentence of two to three years' jail. He takes no issue with respect to the ancillary orders sought,except regarding restitution.

He concedes that the restitution sought for two of the police vehicles is appropriate as are the amountsclaimed to "up fit" the replacement vehicle for the one which Constable Slunt drove which was a total write-off. However, he says thatthe vehicle expenses document for that 2016 Chevrolet Silverado at page 1 of Exhibit 1 on sentencing does not specify whether the valueis replacement value or depreciated value. He submits that it should only be depreciated value which is compensated for and it is notreadily ascertainable on the material that that is the amount stated in Exhibit 1.

He maintains that that portion of the restitution soughtshould not be ordered. [20] Mr. Sawchuk asserts through counsel that he did not intend to cause injury to anyone. He simply wanted to get away. Heessentially testified to the same effect. He submits that he was not thinking rationally at the time due to a problem he had withmethamphetamine in the preceding months, but he was not impaired by methamphetamine at the time of the offences. [21] Mr.

Sawchuk agrees with the Crown's calculations of pretrial custody, but he submits that the court should also consider that hewas on restrictive bail, that is, house arrest, from August 2017 to October 23, 2018. [22] Mr. Sawchuk stated himself in court at the end of submissions on sentencing that he was sorry for all this to happen and to theguys that got hurt. [23] In support of his submission, the accused relies on the following cases: R. v. Menhem, 2013 ABQB 414; R. v. McLean, 2004ABCA 353 ; and Rogers v.

Her Majesty The Queen, 2008 NLCA 19. [24] The purpose of sentencing is set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code which provides as follows: The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for thelaw 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. [25]

Section 718.02 provides:

When a court imposes a sentence for an offence under subsection 270(1),

section 270.01 or 270.02 or paragraph 423.1(1)(b), the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence. The heading to that

section refers to offences against peace officers. [ 26 ]

Section 718.1 provides: A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [ 27 ]

Section 718.2 provides in part and in s-s. (

a) as follows: 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, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing … I will not refer to what follows in s-s. (a); however, this

section goes on to provide that those things shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances. Continuing, s-s. (

b) provides: … 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 or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. [ 28 ] Mr. Sawchuk's lawyer has provided very little of Mr. Sawchuk's background, though I note that he was living with his father in Invermere after he was initially released on bail on this charge. His father has been present in court through most of the trial and this sentence proceeding which appears to be positive. Mr.

Sawchuk appears to be in his late 20s to about 30. [ 29 ] I note that with the Crown proceeding by indictment on the lead information, the following are the maximum penalties: possession of stolen property $5,000 or less, two years' jail; failing to stop a motor vehicle to evade police, five years; dangerous driving, five years; assault peace officer with a weapon, 10 years, and resist peace officer, two years. On the fail-to-attend charge, with the Crown proceeding summarily, the maximum penalty is six months' jail, a $2,000 fine, or both. [ 30 ] Mr.

Sawchuk's criminal history is found in his criminal record filed as Exhibit 3 on sentence. It runs between July 11, 2016, and March 26, 2019. It includes 11 convictions for breaches of undertaking or recognizance, but four of those convictions came after the offence dates for the matters I am now sentencing him on.

He has also been convicted of a theft, three counts of possession of stolen property, possession of an identity card, obstruct a peace officer, and fail to attend court, but the obstruction and one count of possession of stolen property convictions came after the resist and possession of stolen property charges I am now sentencing him for . [ 31 ] Invoices with respect to the value of the vehicle Constable Slunt drove and for refitting another vehicle to replace that vehicle and for repairs to the vehicle Staff Sergeant Lee and Corporal Hreherchuk drove have been filed as Exhibit 1 on sentencing.

The Crown seeks a standalone restitution order in respect of them totalling $55,913.16. I note that restitution has not been sought with respect to the possession of stolen pickup truck and with respect to lost wages for Constable Slunt which I will refer to later. [ 32 ] A victim impact statement from Constable Slunt dated September 17, 2018, has been filed as Exhibit 2 in this sentencing. In the statement, he expands on the evidence he gave of the injuries to him and the impact this offence has had upon him. As of the date of that statement, he continued to suffer headaches daily.

His personality has been affected. He is quicker to anger and easily irritated. His memory has deteriorated and he finds it more difficult to write articulately. He sometimes has trouble finding words and he suffers fatigue. He believes he suffered a concussion, though I note there is no expert evidence confirming that. [ 33 ] He estimates he has lost about $10,500 net in overtime pay. He was off work completely for 10 months and, as of the date of his victim impact statement, he was only working eight hours per week.

Fortunately, he has been paid his regular wage, but he notes the expense to the taxpayers in this regard. He fears his potential for promotion has been put on hold due to this time off. [ 34 ] Constable Slunt has not been able to be as physically active as he was before or do other things like coach minor hockey. His injuries have negatively impacted his interactions with his family and his social life. He lost 15 pounds. Testifying caused him to relive the event which has also been stressful for him.

Even without expert evidence of an actual diagnosis of concussion, given the physical and emotional impact on Constable Slunt and the time he has been off work, it is clear he has suffered greatly as a result of the assault upon him. [ 35 ] I turn now to review and consider the cases relied upon by the Crown. In R. v. I.J.W.C. , an 18-year-old accused pleaded guilty at the conclusion of a preliminary inquiry. He was driving a stolen SUV with three passengers. Efforts by the police to stop him led to a high speed chase. The accused drove into the police vehicle.

One police officer got out, but the other police officer was unable to. The accused reversed striking a parked car, then forward colliding again with the police vehicle. As the accused accelerated forward again, the police officer outside the vehicle fired his firearm killing one of the accused's passengers. [ 36 ] The B.C. Court of Appeal upheld Judge Challenger's cumulative sentence of six years.

She structured the sentence as one year for possession of stolen property over $5,000, two years on each of dangerous driving and failing to stop a motor vehicle while pursued by police concurrent to each other, but consecutive to the possession of stolen property, and three years on each of the two counts of

assault-police-officer-with-a-vehicle concurrent with each other, but consecutive to the possession of stolen property, dangerous driving, and fail-to-stop-while-pursued. [ 37 ] R. v. Leclerc dealt with the inappropriateness of a conditional sentence for similar driving offences. This accused does not seek such a sentence. However, he concedes that a conditional sentence order would not be appropriate, perhaps not even available to be considered. So that case is not relevant. [ 38 ] In R. v.

Suel , the accused pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, failing to stop in order to evade police, and driving while disqualified. The police attempted to arrest a woman who was a passenger in an SUV. Mr. Suel was in the back seat. The two of them had consumed methamphetamine and heroin. The woman got in the driver's seat, rammed the police vehicle, and drove off. At some point, Mr.

Suel took over driving and, over about 20 kilometres without any close pursuit, drove at high speed in residential areas through stop signs and red lights often in the oncoming lane colliding with at least four vehicles and causing whiplash-type injuries to the occupants of one of those vehicles. [ 39 ] Mr. Suel was 24, with a Youth Court history and an adult record including for dangerous driving, flight from police officers, and driving while disqualified. He was sentenced by B.C.

Supreme Court Justice Grist to four-and-a-half years for dangerous driving and flight from a peace officer and six months consecutive for driving while disqualified. [ 40 ] In R. v. Vandervalk , the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld a cumulative sentence of four years imposed in addition to 10 months of pretrial custody at enhanced credit. Mr. Vandervalk pleaded guilty to nine offences which occurred over 12 days.

Those offences were two counts of theft over $5,000, two counts of obstruction of a police officer, possession of stolen property under $5,000, fail to stop at an accident, driving while disqualified, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and dangerous driving. [ 41 ] With respect to the dangerous driving, after being told to back away from a vehicle, the accused jumped into it and drove off. He drove erratically through a playground over a lawn. He struck a parked vehicle causing soft tissue injuries to one of its occupants.

He backed up and hit that vehicle a second time before driving off at high speed and through at least one red light. The police broke off the pursuit. Later, after running over a spike belt, he rammed his vehicle into three police vehicles until another police vehicle rammed Mr. Vandervalk's vehicle stopping him. He then tried to flee on foot and was apprehended with the assistance of a police dog. [ 42 ] He was 26 with a criminal record including property offences, obstructing a police officer, two counts of dangerous driving, and one count of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

His use of crack cocaine at the time was an aggravating factor. Protection of the public was the primary sentencing factor. [ 43 ] In R. v. Roberts , the accused drove a stolen truck. The police signalled for him to stop, but he fled at speeds of up to 100 kilometres per hour in a residential area and going through a red light. Two police officers stopped the vehicle they were in, intending to lay out a spike belt, but before they could do so, the accused rammed their vehicle head-on demolishing it and injuring the two police officers. He then ran and a police dog located him and he resisted arrest.

One of the two police officers was injured quite seriously and her career appeared to have been ruined by her injuries. [ 44 ] Mr. Roberts pleaded guilty to possession of stolen property less than $5,000, the motor vehicle, and failing to stop for police causing bodily harm. The Alberta Court of Appeal increased the sentence for flight causing bodily harm to three-and-a-half years plus six months consecutive for the possession of stolen property. [ 45 ] Next, I turn to the cases relied upon by the accused. In R. v.

Menhem , the accused pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing bodily harm and flight from a police officer causing bodily harm. The police were investigating Mr. Menhem for drug trafficking and following him in a police vehicle, activated their emergency lights to stop him. The accused accelerated away eventually ramming a police vehicle head on. Another police vehicle struck the accused's vehicle, but the accused was still able to drive off with the police in pursuit through a stop sign. He went through a red light and the pursuit was terminated while air surveillance followed him.

He was arrested after driving for 10 minutes covering two kilometres. The police officer who had been struck received a five-centimetre laceration to his head which left a scar and a five-millimetre laceration on his face, swelling, and bruising to his hand and bruising to a knee. [ 46 ] He was 27 and had demonstrated rehabilitation since the offence. He was sentenced to two years' jail for the flight causing bodily harm and six months for dangerous driving causing bodily harm, both being stated as at the lowest end of the range of possible sentences.

I note in this case before me the circumstances are more egregious than that in Menhem and I also note that there is no evidence that Mr. Sawchuk has addressed rehabilitation on his own. [ 47 ] In R. v. McLean , the accused pleaded guilty to evading a police officer, dangerous driving, and resisting a police officer. Driving his vehicle while upset and at a high rate of speed, he failed to stop for a police officer who had activated his emergency police vehicle equipment. A high speed chase ensued with speeds of up to 110 kilometres per hour in a 60-kilometre-per-hour zone.

The accused cut towards the police officer colliding with him and forcing the police officer off the road. The accused then caused a second collision with a police vehicle by braking hard in front of it. [ 48 ] The accused then finally stopped. Told that he was under arrest, he refused to show his hands and taunted the police to shoot him. He remained combative, but was arrested. He had a limited criminal record which was dated and he showed genuine remorse. He was given a conditional sentence order of 24 months.

The defence here does not seek such a sentence, but submits that this case supports a global sentence of two to three years' jail. [ 49 ] In R. v. Rogers , the accused pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, flight, and three breaches of motorized vehicle regulations. He drove an ATV on the shoulder of a road when a police officer signalled him to stop. Neither he nor his two-year-old son, his passenger, wore helmets. He sped away. He was later arrested. His sentence was reduced to 12 months' jail.

I note that the facts in that case are so dissimilar to the case before me that it assists not at all. [ 50 ] As in R. v. I.J.W.C. and R. v. Leclerc , our Court of Appeal has made it clear that protection of the public including the police is

the dominating sentencing factor in cases of this nature. As Mr. Justice Frankel said at paragraph 25 in R. v. I.J.W.C.: I am unable to find any error in the approach taken by the sentencing judge, or that the sentence she imposed is unreasonable. Withoutquestion, protection of the public has to be the dominant sentencing factor in this case. As well, considerable weight has to be given todeterrence and denunciation.

Those who pursue a lifestyle in which stealing vehicles, engaging in high speed chases, and putting thelives of others at risk is considered some form of sport, need to know that when they are apprehended and convicted, they will bepunished severely. [51] In R. v. Schur, 2015 BCSC 1406, although it involved an assault of a peace officer with pepper spray, Mr. Justice Blok madecomments which are nevertheless relevant here. At paragraphs 53 and 54, he said the following: [53] In that case the Court referred to the following passage from R. v. McArthur, (2004), (ON CA), 182 C.C.C.(3d) 230 (Ont.

C.A.), a case involving an attempted murder of police officers … [52] Paragraph 49 from that case which is quoted says: As indicated above, the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society is the fundamental purpose of sentencing. Police officers play aunique and crucial role in promoting and preserving a just, peaceful and safe society. We rely on the police to put themselves in harm’sway to protect the community from the criminal element.

At the same time, we rely on the police to act with restraint in the execution oftheir duties and to avoid the use of any force, much less deadly force, unless clearly necessary. Violent attacks upon police officers whoare doing their duty are attacks on the rule of law and on the safety and well-being of the community as a whole. Sentences imposed forthose attacks must reflect the vulnerability of the police officers, society’s dependence on the police, and society’s determination toavoid a policing mentality which invites easy resort to violence in the execution of the policing function: R. v.

Forrest (1986), 15 O.A.C.104 at 107 (C.A.). [53] Continuing with paragraph 54 of the case quoted: [54] The Court in Russel then said … [54] Paragraph 16 was quoted: Under s. 270 of the Criminal Code, the maximum penalty for assaulting a peace officer is five years of imprisonment. The 2009amendment creating s. 270.01 provides that where the assault on the police officer involves the use of a weapon or causes bodily harm,the maximum penalty is 10 years of imprisonment. The intent of Parliament is clear.

The additional factor of using a weapon in theassault is viewed as an aggravating factor and Parliament intended that offenders who assaulted police officers with a weapon would besubject to a higher sentence range.

The purpose of creating this new offence was to deter such actions and to provide some additionallevel of protection to the police. [55] Paragraph 17 was quoted: This intention is reinforced by the contemporaneous introduction into the Criminal Code of s. 718.02, which directs that where theoffence is assaulting a peace officer in the execution of his or her duty, the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives ofdenunciation and deterrence.

The judicial sentiment expressed in [R. v McArthur … ] has been subsumed in Parliament’s enacting of s.270.01 and s. 718.02. [56] I find that specific deterrence of Mr. Sawchuk is a relevant factor. I do not accept that he is genuinely remorseful or that he hasgained any insight into the impact of his crimes. Indeed, in his evidence, he suggested that the peace officers were at fault for thesecollisions for having attempted to stop him.

Though I accept that he did not specifically intend to injure anyone, such an outcome was soreadily foreseeable and he was so utterly reckless as to whether it did or not, this is not a mitigating factor. [57] Also, I do not accept on the evidence that he was not able to think rationally due to his asserted withdrawal from drugs. Whilecounsel for Mr. Sawchuk submits that Mr. Sawchuk had an abiding methamphetamine problem prior to these offences, if he did, there isno evidence that he has done anything to address such a problem. [58] I find that a sentence which promotes a sense of responsibility in Mr.

Sawchuk is also a relevant sentencing principle. I ammindful of the statutory aggravating factor of the police officers as victims and the serious injury with long-term impact upon ConstableSlunt. Having said that, I do find that the lengthy period that Mr. Sawchuk was on very restrictive bail conditions is a mitigating factorand I will reduce the overall sentence somewhat in view of that. [59] Considering all of the circumstances and the purpose and principles of sentence, I find that an appropriate global sentence isfour-years-and-six-months' jail.

I am imposing that as follows: on Information 32667-1, Count 1, possession of stolen property, a pickuptruck, under $5,000, three months' jail; on Count 2, possession of stolen property, a television, under $5,000, three months' jailconcurrent, that is, running at the same time, with Count 1; on Count 3, failing to stop for a police officer, two years' jail consecutive toall but Count 4; on Count 4, dangerous driving, two years' jail concurrent with Count 2, but consecutive to all others; Count 6, assaultCorporal Hreherchuk with a weapon, a motor vehicle, two years consecutive to all others, but concurrent with Count 7; Count 7, assaultConstable Slunt with a weapon, a motor vehicle, two years' concurrent with Count 6, but consecutive to all others; Count 8, resistConstable Zinn, two months' consecutive to all other counts; on Information 32667-2-A, one-month jail consecutive to all other counts. [60] Mr.

Sawchuk, that is a cumulative total of four-and-a-half years. However, on Counts 3 and 4, I am giving you credit for pretrialcustody with enhanced credit of 321 days. By my calculation, two years is 730 days. So, on those two counts, that leaves further jail to beserved on those counts of 409 days' jail. The result is that you have a total left to serve of 1,322 days or about 3.62 years. The record willreflect, however, again, that the total cumulative sentence is four-and-a-half years. [61] In addition, I must impose some ancillary orders.

Count 6 and 7, assault police officers with a weapon, are primary designated

offences and so on those counts, pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Code , I order that you forthwith provide such samples of your bodily substances as are reasonably necessary for registration in the DNA databank. [ 62 ] Similarly, on those two counts, pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code , I am prohibiting you for 10 years from non-restricted firearms and lifetime for restricted firearms and prohibited firearms.

Specifically, the wording of that is, for 10 years, you are prohibited from possessing any firearm, other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, and any crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance; and for lifetime from any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, and prohibited ammunition. [ 63 ] On Count 4, that is, the dangerous driving charge, pursuant to s. 259 of the Criminal Code , you are prohibited from driving for a period of three years. [ 64 ] Lastly, with respect to restitution, I agree with Crown that s. 738(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code allows for restitution not exceeding replacement value. Therefore, even though page 1 of Exhibit 1 on sentencing could be replacement value for a 2016 Chevrolet Silverado that Constable Slunt drove, I am ordering restitution that will include that amount. Pursuant to s. 738 of the Code , I order that you pay restitution to the RCM Police in the amount of $55,913.16. [ 65 ] That concludes your sentencing, sir. [ 66 ] MR. CORBETT: Your Honour, my friend had raised an issue on property. I have not been given a list of items. [ 67 ] MR. SUFFREDINE: It is your list, but here are the numbers.

So there is actually two lists, Your Honour, just so I do not mistake the second one. There is a second list that was not filed that just is some cash taken from him, $23.55 and $400.10. I do not think there is any issue that that is just his own personal property and then there was a -- [ 68 ] THE COURT: Have you got something neat and concise to put before me. If not, I would propose you deal with this by a consent order at a later time. [ 69 ] MR.

SUFFREDINE: Yes, what I would like to do -- [ 70 ] THE COURT: You told me you were going to deal with this last night and I took it present something concise to me this morning. [ 71 ] MR. CORBETT: I do not have the numbers to have reviewed yet. [ 72 ] THE COURT: It does not sound like that is what you are doing. [ 73 ] MR. CORBETT: I do not have that to present, Your Honour. [ 74 ] MR. SUFFREDINE: Suffice it to say -- [ 75 ] THE COURT: So I am not dealing with it now, then. [ 76 ] MR.

SUFFREDINE: Suffice it to say that may we provide you with a list that would be itemized as to the items to be returned and that all other items are forfeit to the Crown. [ 77 ] THE COURT: If you want to submit something by consent, you can do that. [ 78 ] MR. CORBETT: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED) CORRIGENDUM – Released April 14, 2021 In the Reasons for Sentence dated July 31, 2019, the following changes have been made: [1] Paragraph 2 should read: The facts from the trial matter are that on May 29, 2017, the pickup truck in question was stolen from Invermere, British Columbia.

On May 30, 2017, a pickup truck with an appearance similar to the stolen one was observed being driven in an erratic manner by a male with a female passenger in the Skookumchuk campground. Investigating the complaint of that driving, the police attended the Fort Steele Campground. The accused was driving the stolen pickup truck with a female passenger. [2] Paragraph 13 should read: At about the same time, Constable Trevor Slunt was driving an unmarked black police pickup truck with Corporal Parker and Constable Zinn driving behind him in another unmarked police vehicle.

At a bridge on the Sheep Creek Road near the junction with the Premier Lake Road, Constable Slunt approached in his vehicle with the emergency lights in his grill activated in search of the accused. Corporal Parker and Constable Zinn also had the emergency lights activated in the car they were in. As Constable Slunt arrived there, he saw the accused driving towards him slowly and so, thinking to block the accused, Constable Slunt turned his vehicle 90 degrees to the road with the nose of his vehicle up against a barrier of the bridge, almost entirely in the southbound lane.

The accused then accelerated and drove directly towards Constable Slunt's vehicle at approximately 60 to 80 kilometres per hour and smashed into the front driver's side fender area of Constable Slunt's vehicle. The accused could have avoided Constable Slunt's vehicle if the accused had remained in his own lane . [3] Paragraph 18 should read:

Given the criminal history for Mr. Sawchuk and stressing denunciation and deterrence, the Crown seeks a cumulative sentence of four- and-a-half years' jail less credit for pretrial custody and various ancillary orders. In support of its position, the Crown relies on the following cases: R. v. I.J.W.C. , 2008 BCCA 373 ; R. v. Leclerc , 2017 BCCA 228 ; R. v. Suel , 2010 BCSC 1054 ; R. v. Vandervalk , 2006 BCCA 431 ; and R. v. Roberts , [2005] A.J. No. 15, 2005 ABCA 11 . [4] Paragraph 21 should read: Mr.

Sawchuk agrees with the Crown's calculations of pretrial custody, but he submits that the court should also consider that he was on restrictive bail, that is, house arrest, from August 2017 to October 23, 2018. [5] Paragraph 22 should read: Mr. Sawchuk stated himself in court at the end of submissions on sentencing that he was sorry for all this to happen and to the guys that got hurt. [6] Paragraph 26 should read: Mr. Sawchuk's lawyer has provided very little of Mr. Sawchuk's background, though I note that he was living with his father in Invermere after he was initially released on bail on this charge.

His father has been present in court through most of the trial and this sentence proceeding which appears to be positive. Mr. Sawchuk appears to be in his late 20s to about 30. [7] Paragraph 28 should read: Mr. Sawchuk's lawyer has provided very little of Mr. Sawchuk's background, though I note that he was living with his father in Invermere after he was initially released on bail on this charge. His father has been present in court through most of the trial and this sentence proceeding which appears to be positive. Mr. Sawchuk appears to be in his late 20s to about 30. [8] Paragraph 30 should read: Mr.

Sawchuk's criminal history is found in his criminal record filed as Exhibit 3 on sentence. It runs between July 11, 2016, and March 26, 2019. It includes 11 convictions for breaches of undertaking or recognizance, but four of those convictions came after the offence dates for the matters I am now sentencing him on.

He has also been convicted of a theft, three counts of possession of stolen property, possession of an identity card, obstruct a peace officer, and fail to attend court, but the obstruction and one count of possession of stolen property convictions came after the resist and possession of stolen property charges I am now sentencing him for . [9] Paragraph 32 should read: A victim impact statement from Constable Slunt dated September 17, 2018, has been filed as Exhibit 2 in this sentencing. In the statement, he expands on the evidence he gave of the injuries to him and the impact this offence has had upon him.

As of the date of that statement, he continued to suffer headaches daily. His personality has been affected. He is quicker to anger and easily irritated. His memory has deteriorated and he finds it more difficult to write articulately. He sometimes has trouble finding words and he suffers fatigue. He believes he suffered a concussion, though I note there is no expert evidence confirming that. [10] Paragraph 44 should read: He was 27 and had demonstrated rehabilitation since the offence.

He was sentenced to two years' jail for the flight causing bodily harm and six months for dangerous driving causing bodily harm, both being stated as at the lowest end of the range of possible sentences. I note in this case before me the circumstances are more egregious than that in Menhem and I also note that there is no evidence that Mr. Sawchuk has addressed rehabilitation on his own. [11] Paragraph 56 should read: I find that specific deterrence of Mr. Sawchuk is a relevant factor. I do not accept that he is genuinely remorseful or that he has gained any insight into the impact of his crimes.

Indeed, in his evidence, he suggested that the peace officers were at fault for these collisions for having attempted to stop him. Though I accept that he did not specifically intend to injure anyone, such an outcome was so readily foreseeable and he was so utterly reckless as to whether it did or not, this is not a mitigating factor. [12] Paragraph 57 should read: Also, I do not accept on the evidence that he was not able to think rationally due to his asserted withdrawal from drugs. While counsel for Mr. Sawchuk submits that Mr.

Sawchuk had an abiding methamphetamine problem prior to these offences, if he did, there is no evidence that he has done anything to address such a problem. [13] Paragraph 58 should read: I find that a sentence which promotes a sense of responsibility in Mr. Sawchuk is also a relevant sentencing principle. I am mindful of the statutory aggravating factor of the police officers as victims and the serious injury with long-term impact upon Constable Slunt. Having said that, I do find that the lengthy period that Mr.

Sawchuk was on very restrictive bail conditions is a mitigating factor and I will reduce the overall sentence somewhat in view of that. [14] Paragraph 60 should read: Mr. Sawchuk, that is a cumulative total of four-and-a-half years. However, on Counts 3 and 4, I am giving you credit for pretrial custody with enhanced credit of 321 days. By my calculation, two years is 730 days. So, on those two counts, that leaves further jail to be served on those counts of 409 days' jail. The result is that you have a total left to serve of 1,322 days or about 3.62 years. The record will reflect,

however, again, that the total cumulative sentence is four-and-a-half years. ___________________________ The Honourable Judge G. Sheard Provincial Court of British Columbia CORRIGENDUM # 2 – Released April 29, 2021 In the corrigendum released April 14, 2021, regarding the Reasons for Sentence dated July 31, 2019, the following changes have been made: [1] Paragraph 28 should read: Mr. Sawchuk's lawyer has provided very little of Mr. Sawchuk's background, though I note that he was living with his father in Invermere after he was initially released on bail on this charge.

His father has been present in court through most of the trial and this sentence proceeding which appears to be positive. Mr. Sawchuk appears to be in his late 20s to about 30. [2] Paragraph 46 should read: He was 27 and had demonstrated rehabilitation since the offence. He was sentenced to two years' jail for the flight causing bodily harm and six months for dangerous driving causing bodily harm, both being stated as at the lowest end of the range of possible sentences. I note in this case before me the circumstances are more egregious than that in Menhem and I also note that there is no evidence that Mr.

Sawchuk has addressed rehabilitation on his own. ___________________________ The Honourable Judge G. Sheard Provincial Court of British Columbia