r v. EDDIE PETERS, 2014 QCCQ 1520

R. c. Peters JC00K1 Multirécidiviste alcool au volant (10 e accusation): peine à imposer. 4 ans de prison. Interdiction de conduire: 10 ans. 2014 QCCQ 1520 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF BEDFORD LOCALITY OF COWANSVILLE Criminal and Penal Division No. 455-01-013200-138 455-01-013201-136 DATE: January 3, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SERGE CHAMPOUX J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Prosecutor v.

EDDIE PETERS Accused ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Eddie Peters pleaded guilty to the following charges in two cases: 455-01-013200-138 1. On or about November 8, 2013, in Bedford, District of Bedford, operated a motor vehicle while his ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcohol or a drug, thus committing the indictable offence referred to in sections 253(1) (

a) and 255(1) of the Criminal Code . 455-01-013201-136 1. On or about November 8, 2013, in Bedford, District of Bedford, operated a motor vehicle while disqualified from doing so, thus committing the indictable offence referred to in section 259(4) (

a) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] Impaired driving, per the charge against the accused, and driving while disqualified happened on the same occasion. Accordingly, there is reason to render a single judgment on the appropriate sentence. THE FACTS [ 3 ] The charges, as worded, do not convey the full gravity of the situation. The following additional information is necessary. Around 11 p.m. on November 8, 2013, the police were called to the scene of an accident having caused material loss—more specifically, a vehicle had run off the road, on chemin Duhamel, in the township of Bedford.

When they arrived at the scene, they found a very badly damaged vehicle in a ditch. It turned out to be a total loss. The vehicle belonged to the accused. [ 4 ] First responders and firefighters were already at the site when the police arrived. There was only one vehicle involved, that of the accused, and one occupant in the vehicle, the accused. The rescuers onsite had gotten the accused out of the vehicle and taken charge of him. [ 5 ] The police officers who interacted with the accused observed signs that immediately led them to believe he was heavily intoxicated.

The accused smelled of alcohol and everything about his conduct indicated that he was under its influence. The police contended that the accused was aggressive toward them, which the accused denied; at any rate, the denial changes nothing with respect

to the finding to be made.

The accused acknowledged, however, that he was intoxicated with alcohol. [ 6 ] The accused has many similar priors, which I will come back to later. [ 7 ] I was given very little in the way of further information and had to ask my own questions in order to somewhat better understand the dynamics at work with the accused, gain some insight into who he is and be able to render the most appropriate decision possible with respect to him. [ 8 ] And so I learned that Eddie Peters is a carpenter and construction worker who has worked all his life in that field, but who is specialized more in barn reconstruction or repairs. [ 9 ] He half-heartedly acknowledged his alcohol problems, which, however, appear to be major, as will be seen later. [ 10 ] He explained that he had started drinking somewhat more in recent months, following the death of one of his brothers and the brother's son.

It seems that he had always been close to them, and their sudden death in a sad accident during repairs to a vehicle in a garage deeply affected him. [ 11 ] I also understand that the accused recently acquired a property in Henryville, where he lives with one of his sons, who is 22 years of age.

He further explained that he looks after his ailing, 73-year-old mother, although I do not know to what extent. [ 12 ] In response to my questions, the accused said that he had started participating in the Alcoholics Anonymous program relatively recently, but that he had stopped going at least since the death of his brother and nephew. [ 13 ] I have no indication that Eddie Peters has undergone therapy in the past to resolve his alcohol abuse problem.

That is all I know about him. [ 14 ] What distinguishes Eddie Peters' case from most others is the long list of his prior offences, set forth below. [ 15 ] According to Exhibit S-3, Eddie Peters was first convicted of impaired driving on August 17, 1980, in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu. He would have been about 18 years old.

He was fined $120. [ 16 ] In June 1991, again in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, he was fined $375 for the same offence; in October 1991, he was convicted again, for two incidents of impaired driving (for which he was fined $460 and $600, respectively), and for operating a vehicle while disqualified from doing so (for which he was fined $300). [ 17 ] In May 1996, in St-Jérôme, Eddie Peters was convicted twice, on separate offences of impaired driving or driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit.

He was sentenced to prison for 15 days and 30 days, respectively, at the time. [ 18 ] In February 1997, this time in Mirabel, he was fined $1450 on a seventh charge of impaired driving. [ 19 ] In February 2004, again in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for the same offence, his eighth, and lastly, in April 2012, once again in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment on another charge of impaired driving, his ninth.

On that occasion, he was also prohibited from driving for five years. [ 20 ] The above list of convictions concerns only the charges of impaired driving or driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit that have been brought against Eddie Peters.

His criminal record also includes convictions for breach of condition (6), breach of probation (at least 4), fraud (5), obstructing a police officer, theft, assault, and so on. [ 21 ] Given these priors, the Crown suggested a sentence of imprisonment of 30 to 36 months, whereas the defence proposed an 18- month prison sentence. [ 22 ] How long the accused should be prohibited from driving was left to my discretion.

Each of the offences carries a maximum penalty of 5 years' imprisonment. [ 23 ] It is worth reiterating a few special aggravating and mitigating factors. [ 24 ] On the one hand, the exceptional number of previous charges in the accused's criminal record constitutes a highly aggravating factor. No one was injured and no one was killed in the present case. Nor, apparently, did any injuries or deaths occur in conjunction with the near astronomical number of prior convictions. [ 25 ] That could, however, be seen as nothing short of a miracle.

Clearly, the accused cannot be considered, this time at least, to be properly in control of a vehicle when intoxicated, since he completely demolished his. [ 26 ] Impaired driving when he was prohibited from driving altogether constitutes another aggravating factor, but the accused pleaded guilty to that offence as well. He must not be punished twice for the same crime. [ 27 ] On the other hand, I do not see very many mitigating factors.

The accused seems to have held a job in the past and to perhaps be a breadwinner, although that remains highly vague; however, nothing about those circumstances appears to have prevented him from committing these crimes. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate an effort to take charge of himself, or even to create a general impression that he recognizes the extent of his problems.

Clearly, he has never seriously tackled his drinking problem with a view to overcoming it. [ 28 ] The jurisprudence in the field—that which considers the cases of people, such as the accused, who may be called multiple repeat offenders—indicates the appropriate sentence length to be considered. [ 29 ] In R. v. Mario Filion , 405-01-027324-119 , Lafrenière J., of the Court of Québec, sentenced the accused, who was on his eighth

conviction for impaired driving, to 36 months in prison, and confiscated his vehicle. [ 30 ] At the time, my colleague examined the jurisprudence, referring, in particular, to: R. v. Lebel , 2010 QCCA 554 : 5 years' imprisonment, 11th conviction; R. v. Martel , 2010 QCCQ 34010 : 40 months' imprisonment, 10th conviction; R. v. Bisarretea , 500-01-025995-090: 4 years' imprisonment, 11th conviction; R. v. Côté , 2010 QCCQ 10371 : 4 years' imprisonment, 7th conviction; R. v. Tremblay , 655-01-005267-108: 30 months' imprisonment, multiple repeat offender, but exact number of convictions unknown; R. v.

Boislard , 2010 QCCA 22260 : 18 months' imprisonment, 8th conviction; R. v. Brassard , 2011 ONCA 96 : 24 months' imprisonment, 10th conviction; R. v. Bard , 2011 QCCA 2323 : 42 months' imprisonment, 15th conviction. [ 31 ] In 2012, Jacques Trudel J., of the Court of Québec, sentenced Sylvain Desrosiers to a total of 4 years in prison ( 2012 QCCQ 3212 ). It was the accused's eighth impaired driving-related conviction. [ 32 ] Lastly, in December 2013, the Court of Appeal of Québec rendered two judgments in impaired driving-related cases. [ 33 ] First, in R. v.

Courtois ( 2013 QCCA 2100 ), the Court was seized of an application for leave to appeal by the accused, who had been sentenced to 3 years and 54 days in prison. At the time, Courtois was on his fourth impaired-driving conviction and had previously been sentenced to 120 days' detention for the same type of crime. The Court of Appeal did not vary the main sentence, except to correct the credit for interim detention. [ 34 ] On December 13, 2013, in R. v.

Gauthier ( 2013 QCCA 2161 ), the Court of Appeal granted the Crown's appeal from a sentence of 5 months for an individual who was on his eighth impaired driving-related conviction. [ 35 ] It should be noted that, at the time, the accused, who was 61, was operating a moped and his blood alcohol level did not exceed 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. The Court wrote the following on the subject: [TRANSLATION] [11] Operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or a drug and operating such a vehicle during the period of disqualification must be stigmatized.

The legislator clearly acknowledged this by setting the maximum sentence, for a case like this one, at five years' imprisonment. [12] People with a drinking problem, as is the case here, must change their behaviour and perspective. The first step toward meaningful change is to acknowledge the problem. Those who do not want to acknowledge their problem must be helped to do so. [13] The vast prevention campaigns rolled out by the government and its agencies appear to be ineffective. Young people and repeat offenders alike turn a deaf ear to them.

The result is personal and family tragedy for many Canadians and Quebecers. The direct and indirect costs the government must assume to heal the ensuing consequences have skyrocketed. Assistance must be provided so that all those who refuse the care they need get it. [14] It is worth recalling that, as early as 1995, the Supreme Court described the magnitude of the drunk-driving problem. Cory J. wrote the following in Bernshaw: [3] 16 Every year, drunk driving leaves a terrible trail of death, injury, heartbreak and destruction.

From the point of view of numbers alone, it has a far greater impact on Canadian society than any other crime. In terms of the deaths and serious injuries resulting in hospitalization, drunk driving is clearly the crime which causes the most significant social loss to the country. Statistics Canada recently noted : Impaired driving is a serious crime. Every year thousands of Canadians are killed and many more injured in traffic-related accidents. Alcohol is a contributing factor in an average of 43% of these cases (Traffic Injury Research Foundation — D. R.

Mayhew et al. [ Alcohol Use Among Persons Fatally Injured in Motor Vehicle Accidents: Canada 1990 ] 1992:33) . ("Impaired Driving — Canada, 1991" (1992), 12:17 Juristat 1, at p. 2.) 17 Statistics Canada has compiled a variety of figures with respect to motor vehicle accidents in general. Between 1983 and 1991, 41,000 individuals died in traffic accidents in Canada. A further 2.5 million people were injured: "Impaired Driving — Canada, 1992" (1994), 14:5 Juristat 1. In 1992, the total number of deaths resulting from motor vehicle accidents was 3,289: Causes of Death 1992 (1994), at pp. 246-51.

This figure includes drivers, passengers, cyclists, and pedestrians. In 1987, motor vehicle accidents were responsible for injuries requiring 762,000 days of in-hospital medical treatment and causing 12 million days of lost activity and employment: Accidents in Canada (1991), at pp. 61-64 . 18 Statistics Canada observed that alcohol is a contributing factor in 43 percent of those motor vehicle accidents which cause death and injury. Interpreting Statistics Canada's general motor vehicle accident statistics with reference to this 43 percent figure, it would seem that alcohol was a contributing factor in :

─ some 17,630 individual deaths between 1983 and 1991 ; ─ approximately 1,075,000 individuals injured between 1983 and 1991 ; ─ about 1,414 additional deaths (including drivers, passengers, cyclists and pedestrians) in 1992 ; ─ 327,660 days of in-hospital medical treatment in 1987; and ─ 5,160,000 days of lost activity and employment in 1987 . 19 These dry figures are mute but shocking testimony demonstrating the tragic effects and devastating consequences of drinking and driving.

The social cost of the crime, great as it is, fades in comparison to the personal loss suffered by the victims of this crime through the death and injury of their loved ones.

The gravity of the problem and its impact on Canadian society has been so great that Criminal Code amendments were enacted aimed at eliminating or, at least, reducing the problem . [15] Recent decisions of the Court confirm that the objective of deterrence must carry stiff sentences. [ 36 ] In the circumstances, the Court varied the sentence, increasing it to 24 months' imprisonment, and prohibited the accused from driving a vehicle for 10 years. [ 37 ] Eddie Peters' situation must be assessed in light of these principles. [ 38 ] Apart from the deterrence factor that comes into play with respect to him, distance must be put between him and the rest of society, in order to protect other road users from his irresponsible conduct.

Action must be taken before he causes unspeakable tragedy for innocent victims. Perhaps his stay in prison will make him think and, contrary to the previous sentences and convictions, enable him to effect the drastic changes necessary in his life. [ 39 ] For these reasons, the accused is SENTENCED to 4 years in prison (less the 56 days of preventive detention since November 8), on each count, to served concurrently or 46 months and 4 days as of now. [ 40 ] PROHIBITS the accused from driving a motor vehicle in Canada for a period of ten years. __________________________________ Serge Champoux J.C.Q. Mtre.

Véronic Champagne Counsel for the prosecutor Mtre. Mireille Leblanc Counsel for the accused Date of hearing: December 11, 2013