R. v. Goodman (T.S.), 2023 MBPC 61

CITATION: R. v. Goodman (T.S.) , 2023 MBPC 61 IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: His Majesty the King ) Melissa Hazelton & ) Matthew Armstrong ) for the Crown ) ) -and- ) ) ) Tyler Scott Goodman ) Mat Schwartz ) for the Accused ) ) ) ) Reasons for Decision delivered: ) November 22, 2023 MCKENZIE, P.J. [ 1 ] Tyler Scott Goodman has pleaded guilty to operating a conveyance while his ability to do so was impaired by alcohol causing the death of Jordyn Reimer contrary to s. 320.14(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada (“ Criminal Code ” ).

He has also pleaded guilty to failing to remain at the scene after an accident resulting in the death of Jordyn Reimer contrary to s. 320.16(3) of the Criminal Code . The sentencing hearing of this matter was held simultaneously with the case of R. v. Goodman (L.L.), 2023 MBPC 60 . FACTS [ 2 ] The Crown and defence filed as Exhibit S4, a joint statement of facts pursuant to s. 655 of the Criminal Code . The essentials of the facts are as follows. The offender was drinking at Joe’s Pandora bar on April 30, 2022 into the early morning hours of May 1, 2022.

During the course of the evening, he consumed 9-10 alcoholic drinks. [ 3 ] Near closing, a friend of Tyler Goodman’s, Chelsea Boychuk tried to ensure that the offender would not drive because she believed he was intoxicated. She took his keys and gave them to his friend. She offered the offender a ride. Mr. Goodman told her it would be okay and he would see her later at the after party.

He then got his keys from his friend and got behind the wheel of his truck. [ 4 ] The Crown filed a video, Exhibit S9, from Joe’s Pandora bar where the accused can be observed taking several drinks from what appears to be a can of beer. Together with his friends, they then purchased a 15 pack of beer just before leaving. [ 5 ] He then left Joe’s Pandora with two friends, driving at a high rate of speed northbound on Bond Street. He was observed failing to stop for the four-way stop sign at the intersection of Bond and Regent Avenue.

A few blocks later, he was again observed to be travelling at an excessive speed and went through the stop sign at the intersection of Ravelston Avenue and Bond Street. Witnesses then heard the accused’s engine revving and he was observed to go through the stop sign at Kildare Avenue West and Bond Street at a high

rate of speed. [6] At approximately 2:10 a.m., Jordyn Reimer, who was a designated driver, was on her way to give a sober ride. She wasunfortunately travelling westbound down Kildare Avenue West through the intersection of Bond Street at the exact moment the offenderwent through that 2-way controlled intersection. [7] The offender T-boned the driver’s side of Jordyn Reimer’s vehicle. The Winnipeg Police Service (“WPS”) accidentreconstruction report, Exhibit 2, established that he was travelling at 108 km/hr in an unposted 50 km/hr residential zone. Mr.

Goodmanwas driving with the gas pedal completely to the floor until 0.2 seconds before the collision. [8] Both vehicles were extremely damaged. The offender had to get out of the passenger side of his vehicle. Pedestrians whoobserved the accident yelled not to go near the vehicle fearing it may explode or ignite. [9] Bystanders told the occupants of the offender’s truck not to leave the scene, but they did not listen.

Instead, the occupants ofthe vehicle picked up the beer they had purchased at the Joe’s Pandora vender and left the scene before emergency crews arrived at2:16 a.m. [10] Jordyn Reimer succumbed to her catastrophic injuries. [11] At approximately 2:15 a.m., the offender called his mother Laurie Goodman to pick him up at the intersection of Day Streetand Regent Avenue. Ms. Goodman left at 2:19 a.m. and arrived back with Mr. Goodman at their home at 2:30 a.m. The WPS attendedthe Goodman home at 2:45 a.m. and received no answer at the door nor on the telephone, that could be heard ringing in the house.

Thepolice re-attended at 8:30 a.m. and again there was no answer. [12] Early that afternoon, Ms. Goodman took the offender to the hospital for some minor injuries. Learning that someone had diedin the accident, the two then went to the police station where the offender provided the police with a statement admitting to driving thetruck. In his statement, he minimized his driving speed, minimized his alcohol consumption, and told police he walked home and had nocontact with Laurie Goodman until later that morning.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES [13] The Crown is seeking a sentence of six years for driving impaired and causing the death of Jordyn Reimer with a consecutivesentence of one year for failing to remain at the scene of the accident. The Crown is also seeking a 10-year driving prohibition, a 10-year s. 109 weapons prohibition, and a sample of his DNA to be taken for the identification of criminals as these are secondarydesignated offences.

The Crown’s position is reflective of the facts, the caselaw, and particularly the intentionally reckless disregard forthe safety of the community. [14] The defence seeks a sentence of 4.5 years for the impaired driving causing death offence and agrees with the Crown on theconsecutive one year sentence for failing to remain at the scene of an accident that resulted in death. They took no issue with the drivingprohibition less the time Mr. Goodman has been on bail conditions that prohibited him from driving. They took no issue with the s. 109order as it is mandatory. They took no position on the DNA order.

VICTIM IMPACT [15] The Crown and the defence requested a pre-sentence conference regarding limitations, if any, on the reading of victim impactstatements in court. At the time, the Crown had received over 100 victim impact statements and advised the court that 32 individuals hadindicated that they wanted to read their victim impact statements in court. At the time there were two days scheduled for the sentencinghearing. It was determined that the court would attempt to hear from all 32 individuals who wished to read their victim impactstatements.

With the Crown and the defence agreement, the court allocated what should have been sufficient time for the reading of the32 statements. A number of additional individuals, after dates were set, asked to read their statements. [16] In total, approximately 45 victim impact statements were read in court. Unfortunately, not everyone present could read theirstatements given the time restraints. It is a fine balance between giving individuals enough time to read their statements in open court andensuring that these matters proceed in a timely fashion.

Had the court adjourned to allow further statements, this matter would not havereconvened until 2024. [17] The court received and read approximately 125-victim impact statements filed in two volumes as Exhibit S5. There are 125tabs in Exhibit S5, but a few of the tabs had statements from multiple individuals or were co-authored. [18] A voir dire on November 3, 2023 was convened to determine the admissibility of some of the comments in some of the victimimpact statements. The court made a number of rulings on the admissibility of some of the victim impact statements.

At that time, thecourt determined that some of the comments within a few of the victim impact statements were outside the scope of what is appropriatecontent in victim impact statements. Those comments were redacted. Fairness in sentencing precludes comments that containrecommendations for sentence, assertions as to facts not found by the court, and comments that amount to offender bashing for example.See, R. v. McDonough (2006), (ON SC), 209 C.C.C. (3d) 547 (Ont. S.C.J.). [19] Most of the content was permitted despite some not complying strictly with s. 722 of the Criminal Code.

The court agreed todisabuse itself of any comments that would not otherwise be admissible. [20] Of those statements that were read, it was clear that the sorrow, the pain, and some anger will last for lifetimes. Each persontold of the life stolen, the lives forever changed, and the chilling heartbreak of a community. Impact statements from friends, family,neighbors, teammates, coaches, and friends of the family, from Manitoba, Alberta, and California demonstrate that this offence has hadwide impact.

[ 21 ] One of the most obvious heartaches of this case was that Jordyn Reimer was killed by a drunk driver while she herself was acting as a designated driver. Her mother Karen Reimer stated, “it was the cruelest of all ironies”. The utter injustice has been unbearable for many. [ 22 ] Others feel responsible and blame themselves. Others were also designated drivers for the same event that night and had crossed that same intersection multiple times. Some are reliving the moment they heard of the news.

Many are in therapy. [ 23 ] Some of the victim impact statements included individual’s who described attending a memorial where Jordyn Reimer’s name was added to a list collected by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (“MADD”). MADD has a memorial wall where victim’s names are added each year. Jordyn Reimer’s was added in August.

In addition to the MADD memorial wall, Jordyn Reimer’s jersey was raised at her university hockey rink, and a memorial bench was placed on the Transcona walkway. [ 24 ] In short, the impact of the offender’s series of decisions to drink and drive and then to do so in such a reckless manner is immense. It would be immense without the impact statements, it would be immense without a single person in the gallery, or a single person to speak for the victim.

The taking of a life by crime is immeasurable. [ 25 ] All those who look to the criminal justice system for vindication of the life that was stolen, need to understand that the objective of sentencing is not reflective of the value of a life. The sad reality is that there is no sentence that the court can impose to reflect the kind of person Jordyn Reimer was, the heartbreak her death has caused, or to compensate for the things she will never have an opportunity to do, such as becoming a mother, or obtaining her master’s degree. The court process simply cannot undo the harm caused.

The hope is that with the conclusion of the court process, each new day will allow you to heal as much as you are able. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER [ 26 ] The offender comes before the court at 30 years of age and was days shy of 28 at the time of the offence. He has no prior criminal record, but has two prior speeding convictions in 2012 and 2015. A Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”) was prepared for sentencing. The offender recalled the evening in questions and does not know why he chose to drive so recklessly. He admitted to panicking and leaving the scene.

He took responsibility for his actions, and expressed remorse. [ 27 ] The PSR described a mostly normal upbringing. His mother, who is a cancer survivor, explained he was tremendously supportive during her cancer treatments. [ 28 ] The offender did well in school, completing high school, and has worked for a family business for four years. [ 29 ] Mr. Goodman did not believe alcohol had been a problem in his life, but sees now that in the past five years his consumption has escalated, particularly with binge drinking. Since November 2022, Mr.

Goodman has been attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings on-line and has maintained his sobriety. He has a small group of supportive friends and family. [ 30 ] Overall, Mr. Goodman was assessed as a low risk to become re-involved in general criminal conduct with no significant risk factors being identified. [ 31 ] The defence filed Exhibit S10 containing six character reference letters. They all show support for the offender, but more importantly describe his remorse and a marked change in his character since his offending. Mr.

Goodman has good prospects of staying away from the criminal justice system in the future. [ 32 ] Finally, I accept from Mr. Goodman that he is remorseful for his actions and regrets the harm he has caused and will for the rest of his life. SENTENCING PRINCIPLES Proportionality [ 33 ] The fundamental principle of sentencing can be found in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code which states: A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [ 34 ] There is no doubt in anyone’s mind, including the offender, that his moral culpability is high. While Mr.

Goodman stated he did not intend to get drunk that night, he consumed a significant amount of alcohol including up until the very last second he left Joe’s Pandora. He made that choice. Despite a friend telling him not to drive, he made that choice as well. He then made the choice to drive his vehicle recklessly in a residential area ignoring three traffic control devices while driving in excess of double the speed limit. These were all his choices and his alone. [ 35 ] In regard to failing to remain at the scene, Mr. Goodman continued to make bad choices.

After the crash he walked to the laneway, stood by for a few moments, after someone in the group went back to the truck to get the beer they just bought, he left the scene despite witnesses telling him to stay. He was gone before the paramedics showed up minutes later. In fact, he was already back on Regent Avenue at almost the same time as when the paramedics arrived on scene given when he called his mother to come pick him up.

By leaving the scene, the police had to enter into an investigation, they had to determine who was driving the vehicle, and they were unable to obtain breath samples to determine his blood alcohol concentration. [ 36 ] While Mr. Goodman did turn himself in to the police, it was not until much later that day. By leaving the scene, this allowed him to lie to the police about his alcohol consumption, about his manner of driving, and concoct a story that he walked home and had not

seen his mother until the next morning. [ 37 ] In short, for both offences, he is highly morally culpable. [ 38 ] In terms of the tragic consequences and the gravity of this offence, there is no greater consequence. Mr. Goodman took the life of Jordyn Reimer, this can never be undone, and her family can never become whole again. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances [ 39 ] In terms of mitigating factors, Mr. Goodman has demonstrated genuine remorse.

This is evident from his guilty plea, by the observations of the PSR writer, by his friends and family in their letters of support, and by his statement to the court. It is mitigating that he has no prior criminal record. It is mitigating that he has taken steps to address his use of alcohol by attending the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba impaired driver program and attending alcoholics anonymous for approximately a year. He is also maintaining a sober lifestyle. While perhaps not truly a mitigating circumstance, it is a consideration of the court, Mr.

Goodman has been on strict bail conditions including a curfew since his release. In other words, his liberty has been restricted for approximately 18 months. [ 40 ] It is an aggravating factor that Mr. Goodman was told he should not be driving, that he was driving over double the legal speed limit in a manner that was inherently reckless by disobeying three traffic control devices in a residential neighborhood with passengers. Albeit dated, he also has two prior speeding convictions which are related to the offence.

The Law [ 41 ] The role of the court is to impose a fit and proper sentence based on the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the offender in addition to proportionality. [ 42 ] S. 718 of the Criminal Code states, The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

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

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

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

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

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

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. [ 43 ] In this case, the primary objectives are denunciation and deterrence. The court must convey a strong message to Mr. Goodman and others that our society condemns this type of behaviour and that the consequences for doing so will be severe. [ 44 ] In R. v.

Laccasse , 2015 SCC 64 , the court reiterated that in the impaired driving context, deterrence and denunciation are particularly relevant in relation to offences that might be committed by ordinary law-abiding citizens. [ 45 ] The court also stated at paragraph 8, This sad situation, which unfortunately continues to prevail today, and was denounced by Cory J. more than 20 years ago: 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. [ 46 ] Driving while impaired causing death and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death, both carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. This is a signal from Parliament of the serious nature of these types of offences. [ 47 ] The Manitoba Court of Appeal in the case of R. v.

Ruizfuentes 2010 MBCA 90 set the range of sentences for impaired driving causing death in Manitoba at 2-5 years for a first time offender. [ 48 ] The Crown argues that since Parliament amended the drinking and driving laws in 2018, sentences for first time offenders have been rising in Manitoba and across the country. They submit, that the range in Ruizfuentes no longer reflects the intentions of Parliament based on society’s condemnation of drinking and driving today.

The defence argues that this is still the range in Manitoba. [ 49 ] Regardless of whether the sentencing range has or has not changed in Manitoba, sentencing ranges are to ensure parity between similar offences committed in similar circumstances. They are guides meant as tools. However, Lacasse paragraph 57 states , “The fundamental point is that a ‘range’ is not a straitjacket to the exercise of discretion of a sentencing judge”.

[ 50 ] The Crown’s argument that sentencing ranges can go up as a result of Parliamentary changes was demonstrated in the Lacasse case, Wagner J. (as he was then), stated at paragraph 7, The increase in the minimum and maximum sentences for impaired driving offences shows that Parliament wanted such offences to be punished more harshly.

Despite countless awareness campaigns conducted over the years, impaired driving offences still cause more deaths than any other offences in Canada: House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Ending Alcohol- Impaired Driving: A Common approach (2009), at p. 5 . [ 51 ] The amendments discussed in Lacasse were also raised in Ruizfuentes . The Criminal Code had been amended to remove the ability of imposing conditional sentences for “serious personal injury offences” which included impaired driving causing death.

Chartier J.A. (as he was then), in Ruizfuentes at paragraph 12 , noted that the removal of this tool, which would normally be reserved for first offenders, raised the minimum sentence plateau.

As such, the court went on to consider prior impaired driving causing death cases from Manitoba finding that the range had been 1-4 years for first time offenders and raised it to 2-5 years partially because of the amendments. [ 52 ] It is logical given the acknowledgment of both the Supreme Court of Canada in Lacasse , and the Manitoba Court of Appeal in Ruezfuentes , that statutory amendments can affect sentencing ranges. [ 53 ] Bill C-46,

An act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts , SC 2018 amended several sections of the Criminal Code and increased a number of minimum and maximum penalties as they relate to impaired driving offences. [ 54 ]

Chapter 21 emphasized that one of the purposes for the amendments was to create new and stronger laws to combat drug and alcohol related driving offences.

Section 320.12 of the Criminal Code was enacted providing a declaratory statement meant to act as an interpretive tool for this reform which states, It is recognized and declared that, (

a) Operating a conveyance is a privilege that is subject to certain limits in the interests of public safety that includes licensing, the observation of rules and sobriety; (

b) The protection of society is well served by deterring persons from operating conveyances dangerously or while their ability to operate them is impaired by alcohol or a drug, because that conduct poses a threat to the life, health and safety of Canadians; … PARITY CASE LAW [ 55 ] The Crown provided two Manitoba Court of King’s Bench cases where the court found that the range for impaired driving causing death was higher than the range set in Ruizfuentes . In R. v.

Cowley , delivered orally in Portage la Prairie on July 10, 2019, Abel J. found the range for impaired driving causing death for a first time offender to be between 6-10 years. He ultimately sentenced Mr. Cowley to 8 years in custody. Similarly, in R. v. Quevedo an oral decision delivered in Brandon on July 5, 2023, Abel J. found the range to be between 4-7 years, ultimately sentencing Mr. Quevedo to six years of custody. The defence alerted the court that the Quevedo decision is on appeal and may clarify the range.

Further, it is noteworthy that the offence dates of both the Cowley and Quevedo decisions pre-date the 2018 amendments. [ 56 ] To demonstrate parity, the defence filed a number of cases. Two of those cases, R. v. Smoke 2014 MBCA 91 and R. v. Campbell , 2023 MBPC 27 , involved indigenous offenders. Mr. Smoke was a youthful 18-year-old indigenous offender and the court in sentencing Mr. Smoke to 4.5 years paid particular attention to Mr.

Smoke’s youthful age, and to the fact that the sentencing Judge did not properly weigh what is commonly known as Gladue factors. [ 57 ] The Campbell decision dealt with an offender that no one can possibly compare to Mr. Goodman. This decision is more on par with the ‘exceptional circumstances’ case law, although Judge Rambow still imposed a three year jail sentence. Mr. Campbell was the product of the intergenerational trauma of colonialism including the 60’s scoop. Judge Rambow also took into consideration the significant steps Mr. Campbell took to turn around his life. While Mr.

Campbell may have had a horrific criminal record, the life situation of Mr. Campbell are nowhere near imaginably comparable to the upbringing of Mr. Goodman. The steps Mr. Campbell took to rehabilitate himself are nothing short or remarkable in comparison from where he began. This case cannot be seen as a precedent. [ 58 ] In another Manitoba case filed by the defence, R. v. Hansell , 2015 MBQB 109 , Suche J. sentenced a youthful 19-year-old first offender to 26 months of custody, noting that the breath test readings were quite low and that the offence causation was not solely to do with impairment.

Between that, his reparations to the community, and his youthfulness the sentence was balanced with the principle of restraint. [ 59 ] The defence filed, R. v. Mangat , 2022 BCPC 25 . The offence date in this case also preceded the 2018 Criminal Code amendments despite the decision date being in 2022. In addition, at paragraph 50, the range for impaired driving causing death in British Columbia at the time was 2-3 years for a first offender verses the range set in Ruizfuentes of 2-5 years in Manitoba. Factually, the case is much different from Mr. Goodman’s. [ 60 ] The defence characterized Mr.

Goodman as a youthful first offender. I agree that at the time of the offence he was a young man, but I disagree that he was youthful. At the time of the offence, he was 28-years old. He had been an adult and legal drinking age for a decade. He was much closer to a mature offender than a youthful one. The term ‘youthful’ recognizes the transition from being a young offender to being an adult.

[ 61 ] The case most similar to the offender and offence, filed by the Crown, is the case of R. v. Altiman 2019 ONCA 511 . Mr. Altiman was 31-years old, he ran a red light at a high rate of speed only slowing 0.2 seconds before he collided with another vehicle killing two people and injuring two others. Mr. Altiman had no prior criminal record and no prior driving record. Mr. Altiman was sentenced to 7 years of custody and an 8 year driving prohibition. [ 62 ] The facts in Lacasse were also somewhat similar, however, Mr.

Lacasse was 20 years old, had no prior criminal record, had three-highway traffic related speeding offences, lived at home, worked for his family’s business, and was speeding 130 km/h in a 75 km/h curve when he lost control and crashed killing his two passengers. Mr. Goodman was speeding more than double the legal limit in a residential area, went through three traffic control devices crashing into another vehicle, and has two prior speeding convictions, albeit dated.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld a 6.5-year sentence in part because there was evidence of local circumstances where impaired driving was particularly problematic. DECISION [ 63 ] The court finds that the range of sentences appear to be trending upward for offences of impaired operation of a conveyance causing death. The 2018 amendments strengthened the articulation of society’s condemnation of these offences. It is also consistent with much of the case law. [ 64 ] For the reasons previously articulated, the sentence ought properly be somewhere near the range of Lacasse and Altiman .

Both of those offences occurred in jurisdictions outside of Manitoba and involved multiple counts. With guidance from the Cowley and Quevedo cases, the court accepts that the Crown has put forward the appropriate sentence. Mr. Goodman’s sentence shall be six years in jail, less the time spent in presentence custody at an enhanced credit of 1:1.5 for the offence of impaired driving causing the death of Jordyn Reimer.

Corrections will calculate the time in-custody and reduce it accordingly. [ 65 ] On the offence of failing to remain at the scene of an accident where a fatality has occurred both the Crown and the defence have recommended the same sentence. Their material is congruent with that recommendation. Therefore, for the offence of failing to remain at the scene of the accident where Jordyn Reimer died, Mr.

Goodman is sentenced to a further year of custody to be served consecutively to the six year sentence for the impaired driving causing death. [ 66 ] Given a consecutive sentence was imposed, the court must take a last look at the totality of the sentence to ensure that the consecutive sentences would not create a crushing sentence. It would not. [ 67 ] In addition, the offence of impaired operation of a conveyance causing death carries a mandatory minimum driving prohibition. The Crown and the defence agree that a 10 year driving prohibition is appropriate. Further, they point out that Mr.

Goodman’s release order prohibited him from driving from the day of his release from custody on May 14, 2022. The calculation from May 14, 2022 up to and including today is 557 days. Given the submissions of counsel, there shall be an order prohibiting Mr. Goodman from driving a motor vehicle for 8 years and 137 days. [ 68 ] In addition, the Criminal Code s. 109 requires the imposition of a weapons prohibition on both convictions. There shall be an order prohibiting Mr.

Goodman from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, and explosive substance for a period of 10 years. [ 69 ] The Crown sought a further ancillary order to obtain a sample of the offender’s DNA for the identification of criminals. The defence did not take a position on the order. Parliament has identified both offences as secondary designated offences. In the circumstances, the offender left the scene of a fatal accident and DNA may have been useful in determining the driver. Therefore, the taking of a DNA sample is appropriate.

The court orders that the police take a sample of Mr. Goodman’s DNA while he is in custody. [ 70 ] Finally, given the imposition of a custodial sentence, the court is waiving any costs or surcharges associated with these convictions. __________________________ Judge K. McKenzie