R. v. Greavette, 2018 ONCJ 10

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: R. v. Greavette , 2018 ONCJ 10 DATE: 2018 01 10 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — AND — BRANDON GREAVETTE Before Justice David Rose Heard on October 19, 2017, January 10, 2018 Reasons for Judgment released on January 10, 2018 T. Vandenen......................................................................................... counsel for the Crown B. Daley................................................... Counsel for the defendant Brandon Greavette David Rose J.: [ 1 ] Mr. Greavette was convicted after a trial on October 19, 2017 of Over 80 driving.

The facts are, briefly, that at 12:43 am on September 2, 2016 Cst. Ready of the O.P.P. attended at Ecclestone Drive in Bracebridge in front of the Riverside Inn, which was the scene of a serious motor vehicle collision involving two motor vehicles. One of them was on Eccelstone Drive. It was a small 4 door sedan which had significant damage to both ends of the vehicle. One of the front wheels was knocked off the car and was pictured lying on the roadway with its axle and suspension unit. I was told in submissions that there were 3 persons in the sedan at the time of the accident. [ 2 ] The other vehicle was Mr.

Greavette’s pick-up truck. The truck had left the roadway and entered the grounds of the Riverside Inn where it knocked down a light standard and damaged vehicles in the parking lot before coming to a rest on top of the dislodged light standard. It too lost its front wheel which was similarly photographed under the truck. The light standard had collided with the front of the Ford with such force that it made a very significant dent in the front end of the truck from the top of the hood to the bottom of the bumper. The pictures also show that the airbags of the truck had been set off by the impact.

The pick-up truck is clearly written off. When it came to a rest the pick-up truck was not only lying on top of the light standard, but another vehicle parked in the lot of Riverside Inn. [ 3 ] When PC Ready approached Mr. Greavette he was getting medical attention from an ambulance attendant. He told the EMS attendant that he had been the driver of the Ford pick-up truck, and that he had been drinking. Miraculously he only suffered minor cuts to his face from the collision. Mr. Greavette had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, an inability to focus, there was an odour of alcohol on his breath and body.

He had balance problems and stumbled on his way to the police car. Mr. Greavette was arrested and ultimately provided two suitable samples of his breath into an Intoxilyzer. His readings were 140 and 130 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. [ 4 ] The Pre-Sentence Report reveals Mr. Greavette to be 26 years old with no prior criminal record. He has a number of recent POA convictions including, since 2012, Speeding x4, Tailgating, Fail to Stop at a Signal or Crosswalk, and Careless Driving. In 2016 he was convicted of Consumption of Alcohol in Public. The PSR describes the good in Mr. Greavette.

He graduated from high school and has no dependents but does have a loving supportive family including his mother, sister and brother, and does his share of chores at the family house and cottage. He has a well-paying job in the construction industry. He takes responsibility for the offence and was cooperative with the PSR writer. His family operates local car dealerships but his father died suddenly when he was 16 years old. On

the other hand, he tends to drink to excess socially. When he does he gets into trouble. This offence is proof of that. He gets into fightsat parties, which has happened as recently as November of 2017. He told the PSR writer that he doesn’t think that is unusual. Mr.Greavette grew up in the Bracebridge area and is familiar with the area where he crashed his truck.

The PSR supports a finding that Mr.Greavette accepts responsibility for this offence but has not yet understood that when he drinks bad things happen. [5] When considering sentence a number of factors need to be considered, including rehabilitation, the offender’s degree ofresponsibility, and the fact that he is a first offender. But deterrence is one of them too and it rises to the top in this case. As Mr. JusticeC. De Sa recently found in a

summary conviction appeal against a jail term for a first time offender convicted of impaired driving: 19 As recognized by the Supreme Court in R. v. Alex, 2017 SCC 37 (S.C.C.) at para. 1, drunk drivers cause tremendous suffering inCanadian society and place a substantial burden on the criminal justice system. As Justice Cory commented in R. v. Bernshaw (SCC), [1994 CarswellBC 3038 (S.C.C.)], , at para. 16, "every year, drunk driving leaves a terrible trail ofdeath, injury, heartbreak and destruction". Unfortunately these comments by Justice Cory are as relevant today as they were two decadesago.

The devastating consequences imposed on families and the community at large by drunk driving are very real indeed. See R. v.Muzzo, 2016 ONSC 2068 (Ont. S.C.J.). Denunciation and general deterrence are clearly the overriding sentencing principles in impaireddriving cases. 20 It is indeed fortunate that no one here was killed or injured. However, the seriousness of the Appellant's choice to drive whileseverely impaired must not be trivialized by the fact that there were no injuries. General deterrence remains the primary concern.

AsJustice Doherty explained in Ramage: In imposing sentence, the trial judge identified general deterrence as the predominant concern. In doing so, he correctly applied thiscourt's judgment in R. v. McVeigh (1985), (ON CA), 22 C.C.C.(3d) 145 (Ont. C.A.). In that judgment, now almost 25years old, this court made it clear that drinking and driving related offences were serious crimes and must be treated as such by thecourts. In the memorable words of MacKinnon A.C.J.O. at p. 150, "every drinking driver is a potential killer" [emphasis added]. See R. v.

Sivandi, 2017 ONSC 5740 [6] To this I would add that in 2016 Fuerst RSJ commented that “… the message that every drinking driver is a potential killer ofinnocent members of the community continues to go unheeded.” See R. v. Muzzo, 2016 ONSC 2068 at par. 2. R. v. Muzzo was a YorkRegion case, and the case before me is from Bracebridge, which is about 90 minutes north of Newmarket, but Fuerst RSJ’s commentsare, in my humble opinion, of very wide application. [7] In this case it is mitigating that Mr. Greavette is a relatively youthful first offender.

He has a supportive family and a good jobbut continues to abuse alcohol socially to the point where his drinking leads to assaultive behavior. He has never taken counselling foralcohol abuse. The BAC readings are not at the level that would engage s. 255.1 of the Criminal Code. I find that the BAC readings arein the middling range. It is aggravating that he has a bad driving record. What is particularly aggravating in this case is the accidentcaused by driving. The damage from the collision displayed in the photographic evidence is both graphic and troubling.

The damage tothe sedan on Ecclestone Drive is so severe to the driver side that had the truck hit the car only inches to the right, this would likely havebeen a case of bodily harm, or worse. When viewing the pictures of the Ford pick-up truck it is something of a miracle that Mr.Greavette himself escaped with only minor cuts. It appears from the pictures that the passenger side of the front seat of the truck alsohad its airbags go off, and both Crown and Defence agree that there were 3 persons in the truck at time of driving.

There are thereforesix persons who miraculously walked away from this carnage – 3 in the truck and 3 in the car. The property damage to both of thesevehicles, the other cars in the parking lot and the premises of the Riverside Inn is seriously aggravating. This calls for a deterrentsentence. [8] The Crown seeks only a fine, and lengthy probation order. In submissions I asked both counsel whether this addressed thedenunciatory and deterrent aspects of sentence. Mr. Daley suggested that, if a monetary penalty was not appropriate then a conditionalsentence order would be appropriate.

After reflection I have come to the conclusion that neither a fine, nor a conditional sentence orderwill meet the required principals of sentencing. I do not take lightly the decision to jail a first offender, but after reflection I havedetermined that the sentence will be 30 days in jail. Upon release Mr. Greavette is to be placed on probation for 1 year with terms thathe report, take counselling for alcohol abuse and obey a curfew set by the probation officer. There will be an 18 month drivingprohibition. Released: January 10, 2018 Signed: Justice David S. Rose