R. v. Goodman (L.L.), 2023 MBPC 60

CITATION: R. v. Goodman (L.L.) , 2023 MBPC 60 IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: His Majesty the King ) Melissa Hazleton & ) Matthew Armstrong ) for the Crown ) ) -and- ) ) ) ) Laurie Lynn Goodman ) Matthew Raffey ) for the Accused ) ) ) Reasons for Decision delivered: ) November 22, 2023 MCKENZIE, P.J. [ 1 ] Laurie Goodman has pleaded guilty to the offence of intentionally attempting to obstruct justice contrary to s. 139(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada (“ Criminal Code ” ). The sentencing hearing of this matter was held simultaneously with the case of R. v. Goodman (T.S.), 2023 MBPC 61 .

FACTS [ 2 ] The Crown and the defence filed as Exhibit S1 an agreed statement of facts pursuant to s. 665 of the Criminal Code . [ 3 ] On May 1, 2022 at 2:15 a.m., Laurie Goodman received a telephone call from her son asking for a ride home. What her son, Tyler Scott Goodman, did not tell her was that he had been driving impaired, that he had been in a serious accident where he T-boned another motor vehicle, that he did not know the condition of the other driver, and that he had left the scene of the accident. [ 4 ] Ms.

Goodman had been sleeping and was annoyed by his request, as he knew she was also not feeling well. However, she went to pick him up anyway. He called back and told her not to come, but she was already on her way. She picked him up at the Dairy Queen on Day Street in Winnipeg, Manitoba. When she picked him up, she asked why he needed a ride, and he did not say anything. They arrived at their shared residence at 2:30 a.m. [ 5 ] At 2:45 a.m., members of the Winnipeg Police Service attended to their home address and knocked on the door. Receiving no answer at the door, the police attempted to contact Ms.

Goodman by calling two telephone numbers associated with her. The calls were unanswered although the police could hear a phone ringing inside the residence. The police re-attended at 8:30 a.m. and again there was no answer. [ 6 ] The next morning Ms. Goodman learned about the accident. She was concerned about her son’s injuries so she took him to the hospital. At the hospital, she learned that the accident involved a fatality. When Tyler Goodman was discharged from the hospital, she

took him to the police station to “make things right”. After waiting for approximately 90 minutes, the police asked Ms. Goodman if she would answer some questions. Ms. Goodman was not under arrest. While speaking to the police she lied, stating that she did not know what time her son came home and did not see him until later that morning. These two things were not true. Tyler Goodman told the police the same lie. [ 7 ] The defence has told the court that Mr. Goodman and Ms. Goodman coincidentally told the police the same lie and that they did not collude. Ms.

Goodman told the court that she wanted to distance herself from her son’s crimes. [ 8 ] In attempting to distance herself from her son’s offences, she obstructed justice by lying to the police about Tyler Goodman’s whereabouts. It caused the police to have to do further investigation to ascertain the course of events. The lie was not sophisticated and in the course of the investigation her actions were caught by a neighbor’s doorbell camera. VICTIM IMPACT [ 9 ] There have been numerous friends and family members who have written victim impact statements.

In total the court received approximately 125 victim impact statements and approximately 45 were read in court. Most were focused on the actions of Tyler Goodman and not directed towards Ms. Goodman, however her intentional attempt to obstruct justice added to the trauma of those left behind. It was one more difficult piece for an already struggling family to comprehend while they were grieving the death of Jordyn Reimer. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER [ 10 ] Ms. Goodman comes before the court at 58 years of age with no prior criminal record.

She has three children and has had three separate bouts of cancer for which she has received various types of treatment. She cares for her ailing parents. She has employment and appears to be a productive pro-social member of society. She has taken responsibility for her role in the offence. She is disappointed in herself and believes that she would do things differently if she could go back. [ 11 ] In court, Ms.

Goodman provided a sincere apology to the victim’s family where she faced them and took care to take responsibility for her actions and express her remorse not just for her own actions, but also for the actions of her son. SENTENCE CONSIDERATIONS [ 12 ] The Crown and defence have jointly recommended a sentence to the court as part of plea negotiations. According to the case of R. v. Anthony-Cook , 2016 SCC 43 , [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204 , sentencing courts are to go along with joint recommendations unless they fall outside of the appropriate range of sentence.

Counsel are jointly recommending a 6-month conditional supervision order (“CSO”). [ 13 ] When considering an appropriate sentence, the court must look at the sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code ss. 718 - 718.2 . The paramount objectives in this case are deterrence and denunciation. [ 14 ] Having considered the agreed statement of facts and the submissions of counsel, the court is satisfied that the jointly recommended sentence gives due weight and consideration to the serious nature of the offence, Ms. Goodman’s moral blameworthiness, and society’s condemnation of Ms.

Goodman’s conduct. [ 15 ] The court is satisfied that the imposition of a CSO would not endanger the safety of the community, and is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. There are also no statutory impediments to imposing a CSO. [ 16 ] The court is guided by the principles enunciated in R v. Proulx , 2000 SCC 5 , [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61 , where at paragraph 100 of its decision the Supreme Court held that: “a conditional sentence can achieve the principles of denunciation and deterrence as effectively as incarceration”.

DECISION [ 17 ] For the offence of intentionally attempting to obstruct justice, Ms.

Goodman is sentenced to a 6 month custodial sentence to be served by way of a CSO with the following conditions: You must: • Keep the peace and be of good behaviour; • Appear before the court when required to do so by the court; • Report to a CSO supervisor within two working days and thereafter as directed in the manner directed by your CSO supervisor; • Remain within Manitoba unless you obtain written permission to go outside of the jurisdiction from the court or your CSO supervisor; • Notify the court or your CSO supervisor in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or your CSO supervisor of any change of employment or occupation; • Carry a copy of your CSO order on your person at all times you are outside of your residence and present it to any peace officer upon interaction with that officer. • Report any interaction with any peace officers within 24 hours to your CSO supervisor. • Abide by an absolute curfew with the following exceptions:

▪ In a medical emergency involving yourself or a member of your immediate family. In the case of an absence for a medical emergency, you must advise your CSO supervisor within 48 hours of that absence. ▪ To travel directly to and from your place of employment.

You must advise your CSO supervisor of the terms of your employment and regular hours of work. ▪ For 4 hours to attend to your personal business on Saturdays between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. ▪ As allowed by your CSO supervisor. • Answer the door or home phone if the Winnipeg Police Service, your CSO supervisor or their designates conduct a curfew check; and • Abstain absolutely from the consumption of alcohol or illegal drugs. [ 18 ] The court has considered the additional exceptions as requested by the defence. The court is disinclined to endorse them, but Ms.

Goodman is free to discuss them with her CSO supervisor who may permit her to attend to those other important obligations in her life, if the supervisor feels her progress is such that they become appropriate. It is imperative that Ms. Goodman understands that the sentence permits her to serve her time in the community, but that a breach in relation to any of the conditions of this order may result in Ms. Goodman serving the balance of the sentence incarcerated in a custodial institution. [ 19 ] There are no necessary ancillary orders. [ 20 ] Ms.

Goodman will have additional expenses in caring for her youngest child and her parents therefore the court waives any costs or surcharges associated with this matter. __________________________ Judge K. McKenzie