R. v. Nordin Date:, 2017 BCPC 268

Citation: R. v. Nordin Date: 20170308 2017 BCPC 268 File No: 96014-1 Registry: Port Coquitlam IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. TANNER JON JOSEPH NORDIN REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE T.S. WOODS Counsel for the Crown: S. Lindstrom Counsel for the Accused: P.A. Riddell Place of Hearing: Port Coquitlam , B.C. Date of Hearing: March 8, 2017 Date of Judgment: March 8, 2017

[ 1 ] THE COURT : Tanner Jon Joseph Nordin is before the court today on Information 96014-1. This is an indictment, a two-count Indictment, sworn on June 23rd of 2016 in connection with events that unfolded on June 29th of 2015. In this two-count indictment, Mr. Nordin faces charges of operating a motor vehicle in a manner that was dangerous to the public, having regard to all of the circumstances, and thereby causing bodily harm -- in Count 1 to Roberto Tuzzi, and in Count 2 to Brenda Tuzzi. [ 2 ] Mr.

Nordin has made and maintains his not guilty pleas to both counts on the Indictment, but he has today, in connection with Count 1, entered a plea pursuant to s. 606(4) of the Criminal Code to the lesser included offence of driving without due care and attention, contrary to s. 144(1)(

a) of the Motor Vehicle Act . So Mr. Nordin is before the court to be sentenced for the offence of driving without due care and attention. [ 3 ] This is a sentencing in which Crown and defence come together in presenting the court with a common recommendation, a recommendation that reflects, as I have understood counsel, a great deal of careful thought and analysis both on the Crown side and on the defence side. A common recommendation is known as a joint submission, and joint submissions are properly entitled to substantial deference from sentencing judges.

That is not to say that if Crown and defence jointly submit a recommended sentence the court is bound to follow that joint recommendation. However, if the court is disinclined to follow the joint recommendation it must offer a rather carefully presented and well-articulated rationale for not accepting the joint recommendation of counsel, and the centre point of that rationale would be that the jointly recommended sentence would be unfit and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute in the eyes of right-minded citizens.

I hasten to say that there is nothing whatsoever about the joint recommendation that counsel have made before me today that causes me to question its wisdom, and so I will say straightaway that I accept the joint recommendation and I will sentence Mr. Nordin in a manner that reflects what counsel have jointly recommended. [ 4 ] In light of the fact that I am faced with a joint submission, I am going to be quite brief in my sentencing reasons. [ 5 ] Mr. Nordin, on the offence date of June 29th, 2015, collided with a vehicle driven by Mr.

Pickering, a Malibu, and the collision caused the Malibu in turn to strike a motor scooter, a Yamaha scooter driven by Roberto Tuzzi and on which his wife, Brenda Tuzzi was riding as a passenger. The motor vehicle accident occurred at the corner of Falcon Drive and Barnet Highway. It occurred at an intersection. The understanding of everyone with respect to the state of the lights at that intersection is somewhat murky and unclear. [ 6 ] What seems not to be in controversy is that Mr.

Nordin, as he drove his vehicle toward that intersection, was travelling at a comparatively high rate of speed, a rate of speed that was not commensurate with the circumstances in terms of showing due care and attention for all others who happened to be on the road at the time. There is also seemingly no real controversy that there was, at the very least, inattention on the part of Mr. Nordin that played a role in his collision with the Malibu which in turn struck the motor scooter ridden by the Tuzzis. [ 7 ] The narrative of the Crown -- which was not contradicted in any meaningful way by anything said by Mr.

Riddell -- leaves the court with no doubt that the plea of guilty to the lesser included offence of driving without due care and attention is an appropriate plea, having regard to the dynamics that led ultimately to the collision. There were culpable shortfalls, shall I say, in the manner in which Mr. Nordin was driving on that occasion, and that failure of Mr. Nordin to drive in a manner that was properly attuned to the requirements of the situation -- in a manner that showed due care and attention for all others on the road -- led to the motor vehicle accident that led, in turn, to the injuries suffered by Mr.

Tuzzi and Ms. Tuzzi. [ 8 ] That motor vehicle accident caused relatively transient and comparatively insignificant injuries to the occupants of the white Malibu. The same cannot be said about the Tuzzis who were riding the Yamaha motor scooter which was struck by the Malibu as it spun about as a result of the impact it sustained from the vehicle driven by Mr. Nordin. The photographic exhibits handed up to the court reveal that the damage to all vehicles was extensive, consistent with the Crown's contention that Mr. Nordin's failure to comply with his obligation to drive with due care and attention was manifest in

part in his operating the vehicle at an excessive speed, having regard to all the circumstances. [ 9 ] The vehicles were ultimately found to come to rest at a substantial distance from each other. The scooter ridden by Mr. and Ms. Tuzzi came to rest underneath the Malibu's rear end. The Pickerings, the occupants of the Malibu, were taken after the accident to a nearby hospital, Eagle Ridge. The Tuzzis, in a manifestly worse condition, were taken to Royal Columbian Hospital, and even Mr. Nordin had some injuries.

However, the main focus of the Crown's submissions in terms of the consequences of this motor vehicle accident for the victims fell, of course, on the Tuzzis. [ 10 ] The Crown is not, unfortunately, aware of the most recent state of recovery by the Tuzzis, but as late as April of 2016, a little less than a year after the accident, Mr. Tuzzi was described as still being on crutches. He had substantial injuries to various parts of his body, including his legs. Ms. Tuzzi suffered, among other injuries, a brain injury, and whether that was a transient or an enduring injury with enduring impairment is not known.

This, therefore, is unquestionably a case where the failure to drive with due care and attention has produced consequences for others who are innocent victims. There can be no question or doubt of that. [ 11 ] But I must emphasize that in sentencing Mr. Nordin for his failure to drive with due care and attention, there is no equation to be drawn between the consequences of his failure and the sanction I will impose. What Mr. Nordin is answerable for is failing to drive in a manner that was properly mindful of the interests of others on the road at the time and in the circumstances.

That is the conduct that attracts the sanction. That conduct can produce effects that run the full breadth of a continuum running from no human consequences to very calamitous human consequences. [ 12 ] The sanction is not dictated by the consequences; rather, it is dictated by the fact of the driving conduct deviating from the legal requirement of driving, and that is to drive with due care and attention.

So when counsel jointly recommend a sentence that consists of a $2,000 fine, coupled with a driving prohibition, coupled with a probationary order, no one ought to ever consider that the fine in particular or the sentence as a whole in some way represents some kind of quantification of the losses and the harm suffered by the victims. These are legally separate questions. This is not something that is easily understood by the layperson, but it is an important factor that I feel duty bound to emphasize in my reasons for sentencing Mr. Nordin in a way that reflects counsel's joint recommendation.

[ 13 ] There is no victim impact statement before the court, and what is known about the Tuzzis in particular is somewhat unavoidably incomplete. However, there can be no doubt that the Tuzzis have suffered mightily as a result of Mr. Nordin's failure to drive in a manner that reflected due care and attention. [ 14 ] I have very little in the way of other information about the Tuzzis. What I do know is they have avenues of recovery for the injuries they have suffered and the impairments that they are left with that are being pursued within the civil justice system.

That is a background factor that has been brought to my attention and I acknowledge and recognize that it is unfolding in the background. What I am doing today is quite distinctly occurring outside the parameters of those civil proceedings. [ 15 ] Mr. Nordin is a young man of 20 years of age who has, in his short life, established a rather distinguished record of achievement. I will not go through all of the details that Mr. Riddell outlined in his submissions, but this is a young man who has done well at school. He has completed his high school. He is a prodigious athlete.

He has many achievements to his record as a practitioner of karate, including most recently being a Canadian champion in the open category. [ 16 ] He rides trail bikes, something I had not heard of until today. It is a form of motocross biking that is less speed driven than a sport that emphasizes balance and control. He has been able to parlay his skills in that particular sport into paying employment with international connections. He has been performing and displaying his skills as a skilled rider of a motocross bike in this particular way in China. He has prospects in Australia.

He has other prospects that are being pursued in the United States in connection with Cirque de Soleil in Las Vegas and New York. These activities will occupy him for a period of time, following which he will return to his home community and begin to pursue studies toward a specialized form of the electrical trade that emulates that pursued by his father; a high voltage electrician specialist's credential that would enable him to do as his father does, involve himself in substation-related work. [ 17 ] Mr.

Nordin's statement to the court made at the conclusion of counsel's submissions and his demeanour throughout today's court appearance, all bespeak a genuine sense of remorse and regret over what his conduct has produced for the victims. There is nothing that Mr. Nordin can do or say to make the clock go back and change what has happened. His regret and his remorse, his genuine regret and remorse, do not in any way restore to the Tuzzis, in particular, the precious commodity of the good health that they had going into this unfortunate and unhappy incident on June 29th of 2015.

But it is important, for sentencing purposes, to know that this traumatic incident has left a deep impression with Mr. Nordin because when one's unlawful conduct yields outcomes of the kind that occurred here, it is important that the experience of such an event in one's life condition one to be more vigilant and to be especially careful going forward -- to take the lesson from the experience and apply it. This will make Mr. Nordin into a person who is vastly less likely to find himself in these kinds of circumstances again. In fact, I believe that in some respects any sanction that the court imposes upon Mr.

Nordin will, in a sense, rank behind the enduring sense of grief, sadness, shame and embarrassment that he will carry with him for all of his days, knowing how his driving behaviour has affected his victims. [ 18 ] Not all persons who come before the court display the level of insight into their own conduct, or the level of regret and remorse that the court would hope to see. I do not put Mr. Nordin in that category. I think this has been a very difficult experience for him, as it should be.

He carries a burden with him that will be with him forever, but I do think that he will be able to move forward in his life and I do think that he will be a better driver and a better person, and he will be dedicated in a way that only someone who has experienced something like this can be dedicated to ensure that he conducts himself in the future in a way that holds next to no potential for a recurrence of an event like this. [ 19 ] I must sentence Mr.

Nordin in a way that takes account of all of the objectives and purposes and principles of sentencing found in the Criminal Code at s. 718 and following, and in the law that has developed around those sections. I have passed the joint recommendation presented to me through the filters of those provisions of the Code and the law as I understand it, and I find that it stands up to scrutiny. [ 20 ] So, if you would stand up please, Mr.

Nordin, I will come now to the formal passing of sentence. [ 21 ] Your sentence, which attaches to your plea of guilty to the lesser included offence of driving without due care and attention, contrary to s. 144(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code in connection with Count 1 on the indictment, consists of the following. [ 22 ] You must pay a $2,000 fine. [ 23 ] You are prohibited, pursuant to s. 98 of the Motor Vehicle Act , from driving for a period of 24 months commencing today. That driving prohibition commences today and it is in place for the entirety of that 24-month period. You must not operate any motor vehicle during the time of your prohibition.

I am bound to say to you that if you were so unwise as to operate a motor vehicle while prohibited, there is a substantial likelihood that you will be detected as you are known to law enforcement as a prohibited driver. If you are detected and charged and successfully prosecuted for a driving-while-prohibited offence, you will be facing new sanctions before the court in a new set of proceedings. With this history behind you, you should expect a rough ride, frankly.

So I say that simply to drive home -- and I'm not sure that it's necessary that I say this but I will say it -- you must be absolutely resolute and determined in your commitment to abide strictly by that driving prohibition. This incident has resulted in the loss of what is a privilege, and you may not drive again until that privilege is restored to you. [ 24 ] The final element of the sentence is the probation order. For the reasons explained by Mr. Riddell in connection with some periods of time that Mr.

Nordin, you will have to be out of the country, I accept what would otherwise seem to be an unusually long probationary period.

However, the accomplishments that we foresee you making over the course of that in order to be planned properly and having regard to your time outside the country, I am persuaded that a two-year probation period is warranted under s. 89 of the Offence Act . [ 25 ] During your probation period you must keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and you must report to court as and when required. [ 26 ] You must report to a probation officer by four o'clock p.m. tomorrow, that is March 9th, 2017, at 2610 Mary Hill Road, Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, and thereafter as and when and in the manner directed by your probation officer.

And I pause to say I have

included the words "in the manner" to enable your probation officer, in coordination with yourself, to move outside the strict constraints of face-to-face reporting and include the possibility of reporting by telephone, reporting by other electronic means, as your probation officer considers appropriate.

The discretion remains with your probation officer to choose whatever reporting mechanisms seem to make the most sense, but I have, by using the language I have used, intended that the menu of options is broader than it might otherwise be. [ 27 ] All the reporting following the first occasion of your reporting is being ordered to facilitate the arrangement of three public speaking occasions in the course of which you will make public presentations on the implications of driving a motor vehicle carelessly at excessive speed and in a manner that involves insufficient attention.

All reporting occasions following the first reporting occasion will be concerned with facilitating the setting up of and the execution of your obligation to make three such presentations over the course of your two-year probation period to the satisfaction of your probation officer. [PROCEEDINGS] [ 28 ] THE COURT: I am going to specify that Mr. Nordin must have paid the fine of $2,000, plus the victim fine surcharge which I believe is 15 percent of the fine, is that correct? [ 29 ] MR. RIDDELL: That's correct, Your Honour. [ 30 ] THE COURT: In full by July 28th of 2017.

That's a bit more than four months. [ 31 ] Mr. Nordin, you can choose the way you go about that as you see fit. You may want to make instalment payments leading up to the deadline; you may want to wait until the very end and pay it then. These are all within your discretion. What you don't have any discretion to do, though, is have any amount of it outstanding after that deadline. Are you clear about that? [ 32 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)