R. v. Rich, 2019 NLSC 37

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : R. v. Rich , 2019 NLSC 37 Date : February 14, 2019 Docket : 201808G0014 Her Majesty The Queen v. Debra Rich Before: Justice Frances J. Knickle Reasons for Judgment Given Orally Place of Hearing: Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador Date of Hearing: January 31, 2019 Date of Oral Judgment: January 31, 2019

Summary: A first-time, youthful offender pled guilty to one count of impaired driving causing death and three counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm. There were numerous mitigating factors on sentence. The offender was of aboriginal descent and had strong ties to her indigenous culture. She was 23 years of age when the accident occurred. She was very remorseful and had been close to the deceased as well as the other victims. She took significant steps towards her rehabilitation since the accident.

The Court accepted the joint submission by counsel and imposed a sentence of 18 months incarceration for impaired driving causing death, nine months concurrent on the three counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm, a two-year driving prohibition and two years supervised probation. The Court was satisfied that while on the very low end of the spectrum, the sentence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and was not otherwise contrary to the public interest.

Appearances: Michael E. Berrigan Appearing on behalf of the Crown Jonathan D. Regan Appearing on behalf of the Accused Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43; R. v. Gladue, (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; R. v.Andersen, 2018 NLCA 41; R. v. Cluney, 2013 NLCA 46; R. v. Gregoire, 2009 NLTD 21; R. v. Woodward, (NL CA),[1993] N.J. No. 174, 108 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 240 (Nfld. C.A.); R. v. Alexander, 2010 NLTD 96; R. v. Mercredi, 2011 SKQB 4; R. v.Lachappelle, 2007 ONCA 655; R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64; R. v. Hutchings, 2012 NLCA 2; R. v.

Boudreault, 2018 SCC 58 STATUTES CONSIDERED: Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Knickle, J.: INTRODUCTION [1] Debra Rich has pled guilty to one count of impaired driving causing the death of Victoria Rich, and three counts of impaireddriving causing bodily harm. The three victims having suffered bodily harm as a consequence of Debra Rich’s impaired driving areTodd Rich, Troy Rich, and Duane Piwas. There was a fourth person in the vehicle driven by Debra Rich, Shaquille Jack, who sufferedonly minor injuries.

THE FACTS [2] The Agreed Statement of Facts, filed as a consent exhibit, describe the following: THE PARTIES AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING FACTS: On September 14, 2016, at 8:10pm, Johnny PIWAS attended the RCMP detachment in Natuashish to report a serious single vehicleaccident on Pokue Street near the graveyard. He advised four or five people were injured and police needed to attend. He advised thatsome occupants of the vehicle had fled the scene. Cst. LAPLANTE who was on duty at the time immediately called for back-up requesting all available officers attend the scene and thenheaded to the accident site. When Cst.

LAPLANTE arrived on scene he noted that a pick-up truck had gone off the road. The road is gravel and in good condition atthe time with some bumpy sections. There are steep embankments on both sides of the road and no artificial lighting in the area. Theposted speed limit is 50 km/h in that area. The officer noted that the truck was heavily damaged and it appeared to the officer that the truck had rolled several times before comingto a stop. When police arrived, clinic staff were already on scene attending to the injured. There was an injured male identified as Todd RICHlying in the middle of the road.

He had blood pouring from his mouth and nose and was yelling for someone to help him. There was also an injured female identified as Debra RICH lying in the ditch approximately 50 feet from the pickup truck. Cst. LAPLANTE walked towards the truck. He noted an empty 40 ounce bottle of Royal Reserve next to the pickup truck. He thenobserved that a second female was tangled in the rear driver side seatbelt and was hanging upside down outside the vehicle. It was clearto the officer that this female, subsequently identified as Victoria RICH, was deceased. Cst.

LAPLANTE briefly spoke to Todd RICH on the scene and learned there were six people in the vehicle: Debra RICH, VictoriaRICH, Troy RICH, Shaquille JACK, Duane PIWAS and Todd RICH. They are all related. Debra RICH was driving. Duane PIWAS

was in the front passenger seat and grabbed the wheel just before the accident. Todd RICH was then transported to the clinic and subsequently airlifted to HVGB and on to St. John’s for treatment of his injuries. Cst. LAPLANTE then went to the area where Debra RICH was being treated. He assisted clinic staff to get Ms. RICH into the ambulance and travelled with her to the clinic. Cst. LAPLANTE travelled in the ambulance with her. Cst. LAPLANTE attempted to speak with Debra RICH but she was unable to hold a conversation. She moaned and appeared to be in pain complaining that her back hurt.

The officer noted that her speech appeared to be slurred, but it was difficult to tell because she was in pain, and that there was a smell of alcohol on RICH’s breath. Once at the clinic, Cst. LAPLANTE read Debra RICH the blood demand verbatim from the approved card. When asked if she understood the demand, RICH did not respond. She continued to moan and say she was in pain. The attending physician believed Debra RICH may have sustained head and internal injuries. The doctor believed RICH was unable to understand the blood demand.

However, the doctor confirmed that blood samples could be taken from RICH as long as she was medically stable without any jeopardy to the patient. As such, on the instruction of his commanding officer, Cst. LAPLANTE returned to the detachment to seek a warrant. At 11:34 Cst. LAPLANTE faxed Warrant to Obtain Blood Samples to Judge Mark Pike. At 11:42 judicial authorization was obtained. At 11:55 officers returned to the clinic with the warrant. Cst. RYLAND explained to RICH that the police had obtained a warrant for a sample of her blood.

RICH responded by saying “I only had six shots and my cousin took the wheel”. Nurse HANCOCK had some difficulty finding a suitable vein and was only able to obtain a single vial of blood despite making three attempts. At this point, RICH appeared to drift out of consciousness. She did not respond when spoken to by Nurse HANCOCK. RICH was later airlifted to HVGB and then on to St. John’s for additional treatment of her injuries which included a collapsed lung and broken ribs. Statements were taken from all surviving occupants of the vehicle.

Shaquille JACK, confirmed he was a passenger in the vehicle on the night of the crash. He advised that Debra RICH was driving and Duane PIWAS was seated in the front passenger seat. Everyone else was seated in the back seat (Troy, Victoria, Shaquille and Todd in that order from driver’s side to passenger’s side). He said everyone in the truck was drinking. They were driving around Natuashish waiting for the Northern Ranger to arrive. They stopped at a house in the community. Debra RICH and Duane PIWAS started arguing and yelling.

PIWAS tried to take the keys from RICH because he thought she was too drunk to drive. RICH gets back behind the wheel and they continue to drive around heading towards the airstrip. JACK was scared because RICH was driving too fast. JACK did not know what caused the accident. The truck flipped several times. When it stopped moving he was still inside. He climbed out a window. He could hear Todd RICH yelling on the roadway. He ran home, told his mom what happened and she brought him to the clinic. He is uninjured but his back is sore.

Troy RICH confirmed that Debra RICH was driving at the time of the accident, Duane PIWAS was in the front passenger seat and all the others were in the back seat (Troy, Victoria, Shaquille and Todd in that order from driver’s side to passenger’s side). They were drinking a 40oz of Royal Reserve and driving around the community. Everyone except JACK was drunk. They were driving towards the airport when the truck went off the road. Debra RICH was driving fast. He tried to get Victoria RICH to put on a seatbelt because they were driving fast. She refused. The truck started drifting.

He has no recollection of what caused the collision. He initially fled the scene but went to the clinic when he couldn’t breathe. He was flown to HVGB for treatment of his injuries which included soft tissue injuries and a broken collarbone. Todd RICH also provided a statement to police. Debra RICH was driving the vehicle. Duane PIWAS was in the front passenger seat. Everyone else was in the back seat (Troy, Victoria, Shaquille and Todd in that order from driver’s side to passenger’s side). They were all drinking. They were passing around a 40oz bottle of alcohol. They were also smoking weed.

He said that Debra RICH was being a “bad driver”. He felt she was trying to show off and see how fast she could go but he did not know how fast she was driving. He and JACK shared the seatbelt. Troy RICH also put a seatbelt on. Troy RICH offered a seatbelt to Victoria RICH but she would not put it on. Debra RICH hit some bumps and almost lost control. PIWAS grabbed the wheel. She responded “No. Don’t grab it” and then she lost control of the truck. The truck left the road and rolled three times. He was thrown from the vehicle.

Todd RICH suffered a broken jaw, broken nose, significant bruising and swelling, several broken and cracked teeth, and 17 stitches on his right ankle. His injuries required surgery and some of his teeth could not be saved. When Duane PIWAS provides his statement to police he confirms the seating arrangement in the vehicle and that the occupants including the driver were drinking and smoking marijuana. They were driving to the airstrip. Debra RICH was driving way too fast. RICH started to lose control of the truck and he grabbed the wheel to try to keep the vehicle on the road.

The truck left the road and he lost consciousness. He woke up inside the vehicle. He ran from the crash site and went to his grandmother’s house. He did not attend the clinic. His statement was taken one week after the crash and police noted that PIWAS still had significant swelling and bruising on his upper right side (arm, shoulder and chest). A traffic reconstructionist, Cst. MUNDEN, attend the community to observe the crash site and prepare a collision report.

The report did not provide any information concerning pre-collision speed of the vehicle and only determined the that vehicle was travelling westbound toward the airport on Pokue Road prior to the crash. On September 19, 2016, police attended the Health Science Centre to speak with Debra RICH. She declined to speak to police concerning this incident. However, she did advise “we were all drinking” and “that she doesn’t remember anything about the crash”. She was quite upset and crying during this interaction. The blood sample taken from Ms.

RICH on the night of the accident was forwarded to the RCMP Forensic Lab for analysis at the

beginning of March 2017 but analysis could not be undertaken as the sample was insufficient and did not meet the guidelines for analysis. [ 3 ] Although not explicitly stated in the Agreed Statement of Facts, Debra Rich confirmed in open court, and in consultation with her counsel, that the injuries suffered by the victims and the death of Victoria Rich were caused by her having driven while impaired by alcohol. [ 4 ] Upon hearing the facts and further confirmation from Debra Rich that having driven while impaired contributed to both the death of Victoria Rich and the injuries suffered by Todd Rich, Troy Rich, and Duane Piwas, I accepted her guilty plea.

Sentencing was postponed so that a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) could be prepared, as well as any potential victim impact statements. [ 5 ] The sentencing hearing proceeded on January 31, 2019. The PSR was filed as a consent exhibit. There were no victim impact statements filed on behalf of the victims, the deceased’s family, or the community of Natuashish, NL where the accident occurred. [ 6 ] Several family members of Ms. Rich were present for the sentencing hearing in support of Ms.

Rich. [ 7 ] At the sentencing hearing, Crown and Defence counsel presented a joint submission on sentence of 18 months incarceration for the offence of impaired driving causing death, nine months imprisonment on each of the three counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm to run concurrently with each other and the 18 months imprisonment, a driving prohibition of two years, and a period of probation of two years. [ 8 ] In so doing, counsel highlighted the significant mitigating factors present in the circumstances.

At the conclusion of the sentencing submissions, I accepted the joint submission for the reasons as submitted by counsel. Rather than delay the matter further, the sentence was imposed on January 31, 2019. These are the reasons for accepting the joint submission. The Joint Submission [ 9 ] The Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear that unless the sentence proposed on a joint submission would be contrary to the administration of justice, or otherwise contrary to the public interest, the sentencing judge should not reject the joint submission, R. v. Anthony Cook , 2016 SCC 43 at paragraph 32 .

To be satisfied that the proposed submission is contrary to the administration of justice or contrary to the public interest, is a very high threshold.

There are many legitimate reasons why counsel may have arrived at a joint submission, and even when the sentence seems low, a sentencing court must be careful to avoid rejecting a joint submission unless the above threshold is met ( Anthony-Cook at paras 35- 45 ). [ 10 ] I am satisfied that while the sentence proposed is very low, and the seriousness of what happened cannot be overstated, the sentence proposed is not contrary to the administration of justice or otherwise contrary to the public interest in light of the significant mitigating factors in this case.

The guilty plea [ 11 ] As a general rule, the presence of an early guilty plea is a significant factor in mitigation on sentence. Not only is it an explicit indicator of the offender’s willingness to take responsibility for their conduct, an early guilty plea often saves sparse and expensive judicial resources, and saves victims and family members or witnesses the trauma of having to testify. But not all guilty pleas merit the same weight.

In some cases, the timing of the guilty plea may affect the extent to which it represents an acknowledgement of responsibility. [ 12 ] While the guilty plea in this case was not entered until near the trial date, as explained by both Crown and Defence counsel, this lateness was not because of an unwillingness on Debra Rich’s part to admit to her wrongdoing, but was more the consequence of systemic barriers to her being able to make an informed decision. [ 13 ] For example, Crown counsel pointed out that it took some time before Ms.

Rich could avail of an interpreter while the proceedings were working their way through Provincial Court. While Ms. Rich speaks some English, she requires an interpreter in her native language. There is no doubt the absence of availability of an interpreter contributed to the delay in Ms. Rich being able to make decisions about her case; including whether or not to plead guilty. [ 14 ] Similarly, I was advised there was inconsistency with the availability of duty counsel during the many appearances in Provincial Court in Natuashish, NL.

Natuashish is a remote community on the coast of Labrador, accessible only by plane, and court proceedings are by way of circuit. It is often difficult to hold court if there are weather delays, which can in turn affect the availability of counsel. If there was an unavailability of legal advice because of an unavailability of duty counsel or a lack of consistency in counsel, I accept this would also contribute to delaying Ms.

Rich’s ability to fully be advised of the extent of her jeopardy and be able to adequately instruct counsel or make a decision about her case. [ 15 ] It is clear from the record, in this Court at least, that once Mr. Regan was retained as Ms. Rich’s counsel these proceedings progressed as quickly as could reasonably be expected. There were several concessions on legal issues that had not been made by earlier counsel. Ms. Rich also made a re-election to be tried by Judge alone, a significant concession, and finally a willingness to plead guilty to the offences for which Ms.

Rich was to be sentenced. [ 16 ] I commend Mr. Regan for his efforts in representing Ms. Rich, and working with Crown counsel Mr. Berrigan to bring this matter to a resolution.

[17] For the above reasons, I accept that the guilty plea in this case, while not until shortly before the trial, was at the earliest pointin which Ms. Rich was in a position to make an informed decision about the charges. I accept the guilty plea as a full acknowledgementof responsibility for what has happened.

In this case, the guilty plea is a mitigating factor which deserves significant weight. [18] As has been pointed out repeatedly in the jurisprudence, where the parties come to the Court with a joint submission, both sideshave typically made significant concessions to their respective positions to come to the agreement. Again, see Anthony-Cook atparagraphs 35-45. [19] In this case, the guilty plea is also significant, as the Crown, fairly, conceded the many difficulties with proving a number ofthe offences. For example, while Ms.

Rich was also charged with several offences of driving while her blood alcohol level was in excessof the legal limit, the Crown advised that there were anticipated difficulties in proving Ms. Rich’s blood alcohol level. The Crownsubmitted, and I agree, that given some of the weaknesses as described in the prosecution’s case, Ms. Rich’s plea of guilty to theoffences relating to impaired driving is significant. Ms. Rich is genuinely remorseful [20] Similarly, I fully accept that Ms. Rich is genuinely remorseful about what has happened.

I have observed her while in court,and it was apparent to me that the consequences of what has happened weigh heavily on her. She has lost a close family member and hasbeen the cause of injuries to other friends and family as a result of her drinking and driving. As stated in the PSR, at page 10: Ms. Rich accepts responsibility for the offences currently before the court. She reports her actions and the harm caused have dramaticallychanged her life and she is trying her best to make the necessary changes to ensure her future is alcohol free and productive. Ms.

Richindicates she is still [mourning] the loss of the victim and she intends to spend her life “giving back to her community” as her way ofmaking amends. Ms. Rich’s personal circumstances support a lesser sentence [21] Ms. Rich was 23 years of age when the offences occurred, and has now just turned 25. She is a youthful first offender, who hasnever been before the Court.

This is a significant mitigating factor, and must be taken into account, especially with her good workhistory, her connection to her community, and her remorse. [22] Apart from this tragic event that has brought her into the criminal justice system, her antecedents are generally very positive.

While it is clear she has had trouble with alcohol, as evidenced by her having attended treatment programs for alcohol in the past (seePSR at 10), the lack of a criminal history indicates these offences are out of character for her. [23] As well, and to her credit, Debra Rich is now attending counselling with programs made available to her as an aboriginalperson. The author of the PSR recommends Ms. Rich continue with individual counselling.

Section 718.2(

e) considerations [24]

Section 718.2(

e) requires that all available sanctions be considered as appropriate and relevant in the circumstances, taking intoparticular account Debra Rich’s aboriginal circumstances and background.

Section 718.2(

e) states: (

e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done tovictims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginaloffenders. [25] In many circumstances, the background and circumstances of an aboriginal accused has played a role in how that particularaccused comes to be before the court, and it is appropriate and necessary to acknowledge such circumstances as mitigating (R. v. Gladue, (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688).

As stated in Gladue: 80 As with all sentencing decisions, the sentencing of aboriginal offenders must proceed on an individual (or a case-by-case) basis: For this offence, committed by this offender, harming this victim, in this community, what is the appropriate sanction under theCriminal Code? What understanding of criminal sanctions is held by the community? What is the nature of the relationship betweenthe offender and his or her community? What combination of systemic or background factors contributed to this particular offendercoming before the courts for this particular offence?

How has the offender who is being sentenced been affected by, for example,substance abuse in the community, or poverty, or overt racism, or family or community breakdown? Would imprisonment effectivelyserve to deter or denounce crime in a sense that would be significant to the offender and community, or are crime prevention and othergoals better achieved through healing? What sentencing options present themselves in these circumstances? [26] As stated by Welsh, J.A. in R. v.

Andersen, 2018 NLCA 41, at paragraph 30: [30] In Gladue, at paragraph 88, the Court recognized that all relevant factors must be taken into account when determining anappropriate sentence, but at the conclusion of the paragraph, emphasized the importance of aboriginal status as a factor: [88]… The provision is a direction to sentencing judges to consider certain unique circumstances pertaining to aboriginal offenders as apart of the task of weighing the multitude of factors which must be taken into account in striving to impose a fit sentence. It cannot beforgotten that s. 718.2(

e) must be considered in the context of that

section read as a whole and in the context of s. 718, s. 718.1, and the

overall scheme of

Part XXIII. …It may not always mean a lower sentence for an aboriginal offender. The sentence imposed will dependupon all the factors which must be taken into account in each individual case.. The weight to be given to these various factors will varyin each case. At the same time, it must in every case be recalled that the direction to consider these unique circumstances flows from thestaggering injustice currently experienced by aboriginal peoples with the criminal justice system.

The provision reflects the reality thatmany aboriginal people are alienated from this system which frequently does not reflect their needs or their understanding of anappropriate sentence. [Underlining in original.] [27] Also as stated in Andersen at paragraph 43, the “Court is required to be conscious…” of these systemic factors in finding the fitsentence for Debra Rich as an aboriginal offender. [28] Debra Rich maintains strong connections to the traditional life of her indigenous ancestors from her community in Natuashishand Davis Inlet, Labrador.

The PSR notes she is skilled in several crafts, and is particularly skilled in the craft of beading. From areview of the PSR it is evident that despite many of the systemic problems present in aboriginal communities like Natuashish, herupbringing and circumstances have been for the larger part, positive. [29] Her aboriginal circumstances, especially in light of the systemic problems present in the community (see pages 6-8 of the PSR)are mitigating and in keeping with the considerations under

section 718.2(

e) and cases such as Gladue and Andersen. [30] Both Crown and Defence submitted further mitigating in this case, is that it is unclear on the evidence that Ms. Rich’simpairment was the sole cause of the accident. The facts disclosed that the front passenger, Duane Piwas grabbed the wheel, andcounsel suggest this may have contributed to the accident. [31] I note that in the Agreed Statement of Facts as presented to the Court, Mr. Piwas grabbed the wheel because Ms.

Rich wasabout to lose control of the vehicle and he was trying to “keep the vehicle on the road.” There is other evidence in the Agreed Statementof Facts that Ms. Rich was in fact driving very recklessly prior to the accident. The Agreed Statement of Facts disclose that Mr. Piwashad in fact tried to prevent Ms. Rich from driving by initially taking her keys. His grabbing the wheel appears to have been a furthereffort to prevent the tragedy that occurred from happening. [32] I do not find these circumstances similar to what happened in R. v. Cluney, 2013 NLCA 46, as suggested by counsel.

In thatcase, the passenger had grabbed the wheel “as a joke,” which lead to the car fishtailing and eventually the accident. I see that conduct asvery different, in fact the exact opposite from the conduct of Mr. Piwas who was trying to prevent an accident. Thus, I am not preparedto find, as both Crown and Defence suggested, that the fact that Mr. Piwas grabbed the wheel should be mitigating in thesecircumstances. However, I am still satisfied that there are substantial mitigating circumstances in this case.

RANGE OF SENTENCE AND POSITION OF THE PARTIES [33] The available sanctions for impaired driving causing death is life imprisonment. The maximum sentence available forimpaired driving causing bodily harm is 14 years imprisonment. [34] In this case, the offence is serious. One person is dead, three others were seriously harmed. Counsel agreed there must be anemphasis on deterrence and denunciation and, for that reason, a significant period of incarceration is required. A conditional sentence isnot available as was the case in R. v.

Gregoire, 2009 NLTD 21, a case with some similarities to the present case. [35] In support of the sentencing position proposed, counsel have filed several decisions. I have reviewed all of the decisions filed,and refer to the following cases. [36] In R. v. Woodward, (NL CA), [1993] N.J. No. 174, 108 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 240 (Nfld. C.A.), the offender pledguilty to impaired driving causing death and leaving the scene of an accident. The offender killed a pedestrian while his blood alcohollevel was 110 milligrams per 100 milliliters of blood.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal reduced the four-year sentenceimposed at trial to two years, and one year consecutive for the offence of leaving the scene of the accident. [37] In Cluney, the offender was convicted of impaired driving causing death. A six-month sentence imposed at trial was increasedto two years less one day on appeal. In that case, there was also a mitigating factor that the passenger had grabbed the wheel, whichcontributed to causing the accident resulting in the death of the victim.

However, an aggravating circumstance was that offender was ona court order not to consume alcohol at the time of the accident. Crown submits the circumstances in Cluney are similar to thecircumstances here. [38] In R. v. Alexander, 2010 NLTD 96, Goodridge, J. (as he then was) sentenced the offender to two years imprisonment. Theoffender was 28 years old with no criminal record and was pregnant at the time of sentencing. Aggravating the circumstances, was thatthe offender’s blood alcohol level was 211 milligrams per 100 milliliters of blood. In mitigation, the offender had pled guilty and wasremorseful.

The victim (as is so often the case in these drinking and driving deaths) was a close friend of the offender. [39] In R. v. Mercredi, 2011 SKQB 4, an aboriginal offender who lacked insight into his conduct, and in fact blamed the deceased,was convicted and was sentenced for the charge of impaired driving causing death to a period of imprisonment of 27 months. He wasconsidered at a medium risk to offend and took no acceptance of responsibility for what happened. [40] In R. v.

Lachappelle, 2007 ONCA 655, a 41-year old police officer convicted of impaired driving causing death was sentencedto 21 months incarceration. He was convicted after trial and was otherwise an upstanding citizen. [41] The above cases show a range of sentence of less than two years imprisonment to over three years imprisonment where theoffender possessed a previous or significant history of drinking and driving. (See Alexander at paras 28-30 for examples where sentencesin the three to five-year range were imposed.) [42] In considering the above cases, it is important to remember that ranges are just that, ranges.

They are not fixed points or

“straightjackets” from which a sentencing judge may never deviate. (See R. v. Lacasse , 2015 SCC 64 , at para. 57 ) [ 43 ] While the proposed sentence of 18 months incarceration is below the lowest of the range of sentences imposed in the above cases, I am satisfied, given the significant mitigating factors, that the sentence in the circumstances is not contrary to the proper administration of justice or otherwise contrary to the public interest, as per Anthony-Cook . [ 44 ] The sentence proposed for the offences of impaired driving causing bodily harm of nine months incarceration are also appropriate.

I am satisfied that these sentences should run concurrently to the period of incarceration imposed for the offence of impaired driving causing death. While separate offences, they all arise out of the singular act of the offender, that of drinking and driving. The victims were all passengers in her vehicle, and their injuries arose as part of a “single criminal venture” ( R. v. Hutchings , 2012 NLCA 2 para. 84 ).

Driving Prohibition [ 45 ] For the offence of impaired driving causing death, as Debra Rich is liable to a period of imprisonment for life, under section 259(2)(a.1) of the Criminal Code the Court may impose a driving prohibition for “any period” plus the period of imprisonment imposed. A driving prohibition is warranted in these circumstances to protect the public, and also deter Debra Rich from engaging in the kind of conduct that led her to be before the court. A driving prohibition provides for protecting the public as an alternative to using the ultimate tool: incarceration.

Counsel have suggested a period of two years, and I am satisfied this is an adequate length, although a longer period could reasonably have been imposed. [ 46 ] There will be no further driving prohibitions for the remaining three offences. Probation [ 47 ] A period of supervised probation is also warranted in this case. A period of probation may assist Debra Rich in continuing with the rehabilitative steps she began after committing these offences. Debra Rich will report to a probation officer upon release and will take

part in counselling for alcohol abuse, dealing with grief, and assistance for schooling or other issues as recommended by her probation officer. Fine/Victim Surcharge Order/Victim Fine Surcharge [ 48 ] Given the recent decision of R. v. Boudreault , 2018 SCC 58 , there will be no victim fine surcharge.

CONCLUSION [ 49 ] Debra Rich is sentenced as follows: 1) For the breach of section 255(3), that while driving impaired causing the death of Victoria Rich, Debra Rich is sentenced to 18 months incarceration. 2) For the three counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm, namely to Troy Rich, Todd Rich, and Duane Piwas, Debra Rich is sentenced to nine months incarceration on each count to run concurrently to each other and concurrently to Count One. 3) In relation to Count One, Debra Rich is prohibited from driving for a period of two years, plus the period of imprisonment imposed. 4) Debra Rich is also subject to a period of supervised probation of two years. _____________________________ Frances J.

Knickle Justice