R. v. Croteau (L.R.), 2015 ABPC 142

• Judge: Rosborough, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 22, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Alberta
• Citations: 2015 ABPC 142;[2015] A.R. TBEd. JL.058

R. v. Croteau (L.R.), [2015] A.R. TBEd. JL.058

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. JL.058

Her Majesty the Queen (Crown) v. Levi Richard Croteau (Offender)

(150041424P1; 2015 ABPC 142)

Indexed As: R. v. Croteau (L.R.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Rosborough, P.C.J.

June 23, 2015.

Summary:

The accused plead guilty to a charge of assault causing bodily harm. The matter moved to sentencing. At issue was whether an absolute or conditional discharge was appropriate. The accused had the opportunity to seek rehabilitative support and live with his grandparents in the United States and to further his education. Therefore, an issue arose as to whether his potential exclusion from the United States following conviction for this offence constituted a 'collateral consequence' as that term is used by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Pham (2013) and what effect, if any, it had on the sentence to be imposed.

The Alberta Provincial Court held that a fit and proportionate sentence in this case was to convict the accused, suspend the passing of sentence and place him on probation for a period of time. However, the court acknowledged that convicting the accused of the crime of assault causing bodily harm would trigger a collateral immigration consequence. The collateral immigration consequence in this case was relevant as flowing from the objective of rehabilitation and the principle of parity. It ought to be taken into account when considering an individualized sentence. While both a suspended sentence with probation and a conditional discharge with probation could serve the objective of rehabilitation, the collateral immigration consequence at play in this instance would negatively impact the principle of parity. That consequence militated in favour of granting a discharge. To convict the accused in these circumstances would bring about an unwarranted hardship and a disproportionate sentence (once the effects of the collateral immigration consequence – automatic exclusion - was accounted for). In balancing that with the harm that would be done to the American immigration process by avoiding that collateral consequence, the court was satisfied that granting the accused a conditional discharge was just and appropriate. The court therefore discharged the accused on the terms of a three year probation order.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 4431

Procedure - Verdicts - Discharges and dismissals - Conditional discharge in lieu of conviction - See paragraphs 16 to 56.

Criminal Law - Topic 5840

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Prospective deportation of convict - See paragraphs 16 to 56.

Criminal Law - Topic 5883

Sentencing - Sentence - Particular offences - Assault with a weapon or assault causing bodily harm - See paragraphs 16 to 56.

Counsel:

R. Pollard, for the Crown;

G. Hatch, for the defendant.

This sentencing matter was heard in the City of Wetaskiwin, Alberta, on April 22, 2015, before Rosborough, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on June 23, 2015.