R. v. Elliott (K.M.),

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Judge: Tallis, Vancise and Jackson, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2001 SKCA 19
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Date: 09 February 2001

R. v. Elliott (K.M.) (2001), 203 Sask.R. 217 (CA);

    240 W.A.C. 217

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.071

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Kent Mervin Elliott (respondent)

(No. 110; 2001 SKCA 19)

Indexed As: R. v. Elliott (K.M.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Tallis, Vancise and Jackson, JJ.A.

February 9, 2001.

Summary:

An accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death. The trial judge sen­tenced the accused to an 18 month condi­tional sentence, a $1,800 fine or 42 days in default, and a three year driving prohibition. The Crown appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dis­missed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - A 25 year old accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death - The accused and a friend decided that the accused was to be the designated driver of the friend's vehicle - While driving home, the accused lost control of the vehicle and struck a pole - The friend died as a result of the injuries suffered - The accused had a blood-alcohol reading of .12 - Driving at a minimum speed of 113 kmh in a 80 kmh zone - Extremely remorseful - Had taken steps towards rehabilitation, includ­ing ceasing to drink and going to school - A low risk of re-offending - The friend's family did not want a custodial sentence to be imposed - The trial judge sentenced the accused to an 18 month conditional sen­tence, an $1,800 fine or 42 days in default and a three year driving prohibition - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

Criminal Law - Topic 5864.1

Sentence - Impaired driving causing death - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Trobert (G.M.) (2000), 190 Sask.R. 115 (Q.B.), affd. (2000), 199 Sask.R. 224; 232 W.A.C. 224 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 10, 41, footnote 19].

R. v. Shropshire (M.T.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227; 188 N.R. 284; 65 B.C.A.C. 37; 106 W.A.C. 37, refd to. [paras. 11, 25, foot­note 4].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 11, 25, footnote 4].

R. v. McDonnell (T.E.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948; 210 N.R. 241; 196 A.R. 321; 141 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [paras. 11, 25, footnote 4].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 11, 27, footnote 6].

R. v. Stroshein (K.B.) (2001), 203 Sask.R. 183; 240 W.A.C. 183 (C.A.), appld. [para. 18].

R. v. Laliberte (M.R.) (2000), 189 Sask.R. 190; 216 W.A.C. 190; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 503 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 3].

R. v. Banda (C.D.) (2000), 199 Sask.R. 118; 232 W.A.C. 118(C.A.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 5].

R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. McLeod (R.G.) (1992), 109 Sask.R. 8; 42 W.A.C. 9; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 83 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 8].

R. v. J.W. (1997), 99 O.A.C. 161; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 18 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 8].

R. v. McDonald (D.P.) (1997), 152 Sask.R. 81; 140 W.A.C. 81; 5 C.R.(5th) 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 11].

R. v. Hamel (A.) (1999), 172 Sask.R. 251; 185 W.A.C. 251 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 12].

R. v. Keller (A.A.) (1997), 158 Sask.R. 181; 153 W.A.C. 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 13].

R. v. Schneider (D.P.) (1994), 123 Sask.R. 162; 74 W.A.C. 162 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 14].

R. v. Bunn (T.A.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 183; 249 N.R. 296; 142 Man.R.(2d) 256; 212 W.A.C. 256, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 15].

R. v. R.A.R., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 163; 249 N.R. 322; 142 Man.R.(2d) 282; 212 W.A.C. 282, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 15].

R. v. L.F.W., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 132; 249 N.R. 345; 185 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 562 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 15].

R. v. R.N.S., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 149; 249 N.R. 365; 132 B.C.A.C. 1; 215 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 15].

R. v. Rope (J.) (1996), 136 Sask.R. 171 (Q.B.), affd. [1995] 4 C.N.L.R. 98 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 16].

R. v. Melnyk (T.D.) (1997), 156 Sask.R. 179 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 17].

R. v. Meeley (D.L.) (1997), 156 Sask.R. 192 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 18].

Counsel:

E.J. Neufeld, Q.C., for the Crown;

D.T. Hagen, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 7, 2000, by Tallis, Vancise and Jackson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

The decision of the court was delivered at Regina, Saskatchewan, on February 9, 2001, and the following opinions were filed:

Jackson, J.A. (Tallis, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 16;

Vancise, J.A., dissenting - see para­graphs 17 to 43.