R. v. Gerrish (J.), [2004] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 8 (PC)

• Judge: Ferguson, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: February 04, 2004
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: [2004] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 8 (PC);2004 NBPC 1

R. v. Gerrish (J.), [2004] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 8 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[English language version only]

[Version en langue anglaise seulement]

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) TBEd. FE.026

Renvoi temp.: [2004] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) TBEd. FE.026

Her Majesty the Queen v. James Gerrish

(2004 NBPC 1)

Indexed As: R. v. Gerrish (J.)

Répertorié: R. v. Gerrish (J.)

New Brunswick Provincial Court

Judicial District of Fredericton

Ferguson, P.C.J.

February 4, 2004.

Summary:

Résumé:

The accused pled guilty to two separate offences of impaired driving. The accused argued that the court should invoke s. 255(5) of the Criminal Code to grant him a condi­tional discharge upon curative treatment.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court refused to grant a conditional discharge. The court sentenced the accused to fines of $1000 and $1200 respectively, victim sur­charges of $150 and $180, a prohibition from driving a motor vehicle for the period of one year and a supervised period of pro­bation with the sole condition of taking reasonable steps to undergo alcohol treatment therapy.

Criminal Law - Topic 4434

Procedure - Verdicts, discharges and dis­missals - Discharge conditional upon cura­tive treatment - The 57 year old accused pled guilty to two separate offences of impaired driving - The accused argued that the court should invoke s. 255(5) of the Crimi­nal Code to grant him a conditional dis­charge upon curative treatment - The New Brunswick Provincial Court refused to grant a conditional discharge - The court held that the public interest factor had not been established on a balance of probabil­ities - The evidence portrayed the accused as a difficult and challenging patient for any curative treatment - The accused lacked candour and minimized his alcohol abuse - The expert testimony from the primary therapists did not offer any prog­nosis that curative treatment would succeed - The court sentenced the accused to fines of $1000 and $1200 respectively, victim surcharges of $150 and $180, a prohibition from driving a motor vehicle for the period of one year and a supervised period of probation with the sole condition of taking reasonable steps to undergo alcohol treat­ment therapy.

Criminal Law - Topic 5886

Sentence - Impaired driving - [See Crimi­nal Law - Topic 4434 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 4434

Procédure - Verdicts, absolutions et rejets - Absolution assortie de la condition pres­crivant une cure de désintoxication - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 4434 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5886

Peine - Conduite avec facultés affaiblies - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5886 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dupuis (G.) (2003), 174 Man.R.(2d) 221 (Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 41].

R. v. Bernshaw (N.) (1995), 176 N.R. 81; 193 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 42].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 411, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Seo (1986), 13 O.A.C. 359; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 22, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Larocque (1988), 23 O.A.C. 362; 5 M.V.R.(2d) 221 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Red Crow (1985), 57 A.R. 317; 36 Alta. L.R.(2d) 101 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Orbanski (C.) (2003), 173 Man.R.(2d) 132; 293 W.A.C. 132 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted [2003] S.C.C.A. No. 252, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Stupar (1990), 111 A.R. 321 (Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 44].

R. v. Biancofiore (N.F.) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 292; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 344 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. McVeigh (1985), 11 O.A.C. 345; 22 C.C.C.(2d) 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Bram (1982), 30 C.R.(3d) 398 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Sorenson (D.B.) (1994), 116 Sask.R. 223; 59 W.A.C. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Fallofield (1973), 13 C.C.C.(2d) 450 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. MacCormack (W.F.) (2000), 224 N.B.R.(2d) 29; 574 A.P.R. 29 (C.A.), consd. [para. 48].

R. v. Ashberry and Mills (1989), 30 O.A.C. 376 (C.A.), consd. [para. 50].

R. v. Beaulieu (1980), 21 A.R. 120; 53 C.C.C.(2d) 342 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Thompkins, [1994] N.B.J. No. 584 (Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 52].

R. v. Storr (R.L.) (1995), 174 A.R. 65; 102 W.A.C. 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Wallner (1988), 89 A.R. 282 (C.A.), consd. [para. 62].

R. v. McPhee (D.A.) (2000), 227 N.B.R.(2d) 30; 583 A.P.R. 30 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Brown (R.H.), [1999] Sask.R. Uned. 313 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 394, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 402, refd to. [para. 84].

Counsel:

Cameron Gunn, for the Crown;

Wilbur McLeod, Q.C., for the accused.

This case was heard on January 6 and 20, 2004, by Ferguson, P.C.J., of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, Judicial District of Fredericton, who delivered the following decision on February 4, 2004.