R. v. Hogg (P.E.), (2009) 470 A.R. 269 (PC)

• Judge: Rosborough, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 05, 2009
• Citations: (2009), 470 A.R. 269 (PC);2009 ABPC 230

R. v. Hogg (P.E.) (2009), 470 A.R. 269 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] A.R. TBEd. AU.074

Her Majesty The Queen v. Paul Edward Hogg (080910771P1; 2009 ABPC 230)

Indexed As: R. v. Hogg (P.E.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Rosborough, P.C.J.

June 30, 2009.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while disqualified. He was caught driving his vehicle while subject to a three year driving prohibition imposed for an impaired driving conviction. The Crown sought imprisonment plus a further three year driving prohibition. The accused agreed with the driving prohibition, but sought the maximum fine instead of imprisonment.

The Alberta Provincial Court sentenced the accused to five months' imprisonment plus a three year driving prohibition.

Criminal Law - Topic 5885

Sentence - Driving while disqualified or suspended - The 54 year old accused pleaded guilty to driving a motor vehicle while disqualified - He was caught driving while subject to a three year driving prohibition imposed for an impaired driving conviction - The accused's first impaired driving conviction was in 1972 - Over the next 36 years, he had 13 further convictions - Nine convictions involved motor vehicles (over .08, hit and run, breathalyzer refusal, dangerous driving, impaired driving) - He had previously been fined, placed on probation and twice imprisoned - He had speeding convictions and convictions for offences involving the administration of justice (escaping lawful custody and obstructing a peace officer) - He had no prior driving while disqualified convictions - The accused sought a fine and a further three year driving prohibition - The Crown, having chose to proceed by way of summary conviction, sought the maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment and a three year prohibition - The Alberta Provincial Court, after conducting a lengthy review of criminal sanctions and sentences in driving while disqualified cases, sentenced the accused to five months' imprisonment plus a further three year driving prohibition - Driving while disqualified was an intentional act of disobeying an unequivocal court order, requiring denunciation and deterrence - It was akin to contempt - The accused drove as a matter of convenience and because he was in a hurry (did not want to get a taxi or arrange other transportation to get a computer part) - A fine would not be appropriate.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Jacobs (1982), 39 A.R. 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; 84 N.R. 365; 27 O.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Bernshaw (N.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254; 176 N.R. 81; 53 B.C.A.C. 1; 87 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Yellowknee (R.C.) (2008), 445 A.R. 332; 2008 ABPC 168, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Boggs, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 49; 34 N.R. 520, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Frank (M.J.), [2008] A.R. Uned. 360; 2008 ABCA 398, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Clark (P.D.) (2000), 266 A.R. 343; 228 W.A.C. 343; 2000 ABCA 246, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Potts (R.M.) (1990), 105 A.R. 264 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Shepansky (R.J.) (2004), 351 A.R. 377; 2004 ABQB 92, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Borenstein (D.S.) (1998), 212 A.R. 27; 168 W.A.C. 27 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Kootenay (Q.V.) (2004), 357 A.R. 351; 334 W.A.C. 351 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Desjarlais (S.I.) (1998), 223 A.R. 121; 183 W.A.C. 121 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Delaurier (1989), 97 A.R. 126 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Solowan (K.S.T.), [2008] 3 S.C.R. 309; 381 N.R. 191; 261 B.C.A.C. 27; 440 W.A.C. 27, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Getty (1990), 104 A.R. 180 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Yazlovasky (A.D.) (2004), 357 A.R. 334; 334 W.A.C. 334 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A.].

R. v. Paylor (P.K.) (1996), 187 A.R. 55; 127 W.A.C. 55 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Gratton (1978), 13 A.R. 177 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Steil (S.) (2009), 448 A.R. 286; 447 W.A.C. 286; 2009 ABCA 80, refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Hirtle (K.L.) (2008), 446 A.R. 165; 442 W.A.C. 165 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Burnett (D.E.) (2007), 417 A.R. 4; 410 W.A.C. 4 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Beecher (R.) (2005), 376 A.R. 131; 360 W.A.C. 131 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Ridsdale (M.A.) (2004), 357 A.R. 178; 334 W.A.C. 178 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Verral (S.B.) (2003), 330 A.R. 171; 299 W.A.C. 171 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Bohaychuk (P.G.) (1997), 209 A.R. 136; 160 W.A.C. 136 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Rohatyn (C.M.) (1997), 200 A.R. 64; 146 W.A.C. 64 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Michaud (R.R.) (1996), 196 A.R. 153; 141 W.A.C. 153 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

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

R. v. Yetman (L.J.) (1995), 174 A.R. 196; 102 W.A.C. 196 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Campbell (R.N.) (1995), 174 A.R. 325; 102 W.A.C. 325 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Deschamps (S.B.) (1993), 145 A.R. 360; 55 W.A.C. 360 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Murphy (M.A.) (1993), 135 A.R. 193; 33 W.A.C. 193 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Morozewich (1991), 115 A.R. 302 (C.A.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Brunette (B.J.) (2004), 356 A.R. 215 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Chapdelaine (D.M.) (2001), 301 A.R. 332 (Q.B.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Johnson (B.A.) (2006), 396 A.R. 12 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Seibert (S.A.) (2002), 322 A.R. 366 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Brown (A.T.) (2002), 329 A.R. 81 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Sturdy (C.D.) (2001), 295 A.R. 396 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Vaughan (A.L.) (1999), 254 A.R. 112 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Remillard (J.F.J.P.) (1998), 222 A.R. 177 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. Ledoux (Q.M.) (1997), 204 A.R. 377 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix A].

R. v. May (1992), 126 A.R. 292 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [Appendix A].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Alberta Traffic Safety Plan, Saving Lives on Alberta Roads (2006), pp. 2 [para. 13]; 27 [para. 14].

Alberta Traffic Safety Plan, Saving Lives on Alberta Roads: Report and Recommendations for a Traffic Collision Strategy and Injury Reduction Strategy (2004), generally [para. 12].

Solomon, R., Hanc, K., Ricci, D., and Visser, L., Automobile Insurance, Impaired Driving and Victim Compensation Across Canada (2005), 12 M.V.R.(5th) 22, generally [para. 11].

World Health Organization, 2004 World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention, p. 37 [para. 10].

Counsel:

A. Hayter (March 6, 2009) and M. McPherson (May 5, 2009), for the Crown;

K. Sproule, for the accused.

This matter was heard on May 5, 2009, at Red Deer, Alberta, before Rosborough, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 30, 2009.