R. v. Mostoway (A.), 2012 SKPC 36

• Judge: Scott, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: February 27, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2012 SKPC 36;(2012), 391 Sask.R. 219 (PC)

R. v. Mostoway (A.) (2012), 391 Sask.R. 219 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.062

Her Majesty the Queen v. August Mostoway

(Information No. 24394009; 2012 SKPC 36)

Indexed As: R. v. Mostoway (A.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Scott, P.C.J.

February 27, 2012.

Summary:

The 57 year old accused pled guilty to having care or control of a vehicle while he had an excessive blood alcohol level.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court granted the accused a curative discharge under s. 255(5) of the Criminal Code.

Criminal Law - Topic 4434

Procedure - Verdicts - Discharges and dismissals - Discharge conditional upon curative treatment - The 57 year old accused pled guilty to having care or control of a vehicle while he had an excessive blood alcohol level - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court granted the accused a curative discharge under s. 255(5) of the Criminal Code - The accused's criminal record consisted of seven offences from 1981 to 2005, all related to drinking and driving - There had been a break of almost five years between his last offence and the current one - However, fines and a jail sentence had not deterred the accused from re-offending - Given his history, the only way to ensure that the accused would not re-offend was for him to remain sober - That was likely to occur only with ongoing intensive treatment - The accused had made significant progress toward sobriety - He was in need of curative treatment in relation to his "long-standing and persistent alcohol addiction" - Continuity of his treatment was the best way to ensure that he did not re-offend - Therefore, a curative discharge was in the public interest.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Ahenakew (S.D.) (2005), 269 Sask.R. 166; 357 W.A.C. 166; 2005 SKCA 93, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Anaquod (E.G.) (2005), 269 Sask.R. 298; 357 W.A.C. 298; 2005 SKCA 109, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Ashberry and Mills (1989), 30 O.A.C. 376; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 138 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Beaulieu (1980), 21 A.R. 120; 53 C.C.C.(2d) 342 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

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. 37].

R. v. Redding (D.K.) (2009), 330 Sask.R. 10; 2009 SKPC 33, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Soosay (M.D.) (2001), 293 A.R. 292; 257 W.A.C. 292; 2001 CarswellAlta 1472; 2001 ABCA 287, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Welch (N.M.) (2011), 369 Sask.R. 239; 2011 CarswellSask 116; 2011 SKPC 6, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Weisgerber (R.) (2009), 340 Sask.R. 298; 2009 SKPC 107, refd to. [para. 37].

Counsel:

D.W. Howarth, for the Crown;

C.A. Bohacik, for the accused.

This matter was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, by Scott, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on February 27, 2012.