R. v. Okeymow (D.W.), 2012 ABQB 257

• Judge: Michalyshyn, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 20, 2012
• Citations: 2012 ABQB 257;(2012), 540 A.R. 18 (QB)

R. v. Okeymow (D.W.) (2012), 540 A.R. 18 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. AP.084

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent/Crown) v. Dustin Walker Okeymow (appellant)

(110673704S1; 2012 ABQB 257)

Indexed As: R. v. Okeymow (D.W.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Wetaskiwin

Michalyshyn, J.

April 17, 2012.

Summary:

The accused pled guilty to two counts of common assault. He was sentenced to 45 days' incarceration and 12 months' probation. The probation order required the accused to take treatment for substance abuse, and to abstain from the possession and use of alcohol. The accused appealed the alcohol abstinence provision.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5723

Punishments (sentence) - Probation or probation order - Conditions - The accused pled guilty to two counts of common assault - He was sentenced to 45 days' incarceration and 12 months' probation - The probation order required the accused to take treatment for substance abuse, and to abstain from the possession and use of alcohol - The accused appealed the alcohol abstinence provision - His counsel argued that "the courts have said many, many times that to put an alcoholic on a condition that he not drink is to invite a breach of the order" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - The authorities were clear that, on appropriate evidence touching on the accused's individual circumstances, an abstinence provision in a probation order might be inappropriate - There was no such evidence before the sentencing judge in this case - There was little to inform the sentencing judge whether the accused by reason of his use of alcohol would inevitably breach an abstinence provision in the probation order, thus exposing him to further incarceration - The sentencing judge was alive to the possibility that the accused would breach the abstinence provision, but was not prepared to "give up" on him - The court did not read the authorities to question the wisdom of an abstinence provision based on a mere "possibility" of a subsequent breach - Here, the abstinence provision was imposed to aid in the accused's rehabilitation and to protect the public, and not as part of his punishment - It was imposed in part on the strength of the accused's own assertions that he was prepared to try to get sober and he had not given up on himself.

Criminal Law - Topic 5799.4

Punishments (sentence) - Prohibition orders - Respecting alcohol and drugs - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5723 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.16

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Addicts - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5723 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Vena (T.) (2005), 392 A.R. 200; 2005 ABQB 948, consd. [para. 6].

R. v. Coombs (K.A.) (2004), 369 A.R. 215 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Night (L.C.) (2008), 329 Sask.R. 197; 2008 SKPC 169, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Ahenakew (D.K.) (2007), 303 Sask.R. 229; 2007 SKPC 108, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. L.M., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 163; 374 N.R. 351; 2008 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ruby, Clayton, Sentencing (7th Ed. 2008), p. 433 [para. 12].

Counsel:

Rodney Clark (Crown Prosecutor's Office), for the Crown;

Kenneth R. Sockett, Q.C. (Sockett Law), for the accused.

This appeal was heard on January 20, 2012, before Michalyshyn, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Wetaskiwin, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on April 17, 2012.