R. v. Rossi (K.J.), 2016 ABCA 43

• Judge: Picard, Bielby and Wakeling, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: February 19, 2016
• Citations: 2016 ABCA 43;(2016), 612 A.R. 183

R. v. Rossi (K.J.) (2016), 612 A.R. 183; 662 W.A.C. 183 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] A.R. TBEd. FE.075

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Kelton James Rossi (respondent)

(1503-0088-A; 2016 ABCA 43)

Indexed As: R. v. Rossi (K.J.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Picard, Bielby and Wakeling, JJ.A.

February 19, 2016.

Summary:

In 2013, the 19 year old accused chose to take over the driving of a motor vehicle containing three passengers when another passenger complained of the driver's erratic driving. The accused's blood-alcohol level was at least .13. The accused drove at excessive speeds, crossed over other driving lanes, and struck a tree. All three passengers were injured, one severely. The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of causing bodily harm while driving with a blood-alcohol level exceeding the legal limit. The trial judge sentenced the accused to concurrent sentences of 90 days' imprisonment, to be served intermittently, followed by two years' probation and a three year driving prohibition. The Crown appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Wakeling, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal. The sentence was not proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Too much emphasis was given to rehabilitation and too little to deterrence and denunciation. The minimum sentence of 12 months' imprisonment sought by the Crown would have been a fit sentence. However, during the long delay between the offence and sentencing and sentencing and the appeal decision, the accused had served the 90 day sentence and most of his two year probation, had quit drinking, was steadily employed, and was rehabilitating himself. In those unique circumstances, the court declined to re-incarcerate the accused to serve the sentence that should have been imposed. Wakeling, J.A., dissenting, would have substituted a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment plus a three year driving prohibition.

Criminal Law - Topic 5801.1

Sentencing - General - Proportionality - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5886.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5832

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Rehabilitation - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5886.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.13

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Drinking and driving offences - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5886.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5886.1

Sentence - Impaired driving causing bodily harm - In 2013, the 19 year old accused chose to take over the driving of a motor vehicle containing three passengers when another passenger complained of the driver's erratic driving - The accused's blood-alcohol level was at least .13 - The accused drove at excessive speeds, crossed over other driving lanes, and struck a tree - All three passengers were injured, one severely - Two fully recovered, but the third had long-term health effects - The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of causing bodily harm while driving with a blood-alcohol level exceeding the legal limit - The trial judge sentenced the accused to concurrent sentences of 90 days' imprisonment, to be served intermittently, followed by two years' probation and a three year driving prohibition - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's sentence appeal - The sentence was not proportionate to the gravity of the offence - Too much emphasis was given to rehabilitation and too little to deterrence and denunciation - The minimum sentence of 12 months' imprisonment sought by the Crown would have been a fit sentence - However, during the long delay between the offence and sentencing and the sentencing and appeal decision, the accused had served the 90 day sentence and most of his two year probation, had quit drinking, was steadily employed, and was rehabilitating himself - In those unique circumstances, the court declined to re-incarcerate the accused to serve the sentence that should have been imposed - See paragraphs 1 to 9.

Criminal Law - Topic 6214

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sentence - Considerations - Where sentence of trial court fully or partially served (incl. appeal delay) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5886.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lacasse (T.) (2015), 478 N.R. 319; 2015 SCC 64, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 2].

Sahaluk v. Alberta (Transportation Safety Board) (2015), 75 M.V.R.(6th) 10; 2015 ABQB 142, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 2].

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. 14, footnote 2].

R. v. Jacobs (1982), 39 A.R. 391; 70 C.C.C.(2d) 569 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 2].

R. v. Gutoski (1990), 63 Man.R.(2d) 246; 19 M.V.R.(2d) 12 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 2].

R. v. Berner (2010), 6 M.V.R.(6th) 81; 2010 BCPC 305, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 2].

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. [para. 15, footnote 3].

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. [para. 15, footnote 3].

R. v. Shular (R.) (2014), 577 A.R. 294; 613 W.A.C. 294; 2014 ABCA 241, refd to. [para. 15, footnote 3].

R. v. Burback (B.T.) (2012), 522 A.R. 352; 544 W.A.C. 352; 2012 ABCA 30, refd to. [para. 15, footnote 3].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 46, footnote 12].

R. v. Arcand - see R. v. J.L.M.A.

R. v. J.L.M.A. (2010), 499 A.R. 1; 514 W.A.C. 1; 264 C.C.C.(3d) 134; 2010 ABCA 363, refd to. [para. 46, footnote 12].

Rita v. United States (2007), 551 U.S. 338, refd to. [para. 46, footnote 12].

R. v. K.S.H. (2015), 609 A.R. 99; 656 W.A.C. 99; 2015 ABCA 370, refd to. [para. 46, footnote 13].

R. v. Markarian (2005), 228 C.L.R. 357; 2005 HCA 25, refd to. [para. 46, footnote 13].

R. v. Norn (B.R.), [2007] Northwest Terr. Cases (SC) 45; 52 M.V.R.(5th) 189; 2007 NWTSC 45, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 15].

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401 v. XL Foods Inc., [2016] A.R. TBEd. FE.020; 2016 ABCA 31, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 18].

R. v. Ryan (G.R.) (2015), 607 A.R. 47; 653 W.A.C. 47; 2015 ABCA 286, refd to. [para. 50, footnote 22].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 51, footnote 23].

Manitoba Language Rights Reference, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721; 59 N.R. 321; 35 Man.R.(2d) 83, refd to. [para. 51, footnote 23].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] 1 S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 51, footnote 23].

R. v. Rand (1921), 15 D.L.R. 69 (N.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 23].

Alberta v. McGeady et al., [2014] 7 W.W.R. 559; 585 A.R. 311; 2014 ABQB 104, affd. [2015] 6 W.W.R. 244; 593 A.R. 147; 637 W.A.C. 147; 2015 ABCA 54, leave to appeal denied 2015 CarswellAlta 1294 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 23].

Can v. Calgary Chief of Police et al. (2014), 584 A.R. 147; 623 W.A.C. 147; 315 C.C.C.(3d) 337; 2014 ABCA 322, refd to. [para. 52, footnote 25].

R. v. Kummer (A.L.) (2011), 273 O.A.C. 378; 266 C.C.C.(3d) 32; 2011 ONCA 39, refd to. [para. 56, footnote 28].

R. v. Coupal (D.P.) (2010), 488 A.R. 139; 95 M.V.R.(5th) 228; 2010 ABQB 229, refd to. [para. 56, footnote 28].

R. v. Veitch (B.J.) (2008), 438 A.R. 15; 2008 ABPC 4, refd to. [para. 56, footnote 28].

R. v. Murphy (D.D.) (2014), 593 A.R. 60; 637 W.A.C. 60; 317 C.C.C.(3d) 314; 2014 ABCA 409, refd to. [para. 61, footnote 29].

R. v. Laberge (K.K.) (1995), 165 A.R. 375; 89 W.A.C. 375; 1995 ABCA 196, refd to. [para. 61, footnote 29].

R. v. T.; R. v. S. (1983), 46 A.R. 87; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 29].

R. v. McIlwrick (J.R.) (2008), 461 A.R. 16; 2008 ABQB 724, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 30].

R. v. Butt, [2006] 2 Cr. App. R.(S.) 364; 2006 EWCA Crim. 47, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 31].

R. v. Grozell (R.), [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 307; 92 M.V.R.(5th) 229; 2010 ONSC 307, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 32].

R. v. Biancofiore (N.F.) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 292; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 344 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64, footnote 34].

R. v. Horon (1990), 107 A.R. 328 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65, footnote 36].

Gall v. United States (2007), 552 U.S. 38, refd to. [para. 91, footnote 39].

R. v. Johnas et al. (1982), 41 A.R. 183; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 490 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92, footnote 42].

R. v. Rhyason (B.P.) (2007), 404 A.R. 191; 394 W.A.C. 191; 2007 ABCA 119, refd to. [para. 92, footnote 42].

R. v. McVeigh (1985), 11 O.A.C. 345; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 93, footnote 43].

R. v. Startup (D.J.) (2011), 528 A.R. 329; 2011 ABPC 389, refd to. [para. 100, footnote 46].

R. v. Sackanay (D.C.) (2000), 131 O.A.C. 396; 47 O.R.(3d) 612 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100, footnote 46].

R. v. Spina (M.) (1997), 200 A.R. 133; 146 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102, footnote 47].

R. v. Buffrey (1992), 14 Cr. App. R.(S.) 511, refd to. [para. 105, footnote 49].

Counsel:

K.A. Joyce, for the appellant;

G.M. Johnson, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 20, 2015, before Picard, Bielby and Wakeling, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On February 19, 2016, the judgment of the Court was delivered and the following memorandums of judgment were filed:

Picard and Bielby, JJ.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 9;

Wakeling, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 10 to 110.