R. v. Shular (R.), (2014) 577 A.R. 294

• Judge: Hunt, O'Ferrall and Wakeling, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: July 28, 2014
• Citations: (2014), 577 A.R. 294;2014 ABCA 241

R. v. Shular (R.) (2014), 577 A.R. 294; 613 W.A.C. 294 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. AU.001

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Robert Shular (appellant)

(1303-0273-A; 2014 ABCA 241)

Indexed As: R. v. Shular (R.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Hunt, O'Ferrall and Wakeling, JJ.A.

July 28, 2014.

Summary:

The accused and his brother, in separate vehicles, hunted down the vehicle being driven by Soulliere (brother's former girlfriend was a passenger). In a coordinated effort, they chased Soulliere's vehicle at high speed through busy Edmonton streets, attempting to "ram, cut off, box-in and t-bone" Soulliere's vehicle. The accused's vehicle struck Soulliere's vehicle, causing it to lose control and strike a light pole. The accused and his brother fled the scene. Soulliere was severely injured, remaining in critical condition in intensive care for one month with a traumatic brain injury and multiple broken bones and fractures. He was left with permanent physical and psychological damage. The girlfriend suffered a head injury and severe concussion. The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and one count of leaving the scene of an accident. The Crown and accused jointly recommended a global sentence of four years' imprisonment (concurrent four year sentences for criminal negligence and a concurrent six month sentence for leaving the accident scene).

The Alberta Provincial Court, in a judgment reported [2013] A.R. Uned. 640, rejected the joint recommendation and sentenced the accused to six years' imprisonment and four years' imprisonment (concurrent) for criminal negligence and one year's imprisonment (consecutive) for leaving the accident scene, for a total of seven years' imprisonment. The accused appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Hunt, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal, with the exception of increasing credit for pre-trial custody. The trial judge was entitled to reject the joint sentencing recommendation where the recommended global sentence of four years' imprisonment fell outside the appropriate sentence range (starting point of 8-10 years reduced to 6-7.5 years after a 25% reduction for the guilty plea and the prospect of rehabilitation represented by the accused's remorse). The finding that four years' imprisonment was an unfit sentence was reasonable.

Criminal Law - Topic 5803

Sentencing - Consecutive sentences - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5813 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5813

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - Plea bargain or joint submission - Effect of - The accused and his brother, in separate vehicles, hunted down the vehicle being driven by Soulliere - In a coordinated effort, they chased Soulliere's vehicle (brother's former girlfriend was a passenger) at high speed through busy Edmonton streets, attempting to "ram, cut off, box-in and t-bone" Soulliere's vehicle - The accused's vehicle struck Soulliere's vehicle, causing it to lose control and strike a light pole - The accused and his brother fled the scene - Soulliere was severely injured, remaining in critical condition in intensive care for one month with a traumatic brain injury and broken femurs, a broken pelvis, a broken jaw, a broken orbital bone, a fractured left hand, a severed finger and fractured ribs - He was left with permanent physical and psychological damage - The girlfriend suffered a head injury and severe concussion - The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and one count of leaving the scene of an accident - The Crown and accused jointly recommended a global sentence of four years' imprisonment (concurrent four year sentences for criminal negligence and a concurrent six month sentence for leaving the accident scene) - The sentencing judge rejected the joint submission as unfit and sentenced the accused to six years' imprisonment and four years' imprisonment (concurrent) for criminal negligence and one year's imprisonment (consecutive) for leaving the accident scene, for a total of seven years' imprisonment - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to reject the joint sentencing recommendation where the recommended global sentence of four years' imprisonment fell outside the appropriate sentence range - The appropriate range of sentence was 8-10 years' imprisonment, reduced to 6-7.5 years after credit for the guilty plea and the prospects of rehabilitation based on the accused's remorse - The accused's moral blameworthiness was extremely high where the victims were "hunted" or "targeted" and public safety was endangered by the manner of driving on busy streets - It was logical and correct to make the leaving the accident scene sentence consecutive - See paragraphs 1 to 80.

Criminal Law - Topic 5830.4

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Guilty plea - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5813 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5832

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Rehabilitation - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5813 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5846.5

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Sentence precedents (incl. starting point principle) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5813 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5863.1

Sentence - Criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5813 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5866

Sentence - Leaving scene of an accident - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5813 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 10].

A.R. v. Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement (Alta.) (2013), 578 A.R. 263; 2013 ABQB 715, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 10].

Novus Aviation Ltd. v. Onur Air Tasimacilik AS, [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 576 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 10].

R. v. L.M., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 163; 374 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 39].

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. 39].

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. 39].

R. v. Karim (M.A.) et al. (2014), 572 A.R. 149; 609 W.A.C. 149; 2014 ABCA 88, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Deer - see R. v. Karim (M.A.) et al.

R. v. M.C.N., [2012] 12 W.W.R. 86; 524 A.R. 366; 545 W.A.C. 366 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Nickel - see R. v. M.C.N.

R. v. L.R.T. (2010), 487 A.R. 357; 495 W.A.C. 357; 2010 ABCA 224, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Breton (S.A.) (2004), 357 A.R. 371; 334 W.A.C. 371; 2004 ABCA 391, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. G.W.C. (2000), 277 A.R. 20; 242 W.A.C. 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Royer (S.) (2013), 561 A.R. 341; 594 W.A.C. 341; 2013 ABCA 383, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Magas (D.L.) (2012), 524 A.R. 98; 545 W.A.C. 98 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Tkachuk (E.A.) (2001), 293 A.R. 171; 257 W.A.C. 171; 2001 ABCA 243, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Nasogaluak (L.M.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206; 398 N.R. 107; 474 A.R. 88; 479 W.A.C. 88; 2010 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 41, footnote 12].

R. v. Holloway (P.S.) (2014), 572 A.R. 121; 609 W.A.C. 121; 2014 ABCA 87, refd to. [para. 41, footnote 14].

R. v. Singh (K.), [1995] A.J. No. 800 (Q.B.), varied (1995), 174 A.R. 350; 102 W.A.C. 350 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Shore, [1999] O.J. No. 1545 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 56, footnote 18].

R. v. Middleton (T.) (2012), 294 O.A.C. 82; 289 C.C.C.(3d) 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. B.J.G. (2013), 556 A.R. 6; 584 W.A.C. 6; 2013 ABCA 260, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Roberts (R.N.) (2005), 361 A.R. 149; 339 W.A.C. 149; 192 C.C.C.(3d) 462 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Hindes (S.C.) (2000), 261 A.R. 108; 225 W.A.C. 108 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Ranger (R.S.) (2014), 569 A.R. 39; 606 W.A.C. 39; 2014 ABCA 50, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. May (T.G.) (2012), 533 A.R. 182; 557 W.A.C. 182 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

Roger Estate v. Halvering (1943), 320 U.S. 410, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Summers (S.) (2014), 456 N.R. 1; 316 O.A.C. 349; 2014 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Carvery (L.A.) (2014), 456 N.R. 35; 343 N.SR.(2d) 393; 1084 A.P.R. 393; 2014 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Cardinal (J.J.), [2011] A.R. Uned. 136; 14 M.V.R.(6th) 195; 2011 ABCA 195, refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Bullock (S.S.) (2013), 542 A.R. 280; 566 W.A.C. 280; 2013 ABCA 44, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Lavoie (1985), 59 A.R. 269 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Ubhi (J.S.) (1992), 17 B.C.A.C. 84; 29 W.A.C. 84 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Veresh (B.) (1994), 157 A.R. 354; 77 W.A.C. 354 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Collins (J.C.) (1995), 174 A.R. 185; 102 W.A.C. 185; 1995 ABCA 392, refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Waddell (T.H.) (1998), 228 A.R. 78; 188 W.A.C. 78; 1998 ABCA 314, refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Spears (W.J.), [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 5710; 2010 ONSC 5710, refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Hughes (B.B.) (2012), 316 B.C.A.C. 226; 537 W.A.C. 226; 2012 BCCA 87, refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Shore (2001), 14 M.V.R.(4th) 177 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Kobelka (C.J.) (2007), 422 A.R. 393; 415 W.A.C. 393; 2007 ABCA 405, refd to. [para. 117].

Counsel:

M.J. McGuire, for the respondent;

P.J. Royal, Q.C., for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on April 15, 2014, before Hunt, O'Ferrall and Wakeling, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On July 28, 2014, the memorandum of judgment of the court was filed and the following opinions were filed:

Wakeling, J.A. (O'Ferrall, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 83;

Hunt, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 84 to 130.