R. v. Tsandaya (R.), (2004) 193 B.C.A.C. 173 (YukCA)

• Judge: Hall, Low and Lowry, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory)
• Case Date: January 21, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Yukon
• Citations: (2004), 193 B.C.A.C. 173 (YukCA);2004 YKCA 3

R. v. Tsandaya (R.) (2004), 193 B.C.A.C. 173 (YukCA);

    316 W.A.C. 173

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] B.C.A.C. TBEd. FE.042

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Raven Tsandaya, also known as Beverly Smith (respondent)

(YU00504; 2004 YKCA 3)

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

Yukon Court of Appeal

Hall, Low and Lowry, JJ.A.

January 21, 2004.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of one count of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and three counts of breach of recognizance. She was sentenced to a 15 month conditional sentence for the driving offence and pro­hibited from driving for 20 months. On each of the breaches of recognizance the accused was sentenced to one day in jail. The Crown appealed the sentences, but did not seek on appeal a variation of the sentences for the breach offences.

The Yukon Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, amending one of the condi­tions of the 15 month conditional sentence (i.e. added alcohol abstention, blood or urine sample on demand and treatment or counselling).

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.5

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - Conditions of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5865.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5865.1

Sentence - Dangerous driving causing bodily harm - The accused driver crossed the centre line on a main thoroughfare during daylight hours and good driving conditions, and collided head-on with an oncoming vehicle, after attempting to locate a bottle for her young daughter - She was speeding about 30 kmph in excess of the 50 kmph limit - The pregnant victim lost her baby and suffered injuries - This was more than momentary inatten­tion and constituted a marked departure from the norm - Convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm - The Yukon Court of Appeal affirmed a 15 month conditional sentence, but amended the conditions to reflect the accused's sub­stance abuse prob­lems (i.e. alcohol abstention, blood or urine samples on demand and counselling or treatment).

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Bhalru - see R. v. Khosa (S.S.) et al.

R. v. Khosa (S.S.) et al. (2003), 190 B.C.A.C. 42; 311 W.A.C. 42; 2003 BCCA 645, refd to. [para. 9].

Counsel:

K. Drolet, for the Crown, appellant;

S. Wellman, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Hall, Low and Lowry, JJ.A., of the Yukon Court of Appeal, at Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 21, 2004, when the following deci­sion was delivered orally for the court by Low, J.A.