R. v. Vaziri (F.), (2004) 182 O.A.C. 119 (CA)

• Judge: Doherty, Laskin and Rosenberg, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: January 22, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2004), 182 O.A.C. 119 (CA)

R. v. Vaziri (F.) (2004), 182 O.A.C. 119 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] O.A.C. TBEd. FE.029

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Faramarz Vaziri (appellant)

(C37875)

Indexed As: R. v. Vaziri (F.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, Laskin and Rosenberg, JJ.A.

January 22, 2004.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm after losing control of his vehicle while travelling on a wet city street at excessive speed. Alcohol was not involved. The trial judge sentenced the accused to imprisonment for two years less a day, finding that a conditional sentence was inappropriate. The accused appealed against conviction and sentence.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and allowed the sentence appeal in part. The court affirmed that a conditional sentence was inappropriate, but reduced the sentence to 15 months.

Criminal Law - Topic 4262

Procedure - Indictment - Preferring of indictments - The accused was committed for trial on charges of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing death - The committal was quashed by the Superior Court - The Attorney General then preferred an indictment under s. 577(a) of the Criminal Code - The accused appealed his convictions, submitting that the Attorney General had no power to consent to the preferring of an indictment - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court stated that "where a committal for trial was quashed, it could not be said that a preliminary inquiry had been held for the purpose of s. 577(a) of the Criminal Code. The Attorney General or his Deputy were, therefore, authorized to consent to the preferment of the indictment." - See paragraph 4.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5865.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5865.1

Sentence - Dangerous driving causing death or bodily harm - The accused drove his vehicle at excessive speed on a wet city street - He lost control, causing an accident that resulted in a death and an injury - The accused was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm - The trial judge rejected a conditional sentence on the grounds that, inter alia, there were insufficient resources to ensure compliance with any conditions he might impose - The accused was sentenced to imprisonment for two years less a day - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the accused's sentence appeal in part - The trial judge erred in rejecting a conditional sentence on the ground of a lack of resources to ensure compliance with any conditions imposed - However, there was no error in finding a conditional sentence inappropriate given the serious conduct involved - However, given the accused's good character, minimal driving record, the lack of any involvement of alcohol and the relatively brief nature of the bad driving, the court reduced the sentence to 15 months - See paragraphs 6 to 7.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Charlie (C.C.) (1998), 109 B.C.A.C. 106; 177 W.A.C. 106; 126 C.C.C.(3d) 513 (C.A.), agreed with [para. 4].

R. v. S.W.E. (2000), 189 Sask.R. 239; 216 W.A.C. 239; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 277 (C.A.), agreed with [para. 4].

R. v. Nault (R.) (2002), 159 O.A.C. 391; 59 O.R.(3d) 388 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Counsel:

Mara Greene, for the appellant;

Susan Magotiaux, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 22, 2004, before Doherty, Laskin and Rosenberg, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The following oral judgment of the Court was endorsed on the record on January 22, 2004, and released on February 6, 2004.