Welcome to Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! This week, lawyer Kyla Lee discusses parole ineligibility.
Acumen Law Corporation lawyer Kyla Lee gives her take on a made-in-Canada court case each week and discusses the balancing of sentencing objectives and principles.
Jason Belec was convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm. As is a victim’s right in criminal proceedings at the sentencing hearing, the victim presented a victim impact statement which the judge took into consideration in passing sentence on Mr. Belec. He was sentenced to a year in custody for a first offence as well as a driving prohibition.
He appealed his sentence, arguing that the sentence was out of range for the offence that he’d committed. The court of appeal agreed that the sentence was too harsh, reduced it to 6 months of jail time and upheld the driving prohibition as appropriate.
This case raises an important issue because as we see sentencing for impaired driving cases becoming increasingly lengthy and sentences for bodily harm and death offences becoming longer, the real question becomes: Do judges have to consider the significant impact that victims in these collisions suffer and use that as an aggravating factor on sentence to length of sentence?
Watch the video for more.
