Welcome to “Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t!”
In this episode, Kyla Lee from Acumen Law Corporation discusses a case involving sentencing for impaired driving causing death. The accused asked to serve her sentence in the community, arguing that she no longer posed a risk to the public. Although she ultimately received a conditional sentence from the appellate court, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the case—missing an opportunity to clarify how judges should assess “public protection” when considering community-based sentences in impaired driving cases.
Key Points Discussed
– The accused was convicted of impaired driving causing death and sought a conditional sentence order (CSO), asking to serve her sentence in the community.
– She argued that the public would not be at risk due to rehabilitative steps taken, alcohol-related conditions, and driving prohibitions.
– The trial court initially declined, but the appellate court later varied the sentence to a CSO.
– The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal, offering no guidance on how public protection should be assessed in these cases.
Why This Case Matters
CSOs are meant to be available unless serving the sentence in the community would endanger the public or undermine the principles of sentencing. In impaired driving cases, particularly for first-time offenders who take steps to address their substance use and follow restrictions, the question becomes whether jail time is truly necessary for public protection or deterrence.
With no clear framework, courts across the country are left to make highly subjective determinations, resulting in inconsistent outcomes.
Missed Opportunity for a National Standard
The Supreme Court could have provided much-needed guidance on the test for CSOs in impaired driving causing death cases. This would have helped sentencing judges by clarifying:
– What “risk to the public” actually means in the context of impaired driving
– How rehabilitative progress should be weighed against the seriousness of the offence
– Whether certain conditions (e.g., abstinence, driving prohibitions) are sufficient to mitigate risk
– The role of deterrence in sentencing first-time offenders with no ongoing risk
Need for Clarity and Accountability
Impaired driving causing death is among the most serious offences in Canadian criminal law. But it is also an offence often committed by individuals with no prior record, in circumstances shaped by addiction or poor judgment—not criminal intent. The law must balance the need for accountability with the principles of rehabilitation and proportionality.
Without guidance from the Supreme Court, sentencing judges will continue to struggle with how to apply CSOs fairly in these tragic but complex cases.
Topics Covered
– Sentencing principles for impaired driving causing death
– Conditional sentence orders and public protection
– Risk assessment in sentencing decisions
– Rehabilitation vs. deterrence
– Appellate review of sentencing discretion
