dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm – provincial court judge agrees with defence that accused should receive conditional sentence following guilty pleas – accused was passing other vehicles in foggy conditions when he struck oncoming vehicle head on – Crown appealed seeking penitentiary sentence – held: conditional sentence order affirmed - “Both the Crown and the respondent have submitted numerous authorities to establish the appropriate range of sentences. Our review of those cases indicates that the sentencing judge in this case did not err in concluding that the range for the circumstances of this offence was between fifteen and thirty months. That being so, we cannot say that the appropriate length of the requisite sentence would preclude the application of a conditional sentence, or that the two years less a day sentence imposed was inordinately low” - appeal dismissed.

The respondent pled guilty to two counts of dangerous driving causing death and one count of dangerous driving causing bodily harm. He was sentenced to a conditional sentence of two years less a day. The appellant Crown argues that the circumstances of this offence take it outside the range of sentences within which a conditional sentence may apply.

The charges relate to a vehicle accident which occurred during a heavy fog that limited visibility to approximately 100 metres. Prior to the accident, other drivers observed the respondent’s vehicle swerve to avoid a head-on collision with oncoming traffic while passing vehicles in his lane. They reported that, after this event, the respondent’s vehicle repeatedly strayed over the centre line in attempts to pass still other vehicles. On one of these attempts to pass, despite evasive action taken by the oncoming driver, the respondent’s vehicle collided with an oncoming vehicle, killing the two young passengers and seriously injuring their brother, the driver. The respondent’s wife and child were also injured. Although the respondent thought the fog was patchy and at times seemed to ease up, he acknowledged that he did not see the victims’ vehicle because of the fog density. An accident reconstructionist estimated that prior to the impact the respondent’s vehicle was travelling at the posted speed of 100 k.p.h. but that at the time of impact it was travelling at a minimum of 71 k.p.h. The Crown concedes that the respondent entered his guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity and has shown continuing deep remorse. There was no evidence of any impairment by drugs or alcohol.