criminal negligence

Man Sentenced to 6 Years in Prison for Impaired Operation of Canoe

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Last summer, David Sillars (“Sillars”), became the first Canadian to be convicted of impaired driving charges while paddling a canoe.  He was recently sentenced to six years in prison for the April 2017 death of an eight-year-old boy.

We have previously blogged about a landmark ruling by an Ontario judge who decided that a canoe is a “vessel” for the purposes of the definition of vessel found in the Criminal Code of Canada, which includes the criminal charges of impaired operation of a vessel causing death, operation of a vessel over 80, and the dangerous operation of a vessel.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On April 7, 2017, Sillars took his girlfriend’s son, Thomas Rancourt (“Rancourt”), for a canoe ride down the Muskoka River to teach him how to paddle a canoe.  Sillars was intending to paddle in the direction of and to retrieve a blue barrel, which appeared to be wedged against a barrier by debris.  The canoe capsized and Rancourt was swept downriver and went over a waterfall at High Falls, and then drowned.  Sillars, on the other hand, swam safely to the shore.

In his lengthy decision, Justice Peter C. West set out the following key findings of fact based upon the evidence presented in court:

  • Temperatures were between 3 and 4 degrees Celsius on April 7, 2017;
  • School buses were cancelled due to slush and ice, resulting in poor road conditions on April 7, 2017;
  • The majority of the ice on the river had melted, although small chunks were visible, resulting in a reasonable inference that the river water was extremely cold;
  • The water levels of the river were very high on April 7, 2017;
  • The current in the river was fast-flowing and extremely strong;
  • The yellow barrier is a warning to caution boaters of the danger created by the water flowing towards the High Falls;
  • Sillars was cautioned by two experienced individuals who warned him of the dangerous water conditions;
  • Sillars did not agree to take or wear an adult sized lifejacket;
  • The PDF worn by Rancourt was too small for him, especially given that he was wearing three layers of clothing beneath it, including his winter jacket;
  • Sillars had consumed alcohol and THC prior to operating the canoe on April 7, 2017;
  • Sillars intention was to paddle to the yellow barrier to retrieve a blue barrel, which was clearly wedged in debris and partially submerged; and
  • Rancourt looked up to Sillars as a father figure, and this relationship created a duty of care for Sillars towards Rancourt.

Based upon the evidence, the court ruled that:

David Sillars’ decision to canoe towards the yellow warning barrier, during the spring run-off with the described dangers and risks…, with the sole purpose to retrieve a blue barrel, partially submerged and wedged against the yellow warning barrier by other debris, was a significant contributing cause of Thomas Rancourt’s death.  …[B]ut for the decision of Mr. Sillars to go to the yellow barrier, Thomas Rancourt would not have fallen out of the canoe and wound not have gone over the waterfalls and drowned. 

With respect to the issue of impaired paddling, the court considered whether Sillars’ drinking impaired his ability to operate a canoe (Sillars’ minimum blood-alcohol content was 128 milligrams of alcohol in 100 mililitres of blood and he had 14 nanograms of THC in his blood).  The court concluded that Sillars’ intellectual abilities, specifically his reaction time, decision making abilities and his ability to respond to an emergency situation, were impaired by his consumption of alcohol.

The fact that Sillars ignored warnings by two individuals as to the potential danger of canoeing in the conditions on the river, refused to wear an adult lifejacket and failed to bring the required safety equipment in the canoe demonstrated to the court that he overestimated his canoeing abilities and underestimated the level of risk he was enduring, which further demonstrated how the alcohol and marijuana impaired his decision making abilities.

THE SENTENCING

Justice West found Sillars guilty of all four charges he was facing and was sentenced in October, 2019.  The Crown asked the court for a jail sentence of six to eight years and an order prohibiting Sillars from operating a vessel for 20 years.  Sillars’ defence team asked the court for a two-year jail term.

Justice West described numerous aggravating factors that he considered when deciding on the terms of Sillars’ sentence.  The fact that Sillars was in a position of trust and authority in relation to Rancourt was one such factors, as well as his previous criminal record. 

In his reasons, Justice West commented on how this is a “unique” case as there are no precedent cases of criminal negligence causing death or impaired operation causing death in the case of a capsized canoe.  However, Justice West used precedent cases of those who have been found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while impaired and sentenced Sillars to six years in prison, an order requiring that samples of bodily substances be taken for the purposes of forensic DNA analysis  and an order prohibiting Sillars from operating a vessel for 10 years.

Justice West stated:

In my view general deterrence and denunciation are particularly important in cases where alcohol or drugs have impacted an offender’s ability, as in this case, to operate a vessel and the factor that a motor vehicle was not … involved makes no difference.

Sillars has already filed an appeal and has been released on $1,500 bail pending his appeal.  He must remain at home under house arrest and abstain from drinking alcohol. 

We will continue to follow any developments that may arise in this case and will report any updates in this blog.

In the meantime, if you have been charged with a criminal offence or have any questions regarding your legal rights, please contact Affleck Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947.  We offer a free consultation and are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  Trust our experienced criminal lawyers to handle your defence with diligence, strategy and expertise.

Truck Driver Faces Criminal Negligence Charges After Four Fatalities in Hwy 400 Crash

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Three generations of women from one family, as well as a college student nearing graduation were killed in a violent twelve vehicle pile-up on Highway 400 this past June. Three of the twelve vehicles involved were transport trucks.  A 35-year-old truck driver from Winnipeg, Manitoba has since been charged with four counts of criminal negligence causing death, as well as one count of negligence causing bodily harm. These are serious charges with significant consequences.

What is Criminal Negligence?

Criminal negligence is a broadly defined offence under the Criminal Code, but is most commonly applied to driving incidents.

An individual is criminally negligent who in doing or omitting to do anything that is his/her duty to do by law shows “wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons”. Examples of criminally negligent behaviour causing death or bodily harm include street racing, and impaired driving (“operating while impaired” is also a separate offence under the Code).

What are the Potential Consequences of Criminal Negligence Charges?

Anyone convicted of criminal negligence will have a criminal record, and will also lose their Ontario driver’s license for at least one year. Most people found guilty of criminal negligence while operating a motor vehicle receive a jail sentence, whether their actions result in bodily harm or whether they result in death. Sentences will vary depending on the severity of the injury. For criminal negligence causing bodily harm sentences can be up to 10-14 years in prison. For criminal negligence offences causing death sentencing can include a minimum of 3 years in prison and a maximum sentence of life in prison.

An Example of a Serious Sentence for Criminal Negligence

No details have been provided about the June 2016 crash on Hwy 400, and it is unclear what the truck driver may have been doing to contribute to or cause the incident. It may, however, be instructive to discuss another instance of criminal negligence causing death to get an idea of potential consequences he may face.

Nicholas Piovesan made headlines in 2010 after the death of three Sudbury, Ontario teens in a drunk driving incident. Piovesan, who was driving home from a bar while intoxicated, ran into the teens on the side of the road, after which he continued to drive until he ran into a building further down the road. He was convicted of three counts of criminal negligence causing death and sentenced to seven years in prison. He also faced a 10 year driving ban upon his release. To date, this is one of the harshest sentences ever given in Canada for criminal negligence causing death. In handing down the sentence, Justice Nadeau stated that Piovesan had showed a “high level of disregard for public safety”.

Piovesan was released in May 2015, and is serving the remainder of his sentence in the community. The Parole Board imposed a number of conditions upon his release. Piovesan must now abstain from alcohol and must refrain from entering any establishment where alcohol is the primary source of revenue (this includes bars, taverns, as well as beer and liquor stores). The 10 year driving ban began on the day of his release.

While it is unclear whether alcohol was a factor in the June 2016 Hwy 400 crash, the above illustrates the serious consequences that may come with charges of criminal negligence.

If you have been charged with a driving offence, call Affleck Barrison at 905-404-1947 or contact us online. We offer a free consultation and are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Trust our experienced lawyers to handle your defence with diligence, strategy, and expertise.