Operation with blood alcohol over the legal limit
R. v. Cummings
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
Marie Cummings pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit after a single-vehicle collision in Dartmouth in July 2019, with readings of 210 mg%. The Crown, proceeding summarily, sought a $2,500 fine and one year of probation; the defence sought a conditional discharge and argued under s. 12 of the Charter that the mandatory minimum fine barring a discharge was unconstitutional. Judge Whalen declined to grant a discharge and imposed a $2,500 fine, finding a discharge would not be in the public interest even if available.
In the judge's words
1In these circumstances even if a conditional discharge were available its imposition would not be in the public interest. Ms. Cummings has demonstrated that she has participated in treatment programming and need not be further supervised by the court.
The record
- Convicted of
- Operation with blood alcohol over the legal limit (CC 320.14(1)(b))
- Prior convictions
- 0 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- Discharge1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: Michelle MacDonald
Defence: Christine Cooper
Sources
- R. v. Cummings, 2021 NSPC 28 Court decision, CanLII, April 28, 2021
[21] In this instance, the Crown is seeking a fine be imposed of $2,500.00 to reflect the high readings and accident, and a one-year period of probation supervision with conditions.
[22] Defence counsel is requesting that the Defendant receive a conditional discharge with the provision for probation supervision, and conditions.
[2] … He observed a female driver identified as Marie Cummings sitting on the curb crying with her head between her knees.
[12] The Defendant does not have a criminal record.
[51] … In these circumstances even if a conditional discharge were available its imposition would not be in the public interest. Ms. Cummings has demonstrated that she has participated in treatment programming and need not be further supervised by the court.
[52] A fit and proper sentence in this case is the imposition of a fine in the amount of $2500.00. Time to pay, April 30, 2022. Waive the victim fine surcharge.
- R. v. Cummings, 2021 NSPC 28 Court decision, Courts of Nova Scotia