R. v. MacDonald

R. v. MacDonald

Because Crown admitted the accused's need for curative treatment and, on balance of the Ashberry factors, the court found the accused demonstrated genuine motivation, sustained engagement with addiction services, availability of appropriate treatment, a favourable prognosis and a manageable risk to public safety, granting a curative discharge under s.255(5) was not contrary to the public interest. The court therefore exercised the s.255(5) discretion to avoid the mandatory minimum jail term and ordered a conditional discharge under s.730 with a three-year probation order imposing curative treatment conditions, a $100 victim surcharge payable within 12 months and a five-year driving...

Citation
2018 NSPC 72
Parties
Crown/prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused/defendant: Michael Mario MacDonald
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing (curative Discharge Application)
Outcome
Curative discharge granted under s.255(5); conditional discharge under s.730 with probation and conditions, avoiding mandatory imprisonment.
Legal Topics
Curative Discharge, Mandatory Minimum Sentence, Section 255(5) Discharge, Denunciation and General Deterrence, Probation Order, Driving Prohibition, Expert Opinion Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Impaired Driving Evidence Curative Discharge Mandatory Minimum Sentence Section 255(5) Discharge Denunciation and General Deterrence +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/prosecution

Michael Mario MacDonald

Accused/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing (curative Discharge Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a curative discharge under s.255(5) of the Criminal Code should be granted
  2. 2 Whether granting a curative discharge would be contrary to the public interest
  3. 3 Application of Ashberry criteria to a multiple impaired-driving offender

Ratio Decidendi

Because Crown admitted the accused's need for curative treatment and, on balance of the Ashberry factors, the court found the accused demonstrated genuine motivation, sustained engagement with addiction services, availability of appropriate treatment, a favourable prognosis and a manageable risk to public safety, granting a curative discharge under s.255(5) was not contrary to the public interest. The court therefore exercised the s.255(5) discretion to avoid the mandatory minimum jail term and ordered a conditional discharge under s.730 with a three-year probation order imposing curative treatment conditions, a $100 victim surcharge payable within 12 months and a five-year driving...

Court Disposition

Curative discharge granted under s.255(5); conditional discharge under s.730 with probation and conditions, avoiding mandatory imprisonment.

Orders

  • Curative discharge under s.730 directed pursuant to s.255(5) with a three-year probation order imposing curative treatment conditions beginning immediately (terms to be set out in the checklist)
  • Victim surcharge of $100 payable within 12 months