R. v. Hamilton

R. v. Hamilton

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the evidence heard (including testimony of an addictions counsellor, Pre-Sentence Report and supporting letters) constituted sufficient "medical or other evidence" under s.255(5); that Mr. Hamilton is in need of curative treatment; and that granting a conditional curative treatment discharge would not be contrary to the public interest; accordingly the court granted a 30-month curative treatment discharge with specified probationary conditions, a 24-month driving prohibition and a $100 victim surcharge.

Citation
2018 NSPC 18
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Michael Hamilton
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving (s.253(1)(b)) / Application for Curative Discharge and Sentencing Decision
Outcome
Curative treatment discharge granted under s.255(5) and s.730 for a period of thirty months conditional on probationary terms; driving prohibition imposed for twenty-four months under s.259; victim surcharge of $100 payable by June 4, 2019.
Legal Topics
Curative Discharge, Section 255(5) Criminal Code, Conditional Discharge, Probation Conditions, Driving Prohibition, Expert Evidence, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Impaired Driving Addiction Treatment Curative Discharge Section 255(5) Criminal Code Conditional Discharge Probation Conditions +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Michael Hamilton

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving (s.253(1)(b)) / Application for Curative Discharge and Sentencing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused is a person in need of curative treatment for alcohol consumption
  2. 2 Whether the requirement to have "medical or other evidence" under s.255(5) was met
  3. 3 Whether granting a curative discharge would be contrary to the public interest

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the evidence heard (including testimony of an addictions counsellor, Pre-Sentence Report and supporting letters) constituted sufficient "medical or other evidence" under s.255(5); that Mr. Hamilton is in need of curative treatment; and that granting a conditional curative treatment discharge would not be contrary to the public interest; accordingly the court granted a 30-month curative treatment discharge with specified probationary conditions, a 24-month driving prohibition and a $100 victim surcharge.

Court Disposition

Curative treatment discharge granted under s.255(5) and s.730 for a period of thirty months conditional on probationary terms; driving prohibition imposed for twenty-four months under s.259; victim surcharge of $100 payable by June 4, 2019.

Orders

  • Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
  • Appear before the court as required and notify probation officer of any change of name, address, employment or occupation.