Tyler William Houle received a custodial sentence for offences arising from a dangerous flight from police, including assaulting a peace officer with a vehicle.
The court accepted the joint recommended sentences because they appropriately reflected denunciation and deterrence, accounted for aggravating factors (serious, life‑threatening violence and weapons), gave weight to the offender's criminal record, and balanced mitigating evidence including addiction, mental health issues and culturally informed rehabilitation prospects (IRCA); the totality principle supported the specific concurrent and consecutive structure producing a 9‑year aggregate, with an agreed 1.5:1 credit for 2 years 8 months remand reducing the go‑forward term to 6 years 4 months,…
The officers unlawfully entered the dwelling and made a warrantless arrest absent exigent circumstances under s.529.3; the conduct breached Charter ss.8 and 9, and because the breach was serious and no adequate alternative remedy existed a stay under s.24(1) was mandated for the s.270(2) assault charge; the unlawful arrest also vitiated the resisting arrest charge leading to acquittal, while the Crown proved assault on Zyderveld and breach of recognizance.
Sentencing for assault causing bodily harm to a peace officer ended in a suspended sentence with three years' probation, plus DNA, firearms, and surcharge orders.
The officer was lawfully engaged in the execution of his duties; his brief physical contact to keep distance and investigate was a reasonable and necessary exercise of police powers under the Waterfield framework; the accused intentionally pushed the officer's hand twice after a warning and therefore committed assault on a peace officer and breached recognizance conditions.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed Larry Harvey Green’s summary appeal and upheld convictions for resisting and assaulting a peace officer.
The court held that a common law power exists to arrest to prevent an apprehended breach of the peace; that the trial judge correctly applied the law and reasonably concluded the officers had objective reasonable grounds based on the accused’s extreme intoxication and their past dealings to believe an imminent and substantial risk existed; consequently the arrest was lawful and the subsequent spitting constituted assault; the appeal against convictions is dismissed.
Given the context of a live shooting investigation where police granted the accused access to the wounded victim, the accused deliberately told the victim not to speak to police with the purpose of thwarting police efforts; that willful encouragement met the elements of obstruction under s.129(a). The accused then pushed a sergeant and actively resisted when arrested; those acts satisfied assault on a peace officer and resisting arrest, warranting convictions on all counts.