Nunavut men guilty of impaired driving receive one-year prohibitions

If you are found guilty of impaired driving in Nunavut, be prepared for restrictions on your right to drive.

A Nunavut man who works as a haul-truck driver at a mine site, Christopher Shamee of Arviat, who pleaded guilty to impaired driving earlier this year, lost his right to drive for one year, even though the driving prohibition will likely prevent him from continuing that job.

And another Nunavut man, Ruben Pameolik of Arviat, who pleaded guilty to a charge of impaired driving causing bodily harm, will only be able to drive snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles or boats and only for the purpose of hunting.

In these two unrelated cases, Nunavut Justice Sue Cooper interpreted what the Criminal Code says about the penalties for impaired driving, which, in the case of impaired driving causing bodily harm, do not include a mandatory driving prohibition.

“The law on driving prohibitions in relation to impaired driving is curious,” Cooper noted in one of the judgments. “If a person is convicted of impaired driving … there is a mandatory driving prohibition of a minimum of one year. If a person is convicted of impaired driving causing bodily harm, the imposition of a driving prohibition is discretionary.”

Shamee pleaded guilty to a charge of impaired driving, which has a mandatory minimum fine of $1,000 and a mandatory one-year driving prohibition.

Lawyers said they were in agreement that the sentence imposed on Shamee should be the mandatory minimum and not something greater.

“The issue relates to the terms of the one-year driving prohibition,” said Cooper’s judgment, dated Jan. 23 and circulated to media last week.

Shamee’s lawyers argued that a driving prohibition would hurt their client’s ability to continue his work.

They requested that the driving prohibition be restricted to “cars and trucks” because such a driving prohibition would permit Shamee to continue working as a haul-truck driver.

Lawyers suggested the driving prohibition relates to the “type of conveyance in question” and permits the court to restrict this driving prohibition to classes or types of vehicles within one of the four categories set out in the Criminal Code.

“For example, if an offender was operating a truck at the time of the offence, the driving prohibition could be restricted to only cars and trucks, thereby permitting him to continue operating snowmobiles and ATVs,” they said.

But Cooper did not agree with their argument.

“Shamee is found guilty of the charge of impaired driving. He will pay a fine of $1,000. He will have six months within which to pay the fine,” Cooper  said in her verdict.

Because Shamee’s future employment situation is not certain, she waived the victim of crime surcharge “for reasons of hardship.”

And Shamee won’t be able to drive any type of vehicle for one year.

In the other case, Pameolik pleaded guilty to a charge of impaired driving causing bodily harm.

Pameolik was intoxicated and was driving an ATV with his girlfriend on the back as a passenger.

“It seems there was some tension or disagreement between them. As they were driving they came upon the sister of the girlfriend walking along the road with a few other people. They stopped to talk with them. The girlfriend agreed that she would go with her sister and got off the ATV. She joined the group on the side of the road,” Cooper’s judgment said.

“Pameolik continued on his way on the ATV. He then turned around and drove back in the direction towards the group. He was driving at approximately 15 km/hour. As he got close to the group, his girlfriend’s sister came out from behind the group, in front of the ATV. She was hit by the ATV and her leg was broken.”

Lawyers for the Crown and the defence put forward a joint position on a sentence that included a $1,000 fine and a period of probation with 40 hours of community service work.

They requested that a driving prohibition not be imposed.

During the sentencing hearing Cooper expressed concern about the lack of a driving prohibition.

“I accept that Mr. Pameolik did not intend to hit the victim,” she said in the judgment.

“I accept that she unexpectedly stepped out from behind a group of people on the side of the road and Mr. Pameolik was unable to avoid her. I do note, however, that he has pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm.”

She told the lawyers she that she was still concerned about imposing a sentence that did not include a driving prohibition.

So the lawyers discussed the matter and then jointly requested an increase in the number of community service work hours from 40 hours to 100 hours.

Lawyers were still in agreement that an overall driving prohibition should not be imposed.

Cooper said Pameolik would, among other conditions, be obliged to pay a fine of $1,000 within six months, perform 100 hours of community service work under the direction of a probation officer, “abstain absolutely from the possession or consumption of alcohol” and “not drive any motor vehicle except for snowmobiles, ATVs, or boats and only for the purpose of hunting.”

R v Shamee, 2020 NUCJ 9 by NunatsiaqNews on Scribd

R v Pameolik, 2020 NUCJ 10 by NunatsiaqNews on Scribd