Driving ban is not a valid conviction for criminal negligence causing death, says the Supreme Court in Sask. case

A Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruling made this week in the case of a Saskatchewan man convicted of killing two people in a head-on collision says lower courts cannot impose driving bans for criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm .

The top court says the ruling was due to a legal quirk in the penal code caused by parliamentary changes aimed at simplifying the wording of the penal code.

People who are guilty of minor negligence offenses – such as dangerous driving of a motor vehicle causing death – can still be banned from driving, but not those who are guilty of criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm.

In a 5-4 decision released Friday morning, the SCC overturned the driving ban imposed on Braydon Wolfe, who was sentenced to six years in prison and a 10-year driving ban for killing two people in a highway crash near Langham, Sask ., in 2017.

Wolfe drove his half-ton truck in front of a limousine containing Mohammad Niazi, his wife Sangin and their daughter Zohal. The father and daughter died at the scene, while Sangin survived.

Wolfe was convicted at the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatoon of two counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of criminal negligence causing bodily harm. The sentence included two 10-year driving bans to be served concurrently and a seven-year driving ban.

Mohammad Niazi, 62, and daughter Zohal, 25, died in the crash. (Courtesy of the Niazi family)

In 2022, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld the prison sentence and driving ban, but Wolfe appealed the driving ban to the Supreme Court of Canada, which decided to hear the case based on national importance.

On Friday, the SCC ruled in favor of Wolfe and his Saskatoon attorney, Katherine Pocha of Little and Company.

“Criminal negligence offenses are not listed as offenses that can result in an arbitrary driving ban. They were previously listed but no longer are,” Justice Sheilah Martin wrote in the majority decision.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Mary Moreau wrote that “the majority’s interpretation … creates the absurd consequence that a driving suspension order can be imposed for a lesser offense but not for the major offense.”

The case is based on the statutory interpretation of the Criminal Code following Parliament’s amendment to the Criminal Code in 2018.

The offenses for which a driving ban could be imposed previously also included criminal negligence resulting in death or bodily harm. The new language in the 2018 amendments did not specifically include these offenses.

“So things got really dark,” Pocha said in an interview Friday afternoon.

“As the new provision reads, it was not simplified, it was not coherent, and that is not consistent with the idea that people need to be able to understand such things clearly.”

The ruling effectively bars judges from imposing driving bans for convictions of criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm until Parliament amends the criminal code.

Saskatoon criminal defense attorney Brian Pfefferle expects Parliament will quickly make changes to reinstate the sentencing option. He said it was an oversight by Parliament.

“In my view, this is obviously not part of the legislative intent. The appeal took advantage of an obvious legal error,” said Pfefferle.

“Parliament dropped the ball, to put it simply… But the Supreme Court of Canada was not prepared to pick up the ball that Parliament dropped.”

Brian Pfefferle, a criminal defense attorney from Saskatoon. (Travis Reddaway/CBC)

Pfefferle said the ruling has implications for cases across Canada as other people who have been banned from driving consider their own appeals.

“The [ruling] “This means that some of these people now have the opportunity to apply to have their driving license ban lifted,” said Pfefferle.

“There will be defense attorneys all over the country who will take calls from clients and say, ‘Yes, I have a criminal negligence case. I have received a driving ban and would like it reversed.’”