Citation: ☼ R. v.

Hoelzley
2023 BCPC 181
Date: ☼20230802
File No: 43835-1
Registry: Courtenay

2023 BCPC 181 (CanLII)

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

REX

v.

CHRISTOPER STEPHEN DAVID HOELZLEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE J. HERMANSON

Counsel for the Crown: M. Crisp

Counsel for the Defendant: R. Yeo
Place of Hearing: Courtenay, B.C.
Date of Hearing: July 5, 2023
Date of Judgment: August 2, 2023
R. v. Hoelzley Page 1

Introduction

[1] Christopher Hoelzley comes before me for sentencing after entering a guilty plea
to one count of driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention under Section 144
(1) (a) of the Motor Vehicle Act.

2023 BCPC 181 (CanLII)

[2] In brief, the inadvertence that led to the charge and the guilty plea was fleeting
but the result devastating and long lasting. As a result of Mr. Hoelzley crossing a double
yellow line, Melissa Stathers was killed and parents, siblings, family, students and the
extended community lost a loved one. No words can adequately capture what has
transpired. Tragedy is an understatement.

[3] The Crown and Defence propose a sentence of a $1,200 fine plus a 15 % victim
fine surcharge for a total of $1,380. In addition, they jointly propose 25 hours of
community service work that is to be monitored by a probation order under the Offence
Act and what was originally an 11 month driving prohibition that I now calculate to be a
10 month driving prohibition.

The Circumstances of the Offence

[4] As highlighted by the Crown, the circumstances are as simple as they are tragic.
Mr. Hoelzley was returning from Campbell River where he had been attending school. It
was after 4 in the afternoon. He was travelling by himself south bound on highway 19A,
locally referred to as the old island highway. Ms. Stathers was travelling north bound,
also the sole occupant of her vehicle.

[5] When the vehicle driven by Mr. Hoelzley entered a slight corner, inexplicably Mr.
Hoelzley’s car crossed the double yellow line and struck Ms. Stathers’ vehicle.

[6] I say inexplicably as Mr. Hoelzley is unable to provide any explanation for his
moment of inattention. There is no suggestion of intoxication, excessive speed or
aggressive driving on his part. There is no suggestion that weather or road conditions
played a role. Mr. Hoelzley is left to speculate as to what transpired but he is unable to
provide any answers.
R. v. Hoelzley Page 2

[7] What is clear is the devastation that followed. Mr. Hoelzley struck Ms. Stathers’
car causing both cars to spiral and crash. Mr. Hoelzley would walk away with minor
injuries. Ms. Stathers died at the scene.

[8] Turning then to the impact of Ms. Stathers’ death.

2023 BCPC 181 (CanLII)

[9] Ms. Stathers was a 29 year old fiancé, daughter, sister, niece, cousin, friend,
teacher, coach, colleague, mentor and so much more. The Court has been provided
victim impacts from students, colleagues, friends, cousins, aunts, uncles and her mother
and father. They, in eloquent and moving terms, describe heartbreaking loss.

[10] They also speak of a remarkable individual, integral to her extended family, who
served her community and mentored young female athletes. I will do my best to try to
capture the victim impact contents. Please know I have read the victim impact
statements multiple times.

[11] Six previous student athletes provided a description of the positive impact Ms.
Stathers made in their lives. Two of these young women were able to address the
Court, a testament to their strength. These young women continue to struggle, all
knowing that their coach and friend would want to see them excel, to live full lives but at
the same time impacted daily by a loss they still cannot comprehend.

[12] Through her previous colleagues and her father, also an educator, a picture was
painted of a dedicated teacher and coach. She was loved by staff and students alike.

[13] Ms. Stathers had a large extended family. All of the victim impacts prepared by
family members speak of what could have been. As Ms. Stathers’ mother wrote “when I
think about what we all have lost, Melissa lost so much more.”

[14] Her immediate family was made up of her brothers Jordan and Geoff, her father
Dave and her mother Carol. Ms. Stathers’ father spoke of how difficult it is for him to use
the past tense when referring to his beloved daughter. The past tense is hard to
comprehend when it comes to someone so young, vital and full of promise and dreams.
Ms. Stathers was only months away from her own marriage. A common thread through
R. v. Hoelzley Page 3

the victim impact statements is the difficulty of living with the fact that the plans and
hopes of Melissa Stathers will never be realized.

[15] Her immediate family and extended family speak of an incredible hole in their
lives. A hole where Melissa Stathers should be. They speak of the impact of the loss felt

2023 BCPC 181 (CanLII)

most acutely at family gatherings. Where previously they would be celebrating now they
continue to grieve.

[16] While Ms. Stathers is referred to in the past tense, their extraordinary pain is
spoken in the present and future tense.

[17] What is also spoken of in the present and future tense is the impact that Ms.
Stathers had on her family and in her extended community. What is spoken of in the
present and future tense is the overwhelming love her family and friends have and will
continue to hold for Ms. Stathers.

[18] The sentence that I impose today will not address the profound loss and the lives
that have been changed forever as a result of Mr. Hoelzley’s lack of attention or
momentary inattention. The law is not equipped or designed to address the exceptional
loss and corresponding emotional pain. Indeed nothing can address that loss. We
cannot make Melissa Stathers loved ones whole.

[19] I must now turn to the circumstances of Christopher Hoelzley

[20] Mr. Hoelzley is a 21 year old man attending school at North Island College with
the ambition to be a red seal pipefitter. He does not have a criminal record. In fact, I am
told, that he does not have a motor vehicle record. There is no criminality in his
background. There is no suggestion that he was or is an aggressive or indifferent driver.

[21] Mr. Hoelzley is described as an introverted individual who suffers from social
anxiety. He lives with his parents and spends his time reading and playing chess online.
I am told, that he has been looking for an apprentiship but with the expected loss of a
driver’s license, his opportunities have been limited.
R. v. Hoelzley Page 4

[22] I am told through counsel, that it has always been Mr. Hoelzley’s intention to
enter a guilty plea. The early guilty plea and his remorse are mitigating. Ms. Stathers’
death is something he will carry for the remainder of his life.

Analysis

2023 BCPC 181 (CanLII)

[23] As set out by the Honourable Judge Sutherland in R. v. Sidhu, 2023 BCPC 77
the overriding sentencing consideration is to contribute to respect for the law and the
protection of society and the community. I find that Mr. Hoelzley does not pose a risk to
the public. He has no criminal record and more telling he does not have a driving
record. From submissions of counsel, I accept by nature he is risk adverse and his
guilty plea was based on his momentary inadvertence. There was no intentional act. Mr.
Hoelzley is being sentenced for his momentary absence of thought. There was no
intentional risk taking.

[24] There are no aggravating factors attributable to the decisions or actions Mr.
Hoelzley took on May 11, 2022. As noted, neither speed nor intoxicants were involved.
This was a moment of inattention that resulted in a failure to negotiate a slight turn. The
consequences were horrific but the consequences are not a factor in determining his
moral blameworthiness.

[25] The tragic consequence is however the major aggravating factor on sentence.
Ms. Stathers’ death is a staggering consequence that can never be properly addressed
by the sentence I impose.

[26] The mitigating factors include the lack of both a criminal record and a driving
record. Mr. Hoelzley’s extremely early guilty plea is also a mitigating factor.

[27] While sentencing is always an individualized process, when imposing a fit

sentence one of the main considerations is parity. The Criminal Code in Section 718.2
(b) sets out parity as follows:

A sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders

for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.
R. v. Hoelzley Page 5

[28] The Honourable Judge Harris in the case of R. v. Campbell, 2019 BCPC 11
reviewed a significant number of sentencing cases for driving without due care and
attention under the Motor Vehicle Act where death resulted from momentary
inadvertence. I repeat here the synopsis created by the Judge Harris in regard to the

2023 BCPC 181 (CanLII)

cases that factually are most similar to the case at hand.

In R. v. Cameron 2004 BCPC 500 (CanLII), 2004 BCPC 0500, the

offender was sentenced for driving without due care and attention. The
sentence imposed was a $1,200 fine and the issue of a driving prohibition
was left to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. The circumstances of the
case are; the offender was driving at night and she rear-ended a
motorcycle killing the rider. The offender was 43, a school teacher, and
she had two children. She did not have a criminal record, nor, did she
have a driving record. The sentencing judge recognized that deterrence
was an important sentencing principle and he also recognized that the
driving and the offender’s moral blameworthiness was at the low end of
the spectrum.
In R. v. Kowalewich 2005 BCPC 634 (CanLII), 2005 BCPC 0634, it
appears that the offender was convicted after trial for a motor vehicle
offence involving an accident. The accident occurred when the offender
turned in front of an oncoming cyclist. A collision occurred and the cyclist
was killed. The offender was 67 years old. He had one entry on his
driver’s abstract. The sentence imposed was a $1,500 fine and a six
month driving prohibition. At paragraph 10 of the sentencing decision, the
judge placed emphasis on too many instances of motorists failing to look
out for cyclists. He also noticed that the offender did not appreciate what
he could have done to avoid the accident.
In R. v. Chisholm 2009 BCPC 23 (CanLII), 2009 BCPC 0023, the offender
was sentenced to a fine of $1,300 after he was convicted at trial of driving
without due care and attention. In this case, the offender momentarily took
his eyes off the road to adjust his stereo or air conditioner and when he
looked up he saw that the car in front of him had stopped. The offender
was unable to stop and he collided with the car in front of him. The
collision caused a fire, killing the driver and injuring the passenger. The
offender was in his early twenties, working part-time and attending
college. In imposing sentence, the judge recognized the driving was a
momentary inadvertence and, thus, less blameworthy.
In R. v. Lineker 2013 BCPC 353 (CanLII), 2013 BCPC 0353, the offender
pleaded guilty to driving without due care and attention. The plea occurred
mid-trial on related criminal driving charges. The offender was sentenced
to a $2,000 fine and an 18 month driving prohibition. In this case, the
offender rear-ended another vehicle causing it to enter into an intersection
where it collided with a third vehicle. Two people were killed and one
R. v. Hoelzley Page 6

seriously injured. The offender was 36 years of age. He had a dated

criminal record for drug possession and his driving abstract showed 14
driving infractions with his last offence being 4 years prior to sentencing. In
considering the matter, the sentencing judge highlighted the need for
denunciation and deterrence and he found the offender’s driving history
aggravating.

2023 BCPC 181 (CanLII)

In R. v. Ward 2017 BCPC 40, the offender was convicted of driving
without due care and attention and she was sentenced to a $1,400 fine. In
this case, the offender entered an intersection heading east with the
intention of turning left. In the process of making her turn, she failed to see
a motorcyclist traveling from her left. A collision occurred and the
motorcyclist was killed.
In R. v. Gordon 2017 BCPC 56, the offender pleaded guilty to driving
without due care and attention and a $1,200 fine was imposed. In this
case, the offender stopped her vehicle in an area known for significant
pedestrian traffic. The offender was exiting her vehicle and in doing so she
failed to set the brake or place her vehicle in “park”. When the vehicle
started to roll, the offender accidently stepped on the accelerator, rather
than the brake. This caused the vehicle to race in reverse striking and
killing a pedestrian. The offender was a single, 56 years old and living with
her daughter.

[29] From the above cases, I find that the sentence proposed of a $1,200 fine, 25
Community Work Service hours and a driving prohibition is similar to sentences
imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances. The sentence captures the moral
blameworthiness associated to inadvertence as well as addressing deterrence.

[30] The sentence that I impose does not reflect the harm caused or reflect in anyway
the value of Ms. Stathers’ life or the indescribable suffering Ms. Stathers family and
friends have had to endure and will continue to endure.

[31] Mr. Hoelzley please stand.

[32] What I am required to do is balance the considerations I have outlined, consider

your moral blameworthiness for an event that you did not intend, that can not be
attributable to intentional risk taking on your part, to fashion a sentence similar to
sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar
circumstances.
R. v. Hoelzley Page 7

[33] I find that the joint position is a fit and proportionate sentence and I sentence you
to a fine of $1,200. In addition, there will be a 12 month probation order under the
Offence Act and a 10 month driving prohibition.

[34] The terms of the probation order are the mandatory conditions of:

2023 BCPC 181 (CanLII)

a) keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
b) appear before the court when required to do so;
c) notify the probation officer;
i. in advance of any change in the defendant’s name or address, and
ii. promptly of any change in the defendant’s employment or
occupation.

[35] In addition, I impose the following conditions:

d) you must report in person to a probation officer at 420 Cumberland Road,

Courtenay, BC, by 3 pm today August 2nd and after that, you must report as
directed by your probation order;
e) your reporting ends when you have satisfied your probation officer that you have
completed all your community service work and your probation officer has told
you that you are no longer required to report; and
f) you must complete 25 hours of community work under the direction of your
probation officer. Your community service work must be completed by Dec 31,
2024.

[36] There will be a driving prohibition of 10 months pursuant to s. 98 of the Motor

Vehicle Act.

[37] There will be a victim fine surcharge.

________________________________
The Honourable Judge J. Hermanson