A Port Hope man who was serving a eight-year sentence after a collision which killed a Port Hope woman was released from jail pending his appeal.
Jason Bickle was 41-years-old at the time of the collision and was driving a 1971 pickup with 23-year-old Serena Shaw in the passenger seat.
Bickle was driving on Sylvan Glen Road just east of Welcome on August 4, 2021. Shortly before 11 p.m. the pickup lost control and entered a ditch.
The night of the collision the pickup left the entrance to Sylvan Glen Road from an intersection and proceeded northbound. Tire mark evidence shows that it immediately lost traction due to spinning rear tires- drifted towards and slightly on the left shoulder – was corrected and drifted to the center of the road still proceeding without traction. For reasons to be determined the vehicle then exited the road into the westerly ditch. The truck rolled over coming to rest on its wheels.
Neither person in the pickup were wearing seatbelts.
The investigation determined the tire marks measured 135 meters.
Three days before the fatal collision, on August 1, 2021, Bickle who was in the company of Shaw drove his pickup truck into a controlled intersection in daylight and proceeded to drive the truck in a counterclockwise direction at such speed the vehicle’s rear tires spun and lost traction. Bickle continued to drive around in circles three times before leaving the intersection.
Minutes before the fatal collision Bickle also drove in a dangerous manner near the scene where Shaw was killed.
Bickle was found to have been impaired by alcohol at the time of the fatal collision.
Justice Halikowski who presided over the hearing said the tires on the pickup were bald and would have increased the risk of harm or death to himself or Shaw.
Bickle’s criminal record dates back to November 2001 when he was 21-years-old. He was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and was fined, receiving a driving suspension of one year.
Justice Halikowski said Bickle has a “extensive” Highway Traffic Act record spanning from 2001 to 2022.
Bickle was convicted on nine separate occasions for speeding.
Significantly he was convicted of speeding 30-49 kph over the limit in April 2006 and October 2008 as well as speeding 30 kph over the limit in 2007. Similar convictions occurred in May 2016 and January 2021 with convictions of speeding 29 kph and 20 kph over the limit.
He was also convicted of fail to have insurance card (three times), fail to producing driving documents (10 times) and more seriously operate motor vehicle without insurance (2001).
Justice Halikowski said in his findings that Bickle’s speeding record, “denotes an ongoing disregard for public safety.”
Bickle plead not guilty, but after a six day trial was found guilty on September 18, 2023 in a Oshawa Courtroom of Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle (from August 1, 2021/three days before the fatal collision), Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle Causing Death and Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle Causing Death
Bickle was sentenced on January 31, 2024 to eight-years in prison with eight-years concurrently and six- months concurrent, and a 18-year driving prohibition.
Today’s Northumberland received court documents of the appeal which was filed on March 1, 2024 in which Bickle states:
1. Appeals his conviction upon grounds involving a question of law; and
2. Applies for leave to appeal his conviction upon grounds involving a question of fact alone or a question of mixed law and fact, and if leave be granted hereby appeals against the conviction.
3. Applies for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed, and if leave be granted, hereby appeals against the said sentence.
The grounds of the appeal are:
1. It is respectfully submitted that the learned trial Judge erred in law in that in arriving at his findings of facts he misinterpreted certain crucial evidence and completely disregarded other aspects of the evidence.
2. It is respectfully submitted that in making his findings of fact and credibility the learned trial judge misinterpreted certain evidence; failed to consider the evidence of the
Appellant, his witnesses, and certain admissions made by the officers. It is accordingly respectfully submitted that the learned trial Judge did not properly direct himself on the issues. It is respectfully submitted that as his Reasons for Judgement show a lack of appreciation of some of the relevant evidence and a disregard of some of the evidence the Court should find the conviction is unsafe.
3. The learned trial Judge erred in finding that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol particularly where a good deal of the evidence was inconsistent with impairment. The learned trial Judge failed to properly consider the evidence which contradicted impairment. The learned trial Judge erred in not finding a reasonable doubt given the numerous inconsistencies among the officers and the civilian witness’ evidence. The
learned trial Judge failed to properly consider or consider the discrepancies between the officers, the civilian and the video evidence regarding the physical indicia of impairment or the lack thereof.
4. The learned trial Judge erred in finding that there was no appreciable difference in the two toxicology experts’ opinions. He erred in failing to properly consider that Dr. Joel Meyer opined that the accused would not necessarily be impaired at 60 milligrams per 100 millilitres.
5. The learned trial Judge erred in reaching his decision that impairment had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in that he reaches that conclusion he considered as indicium of impairment glossy red rimmed eyes and the odour of alcohol all of which are not indicia of impairment but merely indicia of consumption.
6. The learned trial Judge erred in rejecting the Applicant’s explanation for the bad driving that led up to the accident and in finding that all the accused had to do was push his passenger and thereby she would release her foot from the accelerator in that he failed to consider the evidence that her foot or shoe was wedged under the accelerator pedal and could not be dislodged. It is submitted that his explanations for his driving were reasonably true and should have raised a reasonable doubt.
7. In rejecting the accused evidence, he improperly made use of statements the accused made at the scene prior to having consulted with counsel (contrary to R. v. Milne (1996) O.J. No. 1728, R. v. Huff (2000) O.J. No. 3287, R. v. Boothby (2001) O.J. No. 5078).
The trial Judge further erred in rejecting the accused evidence because he had failed to give his explanation for his bad driving that he eventually gave in evidence at the trial at the time of the accident. In rejecting his evidence for that reason, the trial judge infringed the accused’s right to remain silent in that the accused had no obligation to give any explanation at the time (R. v. Rivera (2011) OJ No. 1233)
8. The trial judge erred in relying on the events of August 1, 2021, as similar fact evidence on the impaired causing death and dangerous causing death counts.
9. The sentence was harsh and excessive in the circumstances.
10. In imposing a sentence of eight years the trial Judge erred in that he failed to consider several factors which should have result in a shorter term of incarceration and that distinguished this case from some of the cases that the Court considered. The trial judge erred in failing to consider on sentencing the lower readings; the short duration of the bad driving; and the fact that the victim voluntarily entered the vehicle with the accused and would have been aware of any danger. By failing to consider these factors the trial judge erred in principle.
11. The trial judge erred in that he found it was an aggravating factor that the accused had taped the bad driving on August 1 and allowed the tape to be posted on the world wide web which might have the effect of encouraging others to drive in that manner. It was the passenger who taped the driving and posted it on the web.
12. The trial judge erred in putting too much emphasis on a very dated criminal record and a highway traffic act record which was also for the most part dated.
13. By not giving enough effect to the lengthy gap between his prior conviction the trial judge erred in finding that there was a need here for individual deterrence.
14. The trial judge erred in not giving any effect to the collateral consequences of the lengthy sentence to the accused’s children.
15. The trial judge erred in relying on several cases in which the facts were more egregious than those here, in that the readings were far higher; the consequences in the number of victims were greater.
16. Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit.
Counsel for Bickle stated in the appear that the appeal should be allowed quashing the convictions and enter acquittals on all three charges.
In the alternative an Order allowing the Appeal, quashing the convictions, and ordering a new trial.
And finally, in the further alternative, an Order substituting a shorter term of custody.
On December 9, 2024 before Justice J.A. Coroza for the Court of Appeal of Ontario both the Crown and lawyer’s for Bickle agreed the appeal or application for leave to appeal is not frivolous; Bickle will surrender himself into custody in accordance with the terms of the order; and his detention is not necessary in the public interest.
Coroza stated, “In determining whether detention is necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, the relevant factors are: (1) the gravity of the offence; (2) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence; (3) the potential for a lengthy term of imprisonment; and (4) the strength of the appeal.
During the hearing, the parties properly focused on the strength of the applicant’s appeal.
The strength of the appeal is relevant in determining whether the applicant’s interest in having their conviction and/or sentence reviewed outweighs the public interest in enforcing the existing judgment. There is no question that the public interest in enforcing the applicant’s conviction and sentence is high in this case given the seriousness of the offences. Those who drive while impaired or in a dangerous manner essentially weaponize their vehicles through their actions. They pose a significant risk to society.”
Coroza said that the “thrust of the appeal is that the trial judge erred in finding that the only reasonable inference was that the appellant was impaired at the time of the accident, and that the accident would not have happened but for the appellant’s impaired state.”
“Counsel for the applicant submits that the sentence will be appealed on the grounds that a sentence of eight years was excessive and that the trial judge erred in failing to consider several factors which could have resulted in a lower sentence. For example, the trial judge erred in failing to consider the lower readings of blood alcohol content; the short duration of the bad driving; and the fact that the victim voluntarily entered the vehicle with the applicant and would have been aware of any danger. The applicant argues that the failure to consider these factors was an error in principle.“
The Crown at the appeal hearing agreed that the reasoning of the trial judge in finding that the applicant was impaired should be reviewed.
Coroza said that he viewed the case as a “close call,” but “after hearing from both parties, that the applicant’s detention is not necessary in the public interest. Again, the fact that the Crown submits that some of the grounds of appeal clearly surpass the not frivolous threshold is an important consideration.”
Blake Bickle and Megan Behan are acting as sureties for Jason Bickle who was an inmate at Warkworth Institution.
Blake Bickle posted a $500,000 (no deposit) to act as surety.
Megan Behan posted a $100,000 (no deposit) to act as surety.
Conditions of the release are that Bickle must reside with Behan at her residence in rural Port Hope.
Conditions also state that Bickle must remain on the property of your residence at all times EXCEPT
i for medical emergencies involving you or a member of your immediate family (spouse, child, parent, sibling)
il except when in the direct company of Blake Bickle or Megan Behan
iii except while working on the property of Bickle Farms
iv except when in the direct company of an employee of Bickle Farms for the purpose of traveling directly from Behan’s residence to Bickle Farms
v except when in the direct company of an employee of Bickle Farms for the purposes of traveling directly from Bickle Farms to Behan’s residence.
Bickle must not contact or communicate in any way either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with the following: Steve Shaw and Dawn Shaw
Bickle must not be within 250 meters of any place where-you know Steve Shaw and Dawn Shaw
to live, work, go to school, frequent or any place you know the person(s) to be, except for required court attendances
Bickle must not possess any weapon(s) as defined by the Criminal Code (for example, but not restricted to, a pellet gun, firearm, imitation firearm, cross-bow, prohibited or restricted weapon or device, ammunition or explosive substance or anything designed to be used or intended for use to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person)
Bickle must not apply for any authorization, licence or registration certificate for any weapon as
defined by the Criminal Code
Bickle must not operate or have care or control of a conveyance.
Bickle must surrender himself into custody at Warkworth Institution, or such other institution as may be specified in the order, by 7:00 a.m. on the day of the hearing of the appeal or by 7:00 a.m. on the 2″ day of March, 2025, whichever is earlier.
Bickle was released from Warkworth Institution on December 12, 2024 and his first court appearance seeking appeal is March 2, 2024.
(Written by: Pete Fisher, Today’s Northumberland)