A St. Albert man who was convicted of impaired driving causing the death of an Edmonton teen in a lit crosswalk was denied parole a second time in February.
On Feb. 18, the Parole Board of Canada denied Shane Stevenson, 51, of St. Albert, both day parole and full parole, according to documents from the board's registry of decisions.
Stevenson appeared by video from Grierson Institution before the board after successfully appealing a decision to deny him parole in June of 2021.
Stevenson is serving a three-and-a-half-year sentence for impaired driving causing death. He pleaded guilty in October 2020.
On April 15, 2018, 16-year-old Chloe Wiwchar was crossing an Edmonton street at a crosswalk with flashing amber lights. Stevenson struck Wiwchar at an estimated speed of 69 km/h to 83 km/h in a 60 km/h zone and fled the scene. Wiwchar died in hospital a short time later.
An off-duty police officer was stopped at the crosswalk to allow Wiwchar to cross and noted Stevenson made no effort to stop for the victim, court documents state.
The officer then followed Stevenson and contacted 911, court documents state.
Stevenson was found parked in a parking-lot stall sitting in the driver's seat with the vehicle running. The vehicle had a significant amount of front-end damage. Police detected a heavy odour of liquor from his breath.
Stevenson allowed officers to take two samples of his breath. The first sample detected 170 mg and the second sample detected 180 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood. The legal limit in Canada under the Criminal Code is 80 mg in 100 mL of blood.
Correctional Service Canada reported Stevenson as a low-risk offender and recommended the parole board grant him day parole, and then full parole following a six-month period of day parole to a community residential facility.
Court documents state in the opinion of the two-member parole board panel, Amy Agar and Ricky Head, Stevenson would present an “undue risk to society” if released on either day or full parole.
“You disclosed a highly frequent habit of impaired driving, including driving multiple times while “blacked out,” where you have put society at risk of harm for a period of many years, since you reported only being sober for three distinct (and mostly short) periods since being a young adult up to your index offence.
“Therefore, the board puts little weight on the low risk to re-offend scores,” court documents read.
Stevenson had no prior convictions; however, he had incurred charges for driving while ability impaired and failure or refusal to provide a sample. Both charges occurred in 2009 and were withdrawn in 2011. Stevenson also received a roadside suspension in January 2017.
Court documents state the board asked Stevenson directly how many times he had driven impaired outside of the three occasions he was caught.
Stevenson told the board he drove impaired frequently. More times than he would take a taxi.
When asked how often in a one-year period, Stevenson replied, “at least 20 times.” Stevenson also said he drove blacked out at least five to 10 times that he can remember.
“You advised the board that you would drive impaired because you believed that if you came home in a taxi, your family would find out that you had returned to alcohol use — essentially hiding your problematic behaviour from those trying to help you,” court documents said.
The court documents state the board identified that struggling with an addiction is not in itself illegal, the issue for Stevenson was that he would drive while impaired.
“You agreed, noting that you held an attitude where you believed the rules/laws did not apply to you nor prevent your ongoing criminal conduct,” said the court documents.
The court documents state there were several mitigating factors that were considered by the board, including voluntary interventions such as psychological and spiritual resources. A release plan from Stevenson includes documented supports, confirmed employment, ongoing utilization of the AA program, and further counselling.
“Significant to the board is that you have very good insight into your addiction issues and the corresponding emotions and behaviours that increase your risk to use alcohol. This is noted as positive progress and will assist you in your reintegration,” the court documents state.
The board considered positive institutional behaviour a neutral factor, as good behaviour is expected from all offenders serving a federal sentence.
Protective factors were also noted, including many individuals who supported Stevenson, pro-social skills, significant education, and employment experience.
“Your own submissions show the board that you are motivated to change your life and include a detailed plan you developed to assist in maintaining your sobriety in the community,” said the court documents.
“However, the supports and plans you have presented to the board are nearly identical to what was provided to you since 2015, and still did not deter your behaviour, which escalated to taking the victim's life,” the document continued.
The document states that despite significant plans, supports, interventions, and previous charges, Stevenson continued to hide from supports until the index offence forced confrontation with the extent of his issues.
“Further, the board does not lose sight of the nature and gravity of your offending. You chose to drink and drive, struck a young woman, and left her to die while you fled the scene …Your actions have traumatized a number of people. This is considered a highly aggravating factor in your case,” the court document read.
The documents continued, the extent of Stevenson’s criminal conduct is much greater than captured by file reports and the board found that he still lacks the insight into the most important part of his criminal behaviour.
“The board concurs with the [Correctional Service Canada] that your alcoholism is a contributing risk factor; however, your attitude towards the law is what led you to cause the death of the victim, and this was not identified in the assessment of your risk or in the development of your offence cycle.
“Your ingrained and long-term pattern of impaired driving was not captured in file information prior to your hearing. You could not verbalize why you were a repeat impaired driver, despite other consequences in your life, and other than attempting to hide your behaviour from those trying to help you,” the court document said.
The documents noted the two dynamic risk domains, which are substance abuse and personal emotional, are still rated as requiring a moderate need for improvement, “which has not been reassessed since intake,” the documents state.
The board also found there would be significant stressors for Stevenson upon his release, including an end to his marriage, a new relationship, being part owner of a company, a civil litigation case, and family court matters, in addition to parole responsibilities, and maintaining all treatment appointments and these presented a concern to the board, “especially when multiple life stressors were identified as contributing factors in your index offence, which met the criteria for serious harm,” the document said.
In the documents, the board said the aggravating factors are not outweighed by positive factors, which “led the board to conclude that your risk is likely much higher than the rating of low.”
“All factors considered, the board concludes that your risk is undue on day parole or full parole release. Day and full parole are denied.”
