MELFORT — Saskatchewan’s highest court has upheld a $45,000 restitution order against a Melfort man who shot his friend with a shotgun, leaving the victim with a broken femur and extensive tissue damage.
Walker Karle had pleaded guilty to multiple charges including unlawfully causing bodily harm, assault, and firearm offences. The shooting happened on April 15, 2022, when Karle was in a vehicle with Randall Huntley. Both had been drinking when a shotgun Karle was holding went off, striking Huntley in the leg.
Court heard the injury was devastating. Huntley had a broken femur and significant muscle and tissue damage that continues to have “profound and long-lasting consequences.
Karle didn’t appeal his Conditional Sentence Order (CSO) of two-years-less-a-day, followed by probation. Instead, he fought the restitution order.
His lawyer, Brandi Rintoul, argued that the sentencing judge made several errors, including failing to properly consider Karle’s ability to pay, ordering restitution when the loss wasn’t “readily ascertainable,” and imposing a criminal sanction when civil remedies were available.
Crown prosecutor Anthony Gerein argued the restitution was appropriate given the clear documentation of Huntley’s losses.
The victim had provided the court with a detailed statement showing he missed 49 weeks of work at 40 hours per week, backed up by his T4 slip and a letter from his employer confirming his employment would have continued. He lost about $51,000 in income. He told the judge he had received only about $5,000 in EI sickness benefits.
Karle was given two years to pay the restitution.
In a unanimous March 10 written decision, Justices Jeffery D. Kalmakoff, Jerome A. Tholl and Keith D. Kilback of the Court of Appeal dismissed Karle’s appeal.
Justice Kalmakoff found the sentencing judge had properly considered Karle’s ability to pay. The sentencing judge relied on a pre-sentence report that showed Karle owned “three trucks, one car, one SUV and two motorcycles” with no debts.
The appeal court also rejected Karle’s lawyer’s argument that the loss wasn’t readily ascertainable, saying the victim had provided precise calculations and supporting documents, which his lawyer didn’t dispute at the sentencing hearing.
"Documentation that sets out the loss in an understandable and logical way so as to permit ready calculation can be sufficient, especially where, as here, it is not challenged,” wrote Kalmakoff.
The court also ruled that because the parties disagreed on restitution, this wasn’t a true “joint submission” on the sentence, meaning that the stricter test for the sentencing judge departing from joint recommendations didn’t apply.
If Karle doesn’t pay the restitution at the end of two years, Huntley can register the order as a civil judgement against him, said Kalmakoff.
