Driver who killed toddler in patio crash 'relieved' by Supreme Court appeal

The Edmonton man who crashed his SUV into a patio in 2013, killing a two-year-old boy, has told his lawyer he "feels somewhat relieved" the Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal his sentence.

Defence lawyerDinoBottossaid Richard Sutercalled him Thursday afternoon from jail.

"He feels good about it, but he's being cautious,"Bottossaid. "The way he was treated over these last few years, and then how he was treated by the Court of Appeal left him with a feeling of distrust.

• Latest: Supreme Court rules Suter won't return to jail, citing vigilante justice, bad legal advice

"He knows he's not out of the woods. He knows this is just leave to argue the case."

The court has tentatively set Oct. 10as the date it will hear the case.

Suter was initially sentenced to fourmonths in jail and handed a 30-month driving prohibition for failing to provide a breath sample after the crash that killed toddler Geo Mounsef.

The Crown appealed that sentence to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which handed Suter a new term of 26 months' incarceration. His driving ban remained unchanged.

Theapplication to have the case heard by the Supreme Courtargues that Suter'ssentence should be returned to the original four months.

It's possible Sutercouldbe released on bail while the case winds through the Supreme Court process.

"He's going to think about when he would like me to apply for bail and we'll discuss that in the coming days," Bottos said.

Rarely heard

Bottosnoted that sentence appeals are rarely heard by the Supreme Court.

"I am so pleased with this development.

"Finally, we'regoing to have the top court in the country hear thisandprobablymake new law.

"For them to take our case on means that they must have seen a real problem with the Court of Appeal's decision. So I'm optimistic, but cautiously optimistic."

University of Alberta law professor Steven Penney agrees it's rare for the country's top court to hear a sentence appeal.

"It is fairly rare for the Court to deal with sentencing issues and it's always a bit of a crapshoot to get leave to appeal really in any case.

"So when you combine those two things ... certainly the odds were against the defence in this application."

'Easy to feel sorry for myself'

The Supreme Court's decision took Sage Morin by surprise. The victim's mother heardthe news Thursday morning the case would go through another legal battle.

"As Richard Suter continues to drag on this legal battle, it's easy to feel sorry for myself," Morin said in a written statement."As he appeals his 26-month sentence I can't help but wish there was an appeal process for my life sentence."

Morin saidshe prays Suter will "understand the aftermath of his actions, to understand the pain and hurt he continues to cause."

She takes some solace in that the country's highest court will hear her son's story "and they will remember his name," she said.

On May 19, 2013, Suter drove his SUV into the patio at the former Ric's Grill near Rabbit Hill Road and 23rd Avenue in the Terwillegar area.

Mounsef, who was having dinner with his parents and baby brother, died when the vehicle pinned him against a wall.

While arguing with his spouse, Suterhad inadvertently pressed hard on the gas pedal, thinking it was the brake. Hedrove his car into the patio.

• Sutersentenced to 4 months in patio death of toddler
• Crown appeals RichardSuter's'unfit' jail sentence

When he was taken into police custody, he received bad legal advice from a lawyer who essentially advised him not to provide a breath sample.

That lawyer later testified he didn't know the Criminal Code had been changed to make the penalty for refusal the same as an impaired driving conviction.

'1 out of 10,000'

The trial judge foundthe 65-year-old retiredbusinessman was not impaired at the time of the crash.

At the time of sentencing, Bottos called the case "one out of 10,000" because of bad legal advice his client received from another lawyer. He described thethree-year sentence as "dramatically harsh" and"inherently unfair."

"I'll be asking for the Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeal's decision, because they raised the sentence from four months to 26 months and they did so, in my opinion, respectfully, by committing several errors of law," Bottossaid Thursday in an interview with CBC News.

"They presumed that Mr. Suter was being strategic in his decision in his choice to not provide a breath sample, when the initial sentencing judge found that Suter was misled by his lawyer and made an honest mistake."

Penney said it typically takes six months to a year for the Supreme Court to hand down a decision.