A life lost and a life destroyed

When drunk driving causing death involves a friend

by Nicholas Köhler and Michael Friscolanti with Stephanie Findlay on Friday, January 7, 2011 9:00am - 81 Comments
A life lost and a life destroyed

Brian Tobin and wife Jodean leave court in Ottawa with son Jack, who is charged with impaired driving causing death | Pawel Dwulit/CP

Adam Rabolt and Darren McMullin were both 25-year-old labourers from small-town Shelburne, Ont., and had been best friends since the third grade. On the night of June 15, 2007, Rabolt, who had had a few beers that day while playing in a local golf tournament, was roused from a nap by McMullin, who had also been drinking and who persuaded his buddy to go out on the town. The two friends climbed into Rabolt’s Ford Focus and headed for a strip club about an hour and a half away in Vaughan, just north of Toronto. Some hours later, while driving home on Highway 400, Rabolt’s Ford left the road, travelled across a grassy shoulder and slammed into a grove of trees. Rabolt walked away; McMullin, who was not wearing a seat belt, died at the scene.

When police administered a breath test, Rabolt blew over twice the legal limit. He was later convicted of impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death and operation of a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg. In considering an appropriate sentence, Justice Cary Boswell faced a myriad of options. There is no mandatory punishment for fatal drunk driving cases, and sentences have ranged anywhere from a few months of house arrest to life behind bars. The Crown sought at least three years in prison, while Rabolt’s lawyer asked for a conditional sentence: two years less a day, to be served in the community.

Yet there was a complicating factor. Instead of siding with prosecutors, McMullin’s mother and two sisters asked for leniency. Rabolt “is like a son and brother to them,” Boswell later wrote in his reasons for sentencing. “They want and need his presence with them at this difficult time in their lives. They say they cannot suffer through the loss of another family member, should he be sentenced to a period of incarceration. They have forgiven him.”

So close was Rabolt to the McMullin family that he grew up calling McMullin’s mother Brenda “mum.” When Brenda attempted to post bail for Rabolt, the Crown prosecutor moved to prevent it—something she resents to this day. “Because I wasn’t willing to crucify this kid, he didn’t want to give me the time of day,” she says of the Crown. “If I would have wanted to put Adam in a noose, he would have been my best friend.” When Rabolt did make bail, he walked into a crowd filled with members of his family and McMullin’s. Rabolt went directly to Brenda and fell into her arms. “When it all happened I was sitting in the police station and I just wanted to die right there,” Rabolt tells Maclean’s. “I didn’t even want to exist anymore. If it wasn’t for Darren’s family, I’d still feel that way. I’d probably just be living life as a ghost.”

Despite the McMullins’s pleas, the judge handed Rabolt 30 months in prison.

The case is eerily similar to one now making headlines—that of John Joseph “Jack” Tobin, the 24-year-old son of former Liberal cabinet minister and Newfoundland premier Brian Tobin, who stands charged in connection with the impaired driving death of one of his closest friends, Alex Zolpis, also 24. High school classmates and one-time roommates during their studies at Dalhousie University, Zolpis and Tobin were living in Calgary and Toronto respectively but had returned to Ottawa for the holidays. Though the details remain murky, Zolpis and Tobin had apparently been drinking in Ottawa’s ByWard Market when they emerged from a bar and walked across the street to a multi-level parkade and Tobin’s rented Dodge Ram pickup truck.

According to early reports, police said Tobin had been stunt driving on the fifth, uncovered floor of the parkade when Zolpis, who was a passenger, somehow became pinned under the truck just before 3 a.m. on Christmas Eve (Tobin’s lawyer disputes this account). One resident of a condo overlooking a portion of the parkade told Maclean’s that he heard moaning and slurred screaming.

Tobin is now charged with several offences, including impaired driving causing death—the death of the same friend who, three years earlier, supported Tobin through a near-fatal knife wound he received while working as a security guard at a Halifax dance. Testifying at the sentencing hearing of the teen who’d pleaded guilty to attempting to murder him, Tobin spoke of how the ordeal, which took a third of his liver, had left him with “a greater appreciation for life and how quickly it can be taken from you.”

Now the Zolpis family must struggle with two painful realities: the death of a son and the prospect that he was killed by one of his closest friends. A life lost and a life destroyed. Sadly, in the annals of Canadian case law, Tobin and Rabolt are just two of many. And while the Zolpis family has not commented publicly on their tragedy beyond describing the death as the result of an “accident” in an obituary, they would not be alone if they chose to support their dead son’s friend through the criminal justice system. Many grieving relatives—people who have experienced what the Zolpis family is suffering through—have asked the courts for mercy.

Kevin Magnuson is one of them. Seven years ago, his father Keith—the legendary Chicago Blackhawks defenceman—was killed in a horrific crash near Toronto. The man behind the wheel was Rob Ramage, his dad’s close friend and a former captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs. The pair had just left a funeral reception at a golf course and were on their way to a meeting of the NHL Alumni Association when their rental car veered into oncoming traffic, collided with two other vehicles and ricocheted into a guardrail.

According to police, Ramage’s blood-alcohol level was three times the legal limit, akin to someone who had consumed 15 to 20 beers. He was charged with five offences, including impaired driving causing death. “Obviously, there was shock at first, then anger for maybe a day,” Kevin recalls now. “But since then, every decision we’ve made as a family has revolved around: what would dad want us to do? He would want us to worry about Rob and his family. We know it was an accident, and there is no ill will whatsoever. It very easily could have been dad driving that day and Rob in the passenger seat.”

When Ramage was later convicted on all counts, the Magnusons travelled to Newmarket, Ont., to personally ask the judge not to send Keith’s friend to prison. “We have long ago forgiven Rob for his mistake,” Kevin told the court, flanked by his mother Cindy and sister Molly. “Please understand that as the direct victims of this ‘crime,’ a prison sentence will not be seen as any measure of justice, but will simply exacerbate our pain and create additional victims in Rob’s family.”

Justice Alexander Sosna praised the Magnusons, calling their words “moving and rare.” Yet they weren’t enough to change his mind. Ramage was given four years in jail and, after an unsuccessful appeal, is now serving his term at a Kingston, Ont., prison. “It was very frustrating,” Kevin says. “I know Rob thinks about my dad every day, and that is enough of a punishment.”

In all drunk driving cases, the primary goal of sentencing is general deterrence, not individual rehabilitation. As the Ontario Court of Appeal wrote in a landmark 1985 decision, “every drinking driver is a potential killer,” and the punishment should be tough enough to dissuade other impaired motorists from climbing behind the wheel. Today, most cases involving death or injury result in a custodial sentence of two to five years.

But unlike the Magnusons and the McMullins, some victims have managed to convince a judge to approve house arrest instead of jail time. Twelve years ago, after a night of heavy drinking, Matthew Mould of Hamilton drove his car into a light standard, killing Michael Hackett, his friend and co-worker. Hackett’s wife and parents immediately forgave Mould for the “tragic accident” and pleaded with the judge not to send him to prison. “We hold no grudge against this young man and were moved by his overwhelming sense of grief and his feelings of remorse,” the family wrote. “Forgiveness brings healing and our grief would only be compounded if this young man were given a jail sentence.” The judge agreed, handing Mould a 15-month conditional sentence.

James Carr, an Alberta man, was just as fortunate. Just four months after Ramage went to prison, Carr was handed a two-year conditional term for the drunken rollover that killed his best friend, Blake Levall. In an emotional victim-impact statement, Levall’s parents said they considered their dead son’s friend one of their own children, and begged that Carr not be imprisoned. “I’m going to lose another child,” said James Levall, Blake’s dad. “I’ll be torn apart again.” Said the judge: “Perhaps the greatest punishment James will suffer is that the death of his close friend, and the injury and hurt he has caused to others close to him, will always be with him.”

Jack Tobin is no doubt wrestling with the same demons. His friend is dead and his bail conditions prohibit him from contacting the Zolpis family. But in the months to come, as Tobin’s case reaches a courtroom, one thing is certain: if he is convicted he will spend at least some time in jail. Because of recent amendments to the Criminal Code, conditional sentences no longer apply to crimes involving serious bodily harm, regardless of how forgiving a victim’s family may be. In a case of impaired driving causing death, the type of sentences handed to Matthew Mould and James Carr—and requested by the families of Keith Magnuson and Darren McMullin—are gone. A custodial sentence now means just that: in custody, not house arrest.

Adam Rabolt has served his time: he spent just under a year in prison for his role in Darren McMullin’s death and he is now out on parole. Yet his sentence is so much deeper than a prison term—it will last him the rest of his life. “He wasn’t just my best friend, he was a brother,” he says. “That one buddy who knows everything about you, no matter what—even stuff you forgot, he’s the guy that knows. For me, that’s gone.”

Bookmark and Share
  • sherylwrites

    By allowing these young men leniency because the families of the victim have forgiven them does nothing but show Canadians that it's okay to get drunk behind the wheel and kill someone if it's a friend who dies. It's wonderful that these families can find healing in forgiveness and that they continue to support these men during and after their release. However, we still need to remember that a serious law was broken. Lives were lost, through arrogance and ignorance. And there is a price to be paid for that.

  • Trev_G

    We are too politically correct when it comes to teaching our kids (and everybody else) not to drink and drive. In other parts of the world, they get the message across more aggresively. For instance, this video from Australia's TAC (Transport Accident Commission) really gets the message across. It's not just about drinking and driving, but speeding, careless driving, etc. It should be shown to every young driver in this country. A life lost, be it that of a friend or not, is still a life lost.
    [youtube Z2mf8DtWWd8&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2mf8DtWWd8&feature=player_embedded youtube]

  • Shirley Witholt

    When it happens to someone else, we want justice. When it happens to ourselves or someone we love, we want mercy.

    • Ogopogo

      Thanks for providing a compassionate, human, perspective rather than a hypocritical villagers-with-pitchforks response to a nuanced and deeply troubling issue. It is all to easy to pronounce damnation and all too difficult to acknowledge that many of us have actually engaged in dangerous behaviours and have not suffered the consequences of our actions or the judgements of others. This is a tragedy, as all losses of life are. The thing that makes it an accident is the lack of intention and all the more so, the horror of such consequences. The impairment conferred by alcohol intake inhibits good judgement and social momentum, often contributed by the victims as well as the "perpetrators" is an extenuating circumstance that needs to be addressed by regulators and legislation in sobriety and with thought. Not by reactionary and appallingly cruel armchair dictators. Can so few of us recognise that we are not fit to cast the first stone? Can so few of us not see the inherent tragedy and loss and also acknowledge that incarceration is not going to bring back the dead nor is it going to imbue alcoholic haze with deterrence or good judgement? Be human. If you can.

      • Healthcare Insider

        I want to challenge a few of your assertions.
        1. The thing that makes it an accident is that lack of intention….if you take your vehicle to a place and plan to drive it home and then start to imbibe, the moment you begin to imbibe you have expressed the intention of drinking alcohol. If you continue beyond 2 drinks and have not made a conscious decision to not drive home, you have expressed the intention to drive over the legal limit.
        2. Alcohol intake inhibits good judgement and social momententum often contributed by the victims…..the buck stops with the driver. You make the choices before you drink alcohol about whether you will drink alcohol and whether you will drive. If you can't stand up to peer pressure, you aren't mature enough to hold a license.

        • Ogopogo

          I only wish that the world were more densely populated with superior beings such as yourself.

          • Keith in Brampton

            "Stupid is as stupid does."

            There are plenty of us who have enough sense to leave the wheels at home – or, barring that, to leave them parked at the bar/friend's house/wherever – when going out drinking.

            That said, I agree there ought to be room for some differentiation in punishment between the death of a bystander versus the death of a willing participant when sentencing – esp. if the participant actively encouraged the drunk driver to get behind the wheel.

  • NOT really a LIE

    The drug alcohol has the highest intoxication and kids/youth/young adults do NOT use it in MODERATION (a false argument for justifying alcohol use).

    See http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/28 for intoxication of alcohol compared to other substances, its the worst.

    Also an article at CBC site: Alcohol most dangerous drug for drivers: study. Driving under the influence of marijuana has a 2X chance of death. Driving just over 0.08 on alcohol has a 40X chance of death. The same report states at 0.16 its 80X chance of death. (CBC has removed this article but the Justice Department of Canada has the report).

    The fact is its the drug alcohol where you can actually lose the ability to determine if you can drive or not due to its extreme intoxication (i.e. after a one or two drinks, decide can't drive, after a few more, CAN FLY … total lost or out of control and/or mindless). This doesn't really happen with marijuana, if you think you cannot drive, you don't.

    NOTE that at 0.08, its not out of your mind driving, most can drive, the problem is that you can't react to an emergency situation at 0.08. Impairment also starts with the 1st sip, not at 0.08 (when its at the 40X chance of death).

    Its not a man thing, its science. Alcohol slowly turns off the central nervous system piece by piece (until you actually if you have an overdose, essentially forget to even breathe … you smother to death).

    WE will better off as a society when we can discuss FACTS and TRUTH, not MYTH and PROPAGANDA.

    Think about it, think about what the intoxication or impairment levels of marijuana is compared to alcohol.

    My bet is all the kids/youth/young adults involved in a death from alcohol don't/never even know how intoxicating it can be (it has the highest of all drugs, that means its the most dangerous especially when abused … not used in moderation) … but I bet they all know the standard marijuana LIES (the drug with the lowest intoxication, not even (or hardly) on the same scale as alcohol).

    Is that their fault ?

    • Keith in Brampton

      "This doesn't really happen with marijuana, if you think you cannot drive, you don't. " Really? I knew plenty of people in my youth who were more likely to get behind the wheel when stoned than when drunk. And their reflexes were plenty slowed down. Impaired is impaired.

      It doesn't matter WHAT you're high on – if you're using any form of recreational drug, you don't belong behind the wheel.

      BTW, since we're talking impairment: texting is several orders of magnitude more impairing than alcohol.

  • Verna

    Four years is nothing for one life taken, suck it up, take your punishment, learn from it and move on, at least you still have your life.

  • Chyrch

    If you drink adn drive you need to be punished and it should be costly. 3-5 years isnt enough if you ask me, when someone willingly gets into a car they know can kill someone or can harm someone ( his friend ) in an accident.
    so the fact the mothers friend wants him to get nothing because she cares is a joke.

  • Kimberly

    Knowing these boys and other young men I can appreciate and understand teh sentiments of leniency but I can't condone it. Doesn't matter if you are alone in a car or with your best friend or with a hitchhiker…….you, the driver, made the decision to drink and drive. That right there is the criminal offense. Not the fact that someone was hurt or killed. You chose to drink and drive, period. Criminal. Until we start seeing this seriour offense it is young people will continue to do it. There is no wishy washy line, no hazy line…it doesn't make it less criminal because it was your best friend.

  • Kim

    Okay, for everyone that thinks that because it was his best friend that he killed he should get a light sentence………..how about the husband who drinks and beats his wife to death……she was his wife…..he was drunk……should he be given leniency? Or the youths who after drinking decide to play with a gun and one dies…….leniency? the crack prositute who gives her client HIV…….leniency because she was high??? Come on. It's time to stop using drugs, drink, addictions as a Get Out Of Jail Free card.

    • Keith in Brampton

      The situation needs to be considered. Mowing down a stranger in a crosswalk definitely deserves more time than, for example, Rabolt's, where McMullin roused Rabolt from his sleep and enticed him into going out – and then didn't bother with his seatbelt. McMullin was an active participant; arguably the instigator. He therefore bears much of the responsibility for his own death.

      Should Rabolt get less time because McMullin was his friend? No. Should he get less time because McMullin was partially to blame for what happened? Yes.

  • OakvileIsHome

    I think it's lovely that the victims' families are sympathetic to the offenders, but the rest of the community might feel better if someone willing to put their best friend's life on the line for a fun night out, was off the streets, altogether!
    This is not about what the immediate circle of influence wants, but what is best for the community.

  • Avid_Reader

    As much as I hate getting thumbed down, here goes…
    Some are missing a crucial point in the case. The “defendants” are being charged with multiple offences, one of which is regarding killing their friends while driving drunk. For the other driving charges, they are guilty with out a doubt, but the murder/vehicular homicide I think requires a more nuanced view.

    Many have pointed out that the driver knowingly drove while drunk. Well, that same criteria can be applied to the occupant of the vehicle. Using the Russian Roulette comparison, the driver has the gun and pulls the trigger, but the passenger put his head right beside. If the families of those involved plead for mercy on behalf of the driver, it should be taken into consideration by the Judge. It is neither mine nor your decision how these families feel and how they want the **justice** to be carried out.

    But the driver is still responsible for the other charges relating to the drunk driving.

  • Shelley

    Every situation is different. Don't you people think they have been punished enough? To wake up every morning knowing that your best friend is no long there because a stupid mistake you've made? Thats a punishment thats going to last a life time. I mean yes they should be puished some way or another because it is the law but that doen't give them the right to say to they family " I don't care about what you think and feel" I can vouch for one person in this article and I can say that he has learn his lession. Do you think he'll do it again knowing the pain that he has caused himself as well as his family?…….It's something thats going to haunt him for the rest of his life.
    People can have their opinion's but I know you would think and feel differntly if you were in this situation.

  • Vatro

    Sucks for sure. But still the Government should definitely maintain strict punishments for Drunk Driving offenses and accidents, despite what lenience the victims families request; It's not only about them anymore, sad as it is. People treat drunk driving like a joke, except when all the sudden its not. Strict sentencing is really one of the few effective tools the Government has at its disposal.

  • mike

    Even if the punishment were life in prison, Tobin's friend would still be dead. Punishment can only be a deterrent for premeditated crime and even then, no one commits a crime expecting to be caught.

  • Wings105

    the real danger here is having "special" punishment for pro atheletes or friends of – it is wrong period and should be severely punished.

  • Tagg

    Let's make up our minds people. Either we have Laws and sentencing or we have group 'hugs of compassion' for the person who commits the crime and we forget about the Victims. As hard as it sounds we need to have consequences and penalties for the crimes committed. It's nice that Brenda is so willing to forgive Adam. What if it was the Crown Prosecuters kid who was driving? Let's see the forgivness pour out then!

  • Dave

    Don't we know that those in the Canadian Establishment get kidglove treatment ? Whether it be ex-Prime Ministers,MPs and all the rest of the great and the definitely not good. There's one law for them,or rather charges dropped because of the alleged difficulty in obtaining a conviction,and another for the rest of us.

  • Islander

    There is NO excuse for driving drunk and taking another persons life!!..All the sobbing ,bleeding hearts BS here makes me sick.

  • NOT really a LIE

    The DRUG with the HIGHEST intoxication is the DRUG ALCOHOL.

    Kids/Youth do NOT use the DRUG alcohol in MODERATION.

    So how do we explain the FOLLY of having a National drug strategy http://www.nationalantidrugstrategy.gc.ca/ ) that doesn't include the actual DRUG that KILLS most of our youth more than all other drugs combined, the drug ALCOHOL (#1 killer of youth), the DRUG that is the reason most youth are in prison because of its intoxication (the DRUG alcohol has the HIGHEST intoxication of all drugs, kids don't use it in MODERATION) and the DRUG that ADDICTS most of our citizens (most addicts are by FAR alcohol addicts, illicit drug addicts account for only 2 to 3% of all addict) ?

    Its not like Health Canada has another website on the drug alcohol, it doesn't. ITS LIKE ALCOHOL DOESN'T EXIST.

    Ideology before kids safety. The WAR ON DRUGS (i.e. the phony Tough on Crime) SELLS (very well). IT gets VOTES.

    Telling the kids/youth the TRUE FACTS, doesn't.

    These are NOT tragic accidents, they are 100% predictable.

    Everyone is a victim and the culprits is our Government (and authorities) who FAIL to inform the public on the TRUTH.

  • Vatro

    Try not TO write with random CAPITALIZATION spewed all over YOUR post. And PEOPLE may actually BE INCLINED to READ it.

  • madeyoulook

    The crime begins when someone gets intoxicated with the intent to drive shortly thereafter. Do you see any premeditation, there? I do.

  • Havanoo

    The government is resposible for the deaths from drinking and driving. They sell and control the booze. They know there will be deaths from alcohol.So stop selling booze.They never will,because they made over 3 billion dollars in 2010. MADD is just a propaganda organization to help the government make it appear as if they care.

  • NOT really a LIE

    In BC, our Premier was convicted of drunk driving at twice over the limit 0.08, being a man in his 50s, he pleaded IGNORANCE.

    If a man in his 50s who is a Premier of a province doesn't know anything about how dangerous or how to use the drug alcohol, HOW would we expect kid/youth/young adults to know ?

    How many know it has the HIGHEST intoxication of all drugs (and what that means) ? Etc..

    The whole Don't Drink and Drive is flawed because once you start drinking, at a certain level of intoxication you lose the ability to make the decision to drive, It becomes a meaningless statement, etc.. Or how the effects of alcohol are delayed. It should be really Don't Drive to Drink, leave the car at home (and don't get in your buddies either which can really only achieved if no one drives).

    No one tells them the TRUTH on the drug alcohol … that is what is TRAGIC about these accidents.

    Yea sure, lock em up … NOTHING will change.

  • Ogopogo

    Well said! Why do bars and pubs have parking lots, anyways? And for that matter perhaps those profiting from the sale of alcohol should provide shuttle bus or other safe tranport home to their bread and butter, the drinkers.

  • Guest

    What a ridiculous assertion, that the government is responsible for drunk driving deaths. It's the individual behind the wheel who's responsible, no one else. The government is not his nanny, though you would like it to be and to infantilise the driver and absolve him of his responsibility.

    Your solution is even more ridiculous. Outlaw alcohol for everyone because a small minority of people can't handle it. First, it's unworkable without a totalitarian government (guess you favor that). Have you never heard of the failure of Prohibition and the number of deaths caused by drinking self-distilled moonshine?

  • Mr. Peterson

    If this guy was poor this would have never happened.He only had been given compassion because his parents are most likely well connected.see if some random guy kills his buddy drinking and driving he wold be given life in prison.

  • http://www.alcoholdrugrehabla.com drugrehablosangeles

    This reminds me of my own experience with my dog. My pixie came to me when she was 6 weeks old. I had a sweet dog before for 11 years and so, there was no hesitation or anxiety to care for the little pup. But, I was in for a shock. The pup seemed almost mad. Ate or drank enormous amount of food, seemed endlessly awake and naughty in demonic proportions. She had a bad temper to match. There was destruction galore. I had a mere two years of homeopathic experience, and in desperation, used it. Imagine my surprise and happiness when it showed results. It took almost one year to get pixie to be a normal pup but she did become one. Now she is one of the sweetest dogs I have ever seen though she bares her fangs at the drop of a hat and barks furiously at contraptions making noises she does not like. But she is totally harmless and quiets down once we touch her gently. Even now she is furious if we try to medicate her but does not mind licking off the white pills I give her when needed.

From Macleans