ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2025 11 28

COURT FILE No.: Brampton 3111-998-24-31107220-00

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

-- AND --

AHMED HASSAN

Before Justice P.T. O'Marra

Heard on September 12 and November 5, 2025

Reasons for Judgment on Sentence released on November 28, 2025

M. Khan................................................................................................. counsel for the Crown

M. El-Rashidy.................................................. counsel for the defendant Ahmed Hassan

P.T. O'Marra, J.:

I. Introduction

[1] This was a matter that I judicially pre-tried on June 3, 2025. On September 12, 2025, Ahmed Hassan pleaded guilty to the offence of operating his motor vehicle while his ability to do so was impaired by alcohol, causing bodily harm to Jason Otieno, contrary to section 320.14(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. I ordered a pre-sentence report. I heard sentencing submissions on November 5, 2025, and reserved my decision to today. These are my reasons.

[2] The offence arises from a serious motor vehicle collision on January 26, 2024, in Mississauga, which resulted in life-threatening injuries to a passenger and significant property damage. The court must impose a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of the offender's responsibility, consistent with the principles set out in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

II. Facts

[3] In support of the plea, Mr. Hassan admitted to the following facts: On January 26, 2024, at approximately 1:50 a.m., he was operating a silver 2020 Honda Civic northbound on Southdown Road in Mississauga. The vehicle carried four passengers. While negotiating a turn from Royal Windsor Drive, Mr. Hassan lost control, left the roadway, struck a concrete light post, and the vehicle overturned. Mr. Hassan was extricated by emergency services and transported to St. Michael's Hospital with serious, non-life-threatening injuries. The front passenger, Jason Otieno, sustained life-threatening injuries. He was transported to St. Michael's Hospital in critical condition. Two other passengers suffered minor injuries, and one left the scene without treatment.

[4] Mr. Hassan's blood was analyzed by the Centre of Forensic Science, and at the time his blood was collected, his blood alcohol concentration was 180 mg per of alcohol in 100 mL of blood, more than twice the legal limit. He was later charged with impaired operation causing bodily harm and related offences.

III. Victim Impact

[5] Jason Otieno describes profound physical, psychological, and emotional consequences from the collision. He sustained permanent hearing loss, facial nerve damage, and partial facial paralysis (Bell's palsy), along with ongoing weakness and numbness on his left side. His left eye tends to become lazy, and he experiences chronic pain in his neck and back. Cognitive issues include trouble concentrating and multitasking, which greatly affect his daily life. Psychologically, he deals with irritability, mood swings, and trauma triggers, especially when driving in conditions similar to the crash. Despite physiotherapy and psychotherapy, these effects continue. He stresses feeling betrayed by Mr. Hassan, who was once a close friend, and feels frustrated by the lack of remorse. The victim hopes Mr. Hassan reflects on the impact of his actions.

IV. Positions of the Parties

A. Crown Position

[6] The Crown seeks a custodial sentence of six to nine months, followed by 18 months of probation, with conditions for counselling and a two-year driving prohibition. The Crown emphasizes aggravating factors: the high blood alcohol level, the serious harm caused, and the marked departure from the standard of care that a driver should have adhered to. The Crown stresses denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives.

B. Defence Position

[7] The Defence proposes a conditional sentence, with strict conditions including house arrest and curfew. Mitigating factors include the accused's lack of prior criminal record, the guilty plea, and significant rehabilitation efforts, including participation in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) sessions, counselling, and confirmed sobriety. A positive pre-sentence report supports his progress. The accused is a university student with a history of employment and strong family support. He is the primary caregiver for his young child. Defence cites *R. v. Creft*, (2022) ONCJ 572 in support of a conditional sentence, arguing that the case involved more aggravating circumstances.

V. Personal Circumstances

[8] Most of Mr. Hassan's background information has been gathered from the pre-sentence report.

[9] Ahmed Hassan is a 24-year-old Canadian citizen with no prior criminal record. He grew up in a stable, supportive family environment, was one of six siblings, and currently resides with his mother and siblings in Mississauga. His father works overseas as a lawyer but remains involved in family life. Mr. Hassan shares custody of his three-year-old son with his former girlfriend, whom he dated for six years. He describes his son as his primary motivation for self-improvement. Educationally, Mr. Hassan graduated from high school in 2018 and is now enrolled in an economics program at university. He has prior work experience in retail and warehouse roles and currently earns income through freelance web development, reporting approximately $30,000 in savings.

[10] Alcohol abuse was a significant factor in the offence. Mr. Hassan began drinking at 17, but his consumption escalated following the breakup with his girlfriend, leading to daily drinking for several months. He admitted that alcohol was a major contributor to his impaired driving offence. Mr. Hassan claims to have stopped drinking and attends Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. He reported occasional cannabis use but denied dependency. There were mental health concerns noted in his life, particularly emotional distress linked to his breakup and career setbacks. However, Mr. Hassan has no formal diagnosis and meets regularly with a psychotherapist.

[11] Mr. Hassan expressed remorse for his actions, acknowledging the harm caused and the role alcohol played. He presented as cooperative and respectful during the interview and articulated goals focused on education, business development, and parenting. His sister and ex-girlfriend describe him as calm, intelligent, and non-aggressive. However, the police expressed concern about a subsequent charge in May 2025, suggesting he may not have fully internalized the consequences of his behaviour. Mr. Hassan maintains strong family ties and a positive peer group, having distanced himself from former friends who engaged in partying. He also volunteers at a local mosque and engages in pro-social activities such as gym workouts and community service.

[12] The report concludes that Mr. Hassan appears motivated to change and willing to comply with community-based sanctions. However, substance use and mental health remain areas requiring intervention. While his current risk level seems manageable, the pre-sentence report notes that unresolved emotional issues and substance use could pose future risks if not addressed.

VI. Sentencing Framework

[13] When the Crown proceeds summarily in a case of impaired operation causing bodily harm, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and/or a fine of not more than $5,000.

VII. Sentencing Principles

[14] An impaired driver is a weapon on the road. Courts across this country have held that sentences for offences that involve impaired driving that cause bodily harm must convey society's condemnation.

[15] Justice Stribopoulos, in his recent decision in R. v. Jaison, [2025] O.J. No. 3202, eloquently set out the principles at play in cases that involve impaired driving causing bodily harm as follows:

22 Sentencing is discretionary by nature. There is no set formula that judges can follow to decide the appropriate sentence. Instead, judges must consider the purpose and objectives of sentencing, and be mindful of the governing sentencing principles, especially the need to impose a proportionate sentence. Against that backdrop, and after accounting for the aggravating and mitigating factors, the sentencing judge must fashion a just and appropriate sentence.

23 Sentencing judges must remember the fundamental purpose of sentencing, which Parliament has identified as protecting society and contributing "to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society": Criminal Code, section 718.

24 Achieving that purpose requires the court to impose "just sanctions" that reflect one or more traditional sentencing objectives: see Criminal Code section 718. These include denunciation, general and specific deterrence, separation of offenders from society, rehabilitation, reparation to victims, promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledging the harm done to victims and the community: see subsections 718(a) through (f).

25 Ultimately, the court must respect the fundamental principle of sentencing: that any sentence "must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender": Criminal Code section 718.1. In other words, the sentence must fit both the seriousness of the crime and the offender's level of moral blameworthiness in its commission; *R. v. Ipeelee*, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433, at paragraphs 36-37, *R. v. Nasogaluak*, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, at paragraphs 40-43.

26 The principle of parity is an essential consideration in arriving at a proportionate sentence. Proportionality is a function of the circumstances of the offence and offender compared to sentences previously imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. As the Supreme Court has explained, a sentencing judge must reconcile individualization and parity to achieve a proportionate sentence: see *R. v. Lacasse*, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at paragraph 53, citing Criminal Code subsections 718.2(a) and (b). However, they do not operate in tension: "parity is an expression of proportionality": *R. v. Friesen*, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, at paragraph 32; see also at paragraphs 30-33 more generally; see also *R. v. Bissonnette*, 2022 SCC 23, 80 C.R. (7th) 127, at paragraph 51.

[16] His Honour set out the following regarding the sentencing range for cases of this nature:

34 However, given the very serious nature of the offence of impaired driving causing bodily harm and the resulting need for sentences that prioritize general deterrence and denunciation, a sentencing judge's options narrow considerably. As the Supreme Court of Canada noted in Lacasse, at paragraph 6:

While it is normal for trial judges to consider sentences other than imprisonment in appropriate cases, in the instant case, as in all cases in which general or specific deterrence and denunciation must be emphasized, the courts have very few options other than imprisonment for meeting these objectives, which are essential to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and law-abiding society.

35 There is a wide range of sentences for impaired driving causing bodily harm. At the low end are sentences in the intermittent range: see R. v. Sinnarasa (2005) 23 M.V.R. (5th) 279 (Ont. S.C.); *R. v. Rooplal*, 2009 ONCJ 613. In contrast, high reformatory or lower penitentiary sentences tend to mark the upper boundary of the range: see *R. v. LaForme*, 2014 ONCA 367 (18 months); *R. v. Bulland*, 2020 ONCA 318 (two years); *R. v. Febbo*, 2024 ONCA 267, affirming 2023 ONCJ 162 (33 months); *R. v. Gomes*, 2022 ONCA 247, 91 M.V.R. (7th) 103 (three years).

[17] These are guidelines; not to be treated like straitjackets. Sentencing is a highly individualized process.

VIII. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[18] Section 718.2 provides that a sentence should be increased or decreased for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender.

[19] The aggravating factors in this case are significant:

• The offence involved impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, which is inherently serious and attracts strong principles of denunciation and deterrence. Mr. Hassan's blood alcohol concentration was 180 mg per 100 mL of blood, more than twice the legal limit, indicating a high level of impairment. Section 320.22(e) of the Code provides that it is an aggravating factor in sentencing where the offender has a blood alcohol concentration of .120 or higher at the time of the offence.

• Mr. Hassan's manner of driving represented a marked departure from the standard of care, as he was travelling at excessive speed, lost control of the vehicle, and struck a concrete pole.

• The consequences were severe: one passenger sustained life-threatening injuries, which resulted in 40% permanent hearing loss. The victim also suffers from severe psychological trauma. The victim's statement underscores the severity and permanence of harm, which is an aggravating factor under s.718.2(a)(iii.1) of the Criminal Code. The injuries are life-altering, affecting physical health, mental well-being, and quality of life. This amplifies the need for denunciation and deterrence, as impaired driving causing such harm represents a grave societal risk. The betrayal element and ongoing psychological trauma further highlight the profound personal impact, reinforcing the principle that sentencing must acknowledge harm to victims and promote accountability.

• Additionally, Mr. Hassan incurred a subsequent alcohol-related driving charge in May 2025 for care and control over 80, which raises concerns about ongoing risk and undermines the weight of his rehabilitative efforts.

[20] These factors collectively elevate the gravity of the offence and the need for a sentence that reflects public safety and accountability.

[21] Conversely, there are notable mitigating factors in this case:

• He entered a guilty plea, demonstrating acceptance of responsibility and contrition. He spared the administration the cost of a trial. He has expressed remorse about the accident.

• He has no prior criminal record and is therefore a first-time offender.

• Since the offence, he has undertaken meaningful rehabilitative steps, including attending approximately 45 Alcoholics Anonymous sessions, engaging with a sponsor, and participating in counselling with a psychotherapist. He has provided evidence of sobriety screening and claims abstinence from alcohol since May 2025.

• He benefits from strong family support and actively engages in parenting his young child. He is pursuing higher education in economics, has constructive career aspirations, and volunteers at a local mosque. His presentation during the pre-sentence report interview was cooperative and respectful, and collateral sources describe him as calm, intelligent, and non-aggressive.

[22] These factors suggest genuine efforts toward rehabilitation and reintegration.

IX. Analysis and Decision

[23] I consider the Crown's request for a sentence of six to nine months' jail to be extremely lenient. However, even applying the principle of restraint, I conclude that a sentence of 12-18 months of incarceration is the appropriate range, consistent with the principles of denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence, and rehabilitation. It balances aggravating factors, such as the devastating effect on the victim, with mitigating factors, such as Mr. Hassan's strong rehabilitative prospects.

X. Conditional Sentence Availability

[24] Having determined that a reformatory sentence is fit, the prerequisites for a conditional sentence set out in the Criminal Code are as follows:

1. The sentence imposed is less than two years (s.742.1).
2. The offence is not punishable by a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment (s.742.1(b)).
3. The offence is not attempt murder, torture or advocating genocide (s.742.1(c)); and
4. The offence is not a terrorism offence, or a criminal organization offence, prosecuted by indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more (s.742.1(d)).

[25] The Crown is seeking a sentence well under two years. Accordingly, a conditional sentence is available.

XI. Conditional Sentence Assessment

[26] For a conditional sentence to be appropriate, pursuant to s.742.1(a), I must be satisfied that:

(a) Mr. Hassan serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community; and

(b) A conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2.

Risk to the community:

[27] In *R. v. Proulx*, 2000 SCC 5 at para. 68, the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted "safety of the community" to refer to the threat posed by the specific offender were he to serve his sentence in the community.

[28] The proper approach in assessing risk to the community involves a consideration of (1) the risk of the offender re-offending, and (2) the gravity of the damage that could ensue in the event of re-offence. (See: R. v. Proulx, at para. 69.)

[29] I do not have concerns about the risk posed by Mr. Hassan. He has no prior criminal record. He is stable in the community. He has positive community and family support. He has attended AA counselling while the charges have been outstanding. He has engaged the services of a psychotherapist. He spends most of his time going to school, working, volunteering at the mosque and parenting his child.

[30] Since May 2025, Mr. Hassan has been effectively managed in the community while living under stringent bail conditions, with no indication that he has breached any of them.

[31] I believe that appropriate restrictive and rehabilitative conditions could be included in a conditional sentence to minimize the risk Mr. Hassan may pose to public safety.

[32] Accordingly, I conclude that public safety is not a basis on which a conditional sentence should be rejected.

Purpose and Principles of Sentencing:

[33] I must consider whether a term of incarceration or a custodial sentence served in the community would better address all the relevant sentencing objectives - denunciation, deterrence, restraint, and rehabilitation.

[34] A lengthy conditional sentence with house arrest, ankle monitoring, and counselling conditions could achieve the goals of specific deterrence and rehabilitation.

[35] In my view, a conditional sentence would adequately address the paramount sentencing objectives of general deterrence and denunciation that arise on the facts of this case. Paragraphs 102 and 107 of *R. v. Proulx*, have been applied here:

Incarceration will usually provide more denunciation than a conditional sentence, as a conditional sentence is generally a more lenient sentence that a jail term of equivalent duration. That said, a conditional sentence can still provide a significant amount of denunciation. This is particularly so when onerous conditions are imposed, and the duration of the conditional sentence is extended beyond the duration of the jail sentence that would ordinarily have been imposed in the circumstances.

Incarceration, which is ordinarily a harsher sanction, may provide more deterrence than a conditional sentence. Judges should be wary, however, of placing too much weight on deterrence when choosing between a conditional sentence and incarceration...Moreover, a conditional sentence can provide significant deterrence if sufficiently punitive conditions are imposed and the public is made aware of the severity of these sentences. There is also the possibility of deterrence through the use of community service orders...

[36] A conditional sentence, in this case, is consistent with the fundamental purpose of sentencing. A conditional sentence can and will give effect to the paramount objectives of sentencing.

[37] I have considered the decision in *R. v. Creft*, where Justice Pringle imposed a 12-month conditional sentence for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failing to remain at the scene. In that case, the offender, a youthful first-time offender, caused severe injuries and property damage while driving recklessly without a licence and compounded his culpability by failing to remain at the scene. Despite the seriousness of the harm, the court concluded that a conditional sentence could meet the objectives of denunciation and deterrence when structured with strict, punitive conditions, as outlined in R. v. Proulx.

[38] The circumstances in the Creft case share similarities with this case: both involve young, first-time offenders, serious bodily harm, and strong rehabilitative prospects. While Mr. Hassan's blood alcohol concentration and subsequent charge are aggravating factors, his early guilty plea, remorse, and documented rehabilitation efforts weigh heavily in mitigation. The Creft decision demonstrates that a community-based sentence can be appropriate for serious driving offences where public safety is not endangered, and rehabilitation is evident.

[39] Mr. Hassan will be permitted to serve his incarceration conditionally, in the community. The conditions imposed upon him are designed to punish, to send a message, to protect the community from further driving offences, and to assist him in his continued rehabilitation.

XII. Sentence

[40] I assess the correct jail sentence for Mr. Hassan to be 12 months. Because a conditional sentence is typically lengthened to serve punitive interests, Mr. Hassan's sentence will be 15 months to be served in the community, followed by 18 months of probation.

Conditional Sentence Order

[41] For the first 10 months, Mr. Hassan shall remain in his residence at all times, subject to the exceptions set out in paragraph 47.

[42] He shall wear an electronic monitoring device (ankle bracelet) as directed by the conditional sentence supervisor and comply with all instructions related to its installation, maintenance, and operation. Mr. Hassan shall not tamper with, remove, or attempt to remove the device and shall ensure it remains functional at all times. Mr. Hassan shall remain in his residence until the device has been fitted and activated.

[43] For the remaining five months, Mr. Hassan shall comply with the statutory conditions set out in section 742.3(1) of the Criminal Code:

(a) keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

(b) appear before the Court when required to do so;

(c) report to a conditional sentence supervisor at the times and places directed;

(d) remain within the jurisdiction of Ontario unless written permission is obtained from the supervisor; and

(e) Notify the supervisor in advance of any change of name, address, or employment.

Additional Conditions

[44] Mr. Hassan shall abstain from the consumption of alcohol and non-prescribed drugs.

[45] He shall attend and actively participate in alcohol counselling or treatment programs as directed by the conditional sentence supervisor and provide proof of attendance when requested.

[46] He shall have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with the victim, Jason Otieno, except with prior written permission of the conditional supervisor.

Exceptions to House Arrest

[47] Mr. Hassan may leave his residence only for the following purposes and must travel directly to and from these locations:

(a) employment or school attendance, provided a written schedule is supplied to and approved by the conditional sentence supervisor;

(b) medical emergencies involving himself or his immediate family, including his son;

(c) scheduled medical and dental appointments for himself or his child.

(d) counselling or treatment programs approved by the supervisor;

(e) reporting as required by the conditional sentence supervisor;

(f) shopping for necessities of life on Saturdays between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m.;

(g) attendance at his mosque, provided a written schedule of services is supplied to and approved by the conditional sentence supervisor;

(h) attendance at any scheduled court appearances or meetings at his lawyer's office;

(i) any other exceptional circumstance with the prior written permission of the conditional sentence supervisor.

Probation Conditions

[48] Upon completion of the conditional sentence, Mr. Hassan shall be placed on probation for 18 months and comply with the following statutory conditions (s. 732.1(2)):

(a) keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

(b) appear before the Court when required to do so;

(c) notify the probation officer in advance of any change of name, address, or employment.

Additional Conditions

(a) report to a probation officer at the times and places directed;

(b) attend and actively participate in alcohol counselling or treatment programs as directed by the probation officer, and provide proof of attendance when requested;

(c) sign any releases or authorizations necessary to allow the probation officer to monitor compliance with counselling and treatment requirements;

(d) abstain from the consumption of alcohol and non-prescribed drugs;

(e) have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with the victim, Jason Otieno, except with prior written permission of the probation officer;

(f) comply with any other rehabilitative requirements as directed by the probation officer.

Breach Consequences

[49] Mr. Hassan is advised that failure to comply with any condition of this order may result in proceedings under section 742.6 of the Criminal Code for a conditional sentence breach or under section 733.1 for a probation breach. Upon breach, the Court may suspend the order, terminate the order and commit the offender to custody for the balance of the sentence, or vary the conditions. Any breach may lead to additional penalties, including imprisonment.

[50] Pursuant to s. 320.24(2) of the Code, Mr. Hassan will be prohibited from operating a motor vehicle on any street, road, highway or other public place anywhere in Canada for 18 months. This order is separate from any driver's licence suspension that will be imposed under the Highway Traffic Act.

[51] The victim fine surcharge is waived.

Released: November 28, 2025

Signed: Justice P.T. O'Marra