R. v. Bonaldo, 2026 ONCJ 1

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. Bonaldo, 2026 ONCJ 1 DATE: 2026 01 05 COURT FILE No.: Central West Region (Niagara) 24-21104967

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

John Franco Bonaldo

Before Justice J. De Filippis

Heard on October 3 and December 18, 2025 Reasons for Sentence released on January 5, 2026

Mr. H. Limheng.................................................................................... counsel for the Crown Mr. J. Root...................................................................................... counsel for the accused

De Filippis, J.:

INTRODUCTION

1In January 2024, Ms. Dahiro Hussein Hasan and her adult daughter, Ms. Fadumo Cali Aden, arrived from Somalia, eager to pursue their dreams of a better life in Canada. Ms. Aden found employment, during the night shift, as a laundry attendant at a hotel in Niagara Falls. She walked to that job, always escorted by her mother. Saturday, November 16, 2024, was one such night. Several hours earlier, on Friday evening, Mr. John Franco Bonaldo met friends at a restaurant in Niagara Falls and consumed alcohol, beginning at 8:30 PM. At 12:24 AM, he left the restaurant, entered a motor vehicle, and drove away. Within minutes he struck Ms. Hassan and Ms. Aden. Ms. Hassan was killed. Ms. Aden sustained life altering injuries. Mr. Bonaldo did not remain at the scene.

2Mr. Bonaldo was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance causing death, impaired operation of a conveyance causing bodily harm, and failure to stop after an accident, knowing death or serious bodily harm resulting in death had been caused.

3Within ten months of arrival, the dreams Ms. Hasan and Ms. Aden brought to Canada were shattered. The defendant pleaded guilty to the three offences. He has never been in trouble with the law before. At the sentence hearing I received a victim impact statement, presentence report, letters in support of the defendant, and heard from the defendant himself.

4In dealing with this difficult decision, I have the benefit of strong advocacy by two experienced lawyers. Considering totality, the Crown submits that eight years imprisonment is appropriate. The Defence, again, considering totality, argues for a six-year sentence. There is no dispute about certain ancillary orders.

5I conclude that the Crown’s position is a measured response to the offence and offender.

THE OFFENCE

6The defendant’s attendance at the restaurant was by captured by interior surveillance cameras. He consumed six pints of beer over a period of four hours. He left shortly after midnight and drove his motor vehicle southbound on Drummond Road at an approximate speed 50 km/hr (posted 50km/hr speed limit). At the same time, the two victims were crossing the street at the intersection of Drummond Road and Barker Street. The defendant struck the victims with the front right side of his motor vehicle. The impact between caused significant damage to vehicle. Remnants of the motor vehicle scattered at the scene of the collision.

7As a result of the collision, Ms. Aden was thrown an approximate distance of 13 meters and slid another four meters southbound on the roadway. Ms. Hasan was thrown approximately seven meters southwest of the point of collision off the road. The defendant did not stop following the collision. He continued driving southbound on Drummond Road for approximately 150 meters, before making a right-hand turn onto Culp Street. The defendant continued west on Culp Street for approximately 150 meters before colliding with two parked vehicles. His vehicle was disabled.

8Witnesses to these events called 911. Police responded to both reports. At the Culp Street collision, police located the defendant in the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle. They also saw two damaged, but unoccupied motor vehicles. Pieces of the defendant’s motor vehicle were also located on the roadway near the collision. The defendant smelled of alcohol and admitted to consuming it. Several empty beer cans were found in the defendant’s motor vehicle, including one in the driver’s footwell. The defendant was cooperative with police and apologetic.

9After being arrested and taken to a police station, the defendant provided two samples of his breath. The first was at 3:15 AM, which registered 174 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The second was at 3:37 AM, which registered 173 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

10Ms. Aden was attended to by paramedics for serious injuries. She was rushed to the Hamilton General Hospital Trauma Unit. It was determined that she suffered the following injuries:

• A left parietal subgagleal hematoma;
• A mildly displaced fracture of the left transverse process of L5;
• A non-displaced fracture of the right sacral ala inferiorly;
• A right ureteric injury;
• Mildly displaced fractures of the bilateral superior and inferior pubic rami;
• Comminuted displaced fracture of the right inferior public ramus; and,
• An undisplaced fracture to the left inferior ischio public ramus.

11Ms. Aden underwent bilateral SI joint surgery to repair the damage from the collision. She was discharged from the hospital on November 26, 2024. Ms. Hasan was pronounced deceased at the scene. The Coroner’s Report determined the cause of death to be blunt force trauma.

THE VICTIM

12The following excerpt is from the victim impact statement by Ms. Aden. She eloquently describes her suffering and the hope of restoration:

…..The pain I endure is not just physical; it is accompanied by the emotional agony of losing my mother, who had been my rock and my guiding light…..I am now living with disabilities that make daily life incredibly challenging. I can no longer generate income to support myself as I once did, and I depend on others for help. Simple tasks like cooking and taking care of myself, which I used to manage easily, have become monumental struggles. Each day is a battle against both physical pain and the emotional weight of my trauma…...The support I have received from the community since my mother’s death has been overwhelming. Relatives, neighbors, and the community at large have rallied around me, offering assistance and encouragement during this challenging time. This outpouring of kindness has been instrumental in my healing process, reminding me that there is still goodness in the world, even amidst tragedy.

THE OFFENDER

13I have a good sense of the defendant’s character from the positive presentence report (PSR), the 29 letters of support from family, friends, employer, and co-workers. The defendant addressed the Court and apologized to victim and to his family and has let himself down. He added that he will never forget what he has done.

14The defendant is a 32-year-old first offender. He has always been steadily employed. He does not have dependents. The theme that emerges from all sources is that these offences are out of character, that the defendant is not a bad person, but one who made a bad decision to drink and drive. It appears that the defendant had recently begun abusing alcohol because of a difficult intimate relationship. He is consumed with remorse. He has not had a drink of alcohol since this event and volunteers weekly at a soup kitchen to do something good for the community to atone for his actions.

SUBMISSIONS

15The Crown pointed to the terrible impact of the defendant’s conduct. Counsel accepts that the defendant is an otherwise good person but emphasized the need to denounce and deter. In this regard, counsel noted that these offences are typically committed by just such people and that harsh sentences are especially meaningful in sending the right message to the community. The Crown added that the fail to remain offence is often overlooked because the sentence is combined with other charges and argued that a consecutive sentence is warranted. In advocating for a global sentence of eight years, the Crown also noted the statutory aggravating factors in section 320.22 of the Criminal Code.

16Defence counsel accepts the “profound loss and strength of character” shown by Ms. Aden. He continued,

This is a tough case. I like my client, and I like his family. These are good, hard-working people who are devastated by this tragedy. A good person made a tragic decision to drink and drive. That said, I have no good news for my client. He is going to jail for a long time.

17In advocating for a six-year sentence, counsel emphasized the defendant’s genuine and substantial remorse and otherwise good character. In this regard, he pointed to the positive PSR and letters of support.

ANALYSIS

18In 2018 Parliament amended the Criminal Code by Bill C-46. This Bill, with its Preamble, reflects the legislative intent to increase sentences in cases such as the present one by giving priority to denunciation and deterrence. This means severe punishment not because the offender necessarily deserves it but to send a message to other likeminded individuals. As the Court of Appeal for Ontario noted, in R v Boily 2022 ONCA 611 at paragraph 51, Bill C-46 “was designed to create a stronger approach to punishing driving offences”. This approach this must also apply to the offence of failing to remain at the scene of an accident. This provision encourages offenders to render assistance to victims and ensures law enforcement can conduct proper investigations. I agree with the Crown that without a meaningful consecutive sentence for failure to remain at the scene of an accident, offenders will know that there is little risk, and potentially great reward, in fleeing and hoping to escape detection, or at least waiting until evidence of impairment has dissipated.

19In imposing sentence, I am guided by Part XXIII of the Criminal Code. Section 718.1 is especially important: “A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”. The seriousness of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender must be balanced but are considered independently.

20The seriousness of this offence is obvious: one person dead and another with life altering injuries. In this regard, section 320.22(a) of the Code requires Courts to treat driving offences resulting in bodily harm to, or the death of, more than one person as an aggravating factor. Another statutory aggravating factor, as out in section 320.22(e), arises when the offender’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of committing the offence was equal to or exceeded 120 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood. Both apply in the present case.

21The defendant’s moral blameworthiness is high. He drank an excessive amount of alcohol and took a chance in driving. Having struck two pedestrians, he did not stop and render aid. His flight to avoid detection was unsuccessful only because he hit two parked cars, and he was unable to put his vehicle in motion again. On the other hand, the defendant pleaded guilty, has no record, and is a productive member of the community. I appreciate the opinion of many in support of the defendant who say he is not a bad person. These letters are important to my decision but must be put in context; good people who drink too much and drive can, as here, cause catastrophic consequences.

RESULT

22Every drunk driver is a potential killer. That this does not happen in most cases of drunk driving is simply a matter of chance. The direction I take from Parliament and decisions of other judges is that those who take this chance and harm others will pay a heavy price, especially if they flee from the scene to avoid detection, and notwithstanding that they are otherwise of good character.

23The sentence to be imposed is not a measure of the lives of the victims – it cannot compensate for that harm. The sentence is intended to denounce and deter. It also reflects the principle of totality. That is, while the sentence is intended to be harsh, it cannot be crushing. I order that the defendant serve a global sentence of eight years in the penitentiary, as follows:

• Impaired operation of a conveyance causing death; six years imprisonment;
• Impaired operation of a conveyance causing bodily harm: four years imprisonment, to be served concurrently;
• Failure to remain at the scene of the accident: two years imprisonment, to be served consecutively;

24The defendant will be subject to an eighteen-year driving prohibition. By law, this begins immediately and reflects my intent to impose a 10-year driving prohibition for the period after imprisonment. Since the defendant attempted to flee after the accident, a DNA order is appropriate and will also issue.