ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Information 4810 998 23 48117655
B E T W E E N :
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
NIGEL TREVOR QUAMMIE
Before Justice Beverly A. Brown
Heard on November 26, December 3, 2025 and February 4 and March 9 of 2026
Reasons for Sentence released on March 26, 2026
Ms. Hannah Clow counsel for the Crown
Ms. Samantha Kettner counsel for the defendant Nigel Trevor Quammie
1After a trial, Mr. Nigel Quammie was found guilty, on Nov. 26, 2025, of the offence of operating a conveyance while his ability to do so was impaired by alcohol or a drug, on Sept. 18, 2023, contrary to s. 320.14 1 a, of the Criminal Code. The court gave reasons for judgment. The Crown filed a notice of increased penalty, dated Sept 18, 2023, which had been served on Mr. Quammie. The Crown also filed a criminal record and a driving record. He has one prior drinking and driving conviction, which triggers an automatic minimum penalty of 30 days incarceration. Defence counsel seeks an intermittent sentence in this case. The court also is required to impose a driving prohibition order and Crown counsel seeks a probation order.
THE FACTS:
A. Circumstances of the offence :
2On Sept. 18, 2023, officers were dispatched at 410 am to a call for an impaired driver, at Steeles West and Martingrove in the City of Toronto. The road conditions were dry and clear and there was low traffic. The call indicated that there was a white pickup truck on Steeles West, with the door open, and the driver behind the wheel asleep. At that time, PC John Rafferty, who had worked as a police officer since Feb. of that year, and his partner Barvinderjit DHINSA, an officer with 16 yrs experience, responded to this call. The officers made various observations of him, after arriving at 425 am.
3At that time, Mr. Quammie was in the driver’s seat of the vehicle, apparently asleep, and the sole occupant of the motor vehicle. It was parked in a live lane of traffic on Steeles when the officers arrived. The vehicle had flat tires, on the driver’s side, both front and back tires. It was parked in the curb lane of Steeles West, which was a live lane for traffic.
4When uniform police officers arrived on scene and spoke to Mr. Quammie they succeeded in waking him up. Mr. Quammie seemed disoriented and did not make sense when he spoke. He did not seem to know where he was and when he tried to engage in conversation he did not make sense. PC Dhinsa asked him to step out of the vehicle and he complied. He was slow getting out of the vehicle. As he exited the vehicle, he put his hand on the truck for his balance. He appeared unsteady on his feet. Mr. Quammie swayed back and forth as he was being searched and he was not able to stand still. His eyes were glossy, his speech was not coherent and seemed kind of slurred. There was an odour of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. There was vomit on Mr. Quammie’s shirt, pants, left arm, interior of the vehicle and outside on the ground just outside the driver’s door. The vomit smelled of alcohol. He was placed under arrest for impaired operation of a conveyance, read rights to counsel and a caution. (The Crown did not proceed and withdrew the charge of Over 80 mgs. As a result the court is not going to refer to the evidence relative to that potential charge.) The video evidence showed Mr. Quammie being unsteady and not walking properly to the scout car with the officer.
5As the police officers interacted with Mr. Quammie, a video recording showed Mr. Quammie’s vehicle in the live curb lane, and that vehicular traffic had to go around his vehicle in the passing lane to get through on the street. A bus went by. Steeles Ave. is a major east west artery for the boundary of the City of Toronto and York Region.
B. Circumstances of the offender:
6Mr. Quammie is 43 years of age. He is neither a youthful nor a first offender.
7He has a criminal record which began in 2009, on June 16, with a conviction for fail to comply with recognizance, for which he received after pre sentence custody credit of 5 days, a further sentence of 15 days incarceration.
8On March 25, 2010, he received a sentence for theft under and assault with intent to arrest, after 14 days pre sentence custody credit, a further sentence of 1 day incarceration together with12 months probation, concurrent on the second count.
9On Oct. 27, 2010, he received a sentence for assault and fail to comply with probation, after recognition of 45 days pre sentence custody credit, a sentence of suspended sentence, to be followed by 3 years probation, and a s. 110 weapons prohibition order, concurrent on the second count.
10Most particularly, as it relates to a similar offence, on April 24, 2012, he received a sentence of $1200 fine and one year driving prohibition for a charge of driving with more than 80 mgs of alcohol in his blood. This is the prior conviction of note relevant to the notice of increased penalty, although the court notes that it was entered over 10 years prior to this offence.
11Finally, on September 23, 2014, he was for the theft offence given a suspended sentence and 12 months probation.
12His driving record is of concern to this court. It began in 2000. In brief, the entries are as follows :
2000 Nov. 21 Speeding 126 km/h in 80 km/h zone
2001 July 8 Wrong way on a one way street
2002 Oct 21 Fail to come to stop at an intersection
2002 Nov. 4 Fail to produce driver’s licence
2003 Jan 7 Speeding 171 km/h in 100 km/h zone
2004 Aug. 26 Speeding 75 km/h in 50 km/h zone
2004 Sept. 20 Driving while licence suspended
2007 Oct. 17 Speeding 115 km/h in 100 km/h zone
2007 Oct. 17 Class G1 Driver unaccompanied by qualified driver
2007 Oct. 17 Class G1 Drive on Prohibited highway
2009 Jan. 9 No driver’s licence or improper class of licence
2009 Jan. 9 Driver accompanied driver fail to identify
2009 July 20 Defective improper no muffler
2009 July 20 Violation of G2 Licence conditions
2009 July 20 Class G1 driver unaccompanied by qualified driver
2012 March 9 Drive while licence suspended
2012 April 24 Drive over 80 mgs. (also on criminal record)
2013 Jan. 24 Disobey red light
2013 Nov. 20 Fail to come to stop at intersection
2014 Nov. 27 Shall not drive holding or using hand-held com dev.
2014 Nov. 27 Drive while suspended
2016 July 11 Shall not drive holding or using hand-held com dev.
2016 July 11 Driving without II device or II offence
2016 July 11 No driver’s licence or improper class of licence
2017 Sept. 26 Speeding 80 km/h in 60 km/h zone
2017 Sept. 26 No driver’s licence or improper class of licence
2018 Aug. 14 No driver’s licence or improper class of licence
2023 Mar. 27 Fail to produce driver’s licence
2025 Nov. 21 Speeding 129 km/h in 100 km/h zone (Offence date of Oct. 10, 2025, which was while he was on release for the subject impaired offence, and in the month prior to being found guilty of impaired)
13There is no question, this court would find, that by his prior conduct Mr. Quammie has demonstrated a consistent and frequent pattern for disregarding the rules of the road and driving behaviour. It is a lengthy consistent driving record.
14Mr. Quammie has a son who was 16 years old as of submissions in January of 2026. At that time the court was advised that he shares custody with the son’s mother, who had to travel to Chile and would be away until Feb. 6, 2026. The court adjourned sentence to accommodate the request that he be the sole caregiver for this teenage boy, until a date after Feb. 6, 2026.
15Defence counsel advised the court that Mr. Quammie was born in Toronto and resides in Toronto. He is the second oldest of six children. His mother worked in payroll and his Dad worked in banking. He had a positive childhood. Defence counsel advised the court that he had a difficult time in his mid twenties, and that coincided with the entries on his criminal record from 2009 to 2014. The court was advised that he made poor choices when he was a father, he got involved with the wrong people and he regrets it. After the birth of his second child, the court was advised was born in 2014, he turned his life around. This son lives in Edmonton with his mother and Mr. Quammie does not have custody of this son.
16In 2018 he completed an electrical program at Humber College. The court was advised that he had led a stable and productive life after that time. He worked full-time, as an industrial electrician, from Monday to Friday, and worked freelance residential jobs on weekends. He previously taught at Trillium college and his most recent contract position there ended in November. He wishes to return to doing that teaching.
17He has a support network of children, parents, girlfriend and siblings and close friends. He feels he let these people down and regrets his actions which have had a noticeable impact on them.
18Defence counsel submitted that his criminal record does not demonstrate that he was undeterred by prior findings of guilt, nor a disposition to criminality. Defence counsel submitted that there is a gap, which this court accepts, in the criminal record following the last prior entry in 2014. The court was advised that he has abstained from alcohol since the incident.
19Defence counsel filed two letters in support of Mr. Quammie. The first is from Jahsia Quammie, who was born on […], 2009, and would be currently 16 years of age. This three sentence letter of support reflects Mr. Quammie’s role as his father. The second letter is a letter of support from Mr. Quammie’s girlfriend, Danielle Hamlyn. It is also a relatively short letter, advising that she has been in a relationship with him for the past year and 5 months. She advises that he lives alone in his apartment with his dog, and that he has a stable job and upcoming work projects.
20While there is not what the court would consider an employer’s letter of reference, there is a letter from his union which sets out his current work position confirmed by THE union hiring hall, which commenced on October 8, 2025, with Smith and Long Ltd. Contractors. It does not set out any days of the week or hours of employment, as typically letters would do in support of an intermittent sentence request. Defence counsel has made submissions as to his current employment schedule.
21There is no indication that he suffers from any disabilities or physical or mental health issues, nor any addictions. There is no indication that he has an indigenous background.
22Mr. Quammie expressed a statement of remorse in court, apologizing to the court. This is a mitigating factor. He said he knows the seriousness of driving under the influence. He indicated he is very ashamed and embarrassed for his actions, he has been dealing with a lot related to his sister’s death. He has made wrong decisions. He has had counseling, and alcohol counseling. He has gone back to school and does regular work with his union. He is starting his own company.
Intermittent Sentences :
Communications from Ministry of Solicitor-General and evidence in prior case:
23During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Ministry contacted the Ontario Court of Justice to advise that as a result of concerns arising from the pandemic, the Ministry would no longer be having prisoners serve intermittent sentences as they had previously been implemented. Instead, prisoners would be released on temporary absence. They did not report to the Toronto South Detention Centre (hereinafter referred to as the TSDC) nor to the Intermittent central. They were on a house arrest and they would be monitored by officers who called the prisoners in their homes. They did not report in person. If the prisoner did not respond to the call there would be an enforcement procedure, essentially with a view to charging for unlawfully at large. This procedure of TAP for all inmates serving intermittent sentences apparently was terminated by the Ministry, effective July 4, 2022. There was no communication to the court that this had been terminated and that the Ministry would in effect receive prisoners and allow them to serve their intermittent sentences in person.
24The case of R. v. Mendonca, [2024] O.J. No. 6395, involved testimony from the TSDC Superintendent Donata Calitri-Bellus. It was actually a case before this court, where defence counsel sought an intermittent sentence for a similar situation of a minimum jail penalty after the Crown filed a notice of increased penalty for a drinking and driving offence. That transcript, which is summarized below, was tendered by counsel and admitted in this sentencing proceeding.
25As of May 17, 2024, when the Superintendent testified, if Mr. Mendonca were sentenced to an intermittent sentence, he could apply for a temporary absence. A rehab officer would ensure the residence and employment of the prisoner “was in compliance”. The criminal record would be reviewed and there would be a recommendation to support the TAP which would proceed to the Superintendent for final decision to issue the TAP. She indicated that there was no preference to issue a TAP, it is decided on an individual basis. The prisoners serving intermittent sentences are not kept separate from the other inmate population, they could be within the general population, the infirmary, special needs unit, mental health assessment unit. At the time the jail had a count of 1450 people, but although there was some triple bunking the Detention Centre does its best to ensure that there is no triple bunking. The building was designed to house 1600 people. The problem arises if some individuals have to be single celled, as a result of their assessment or recommendations from rehab or a doctor or a nurse. The Superintendent maintained that although there is pressure when the jail is so full, that she looks at each TAP application on its merits, not based on the count of prisoners. For those prisoners on an intermittent sentence who are approved for TAP, they serve the first weekend in the jail, and for weekends after that they are monitored on GPS by Recovery Sciences Corporation. For the days of the week they are not on an intermittent sentence there would be no monitoring, although the inmate would continue to wear the ankle monitoring equipment. The main condition for TAP is house arrest for the days they are on the intermittent sentence, and potentially that the inmate call and speak with a rehab officer or a staff sergeant at the jail. There might also be a condition that the person complete a life skills program, which involves providing reading material to the inmate that must be handed in the following week, or confirm completion of the program. Any alert would be sent to the Staff Sergeant on duty at the detention centre, who would initiate an enforcement process. At the time of this case it was not clear if any inmates were actually serving intermittent sentences in custody rather than TAP permits allowing them out in the community.
26Following those events in 2024, the Superintendent of the TSDC issued two communications to defence counsel in the case at bar, on January 8 and January 29, 2026. Those communications were admitted in evidence. As of January 8, 2026, there were 19 offenders serving intermittent sentences at TSDC, of which 10 were serving the sentences in custody, and 7 were serving the sentences in the community with GPS monitoring. The letter did not explain what happened with the other 2 prisoners. The letter referred to the TAP program being in place for rehabilitative purposes. There would need to be a programming component for the TAP together with GPS monitoring. The letter confirmed that applicants for the TAP program would be ineligible if they had outstanding charges for which there had been no release, if the offender was “wanted” at the time, or had unstable housing at the time. The Superintendent maintained that institutional populations levels at TSDC had no bearing on TAP decisions. Counsel advised Superintendent Donata Calitri-Bellus that she was being requested to attend court to answer questions about the intermittent and TAP sentence.
27In the meantime, and prior to the date for Superintendent Donata Calitri-Bellus to attend court to testify, on Feb. 15, 2026, the Ministry of the Solicitor General issued a Memorandum to the Ontario Court of Justice. It was admitted in evidence in this case. It noted that “questions have arisen” concerning whether, and in what circumstances, Temporary Absence Passes (TAPs) may be granted to individuals serving intermittent sentences under the authority of the Ministry of Correctional Services Act and Prisons and Reformatories Act. It confirmed that intermittent sentences :
“remain supported within Ontario’s provincial correctional facilities. All institutions designated to receive intermittent offenders continue to maintain the required operational procedures to facilitate weekend and other court-ordered intermittent terms of imprisonment…”
28And further as it relates to Temporary Absence Passes :
“The Ministry also confirms that Temporary Absence Passes (TAPs) may be issued to sentenced offenders, including those serving intermittent sentences, pursuant to the authority granted under the Ministry of Correctional Services Act (MCSA). TAPs may be approved for eligible offenders for purposes consistent with the legislation and applicable regulations, including medical, humanitarian, employment, rehabilitation and reintegration objectives. The authority to grant such absences lies with designated officials under the MCSA, subject to established risk assessment and procedural requirements. The discretion to approve a TAP lies solely with legislatively designated employees.”
Testimony of Superintendent Donata Calitri-Bellus in subject case:
29The Superintendent testified in this case on Mar. 9, 2026. She provided some background evidence to the court. Generally speaking, the courts decide the sentences, and the Ministry of Solicitor General decides where the sentences will be served. Overall the strategy to manage the count of detainees and inmates includes triple bunking, transferring people out to other jails, and to the federal system of jails. One example of moving of prisoners would be for an inmate sentenced in the Penetanguishene area who otherwise lives in the Greater Toronto Area, in which instance generally the inmate would be transferred to the Toronto South Detention Centre to serve a sentence.
30Superintendent Donata Calitri-Bellus volunteered that the Feb. 19, 2026 memorandum noted above was prompted by her requirement to attend court to answer questions about the program. The detention centres designated to receive intermittent offenders include the TSDC, Vanier, Maplehurst, Toronto East, Central North, and Central East. She indicated that within the TSDC, there are 8 cell spaces for intermittent offenders, based upon 2 inmates to a cell for 4 cells, designated for intake for intermittent offenders. The inmates are housed in the area for a weekend, for example on a Friday night, then processed and taken to the cells and then released, for example, on a Monday morning at 6 am. If they have more than 8 inmates serving intermittent sentences the detention centre makes room for them elsewhere in the centre. If the inmate is designated for another area, such as for a medical issue, the inmate would be taken to a cell in that area. At the time of her testimony, March 9, 2026, there were 10 offenders serving intermittent sentences within the TSDC. Previously the courts were expected to order offenders on intermittent sentences to attend at the jail following imposition of sentence, to be processed and released later that day, and to start the schedule of attending on weekends, such as a Friday night then be released on a Monday morning. At this point, the earlier processing date is not expected from the detention centres, the processing can be done on the first weekend the inmate attends to serve the intermittent sentence. The court enquired about previous concerns identified with intermittent offenders potentially bringing contraband into the detention centre each weekend. The Superintendent indicated that while that is a concern, currently there are body scanners which are effective in detecting contraband and having it removed. If it gives rise to a “dirty” scan, the inmate has the option of removing the contents, or being placed in a segregated area and then watched for the item to come out. If there was a previous dirty scan for an offender seeking a TAP, that would be considered in terms of whether a TAP application should be approved.
31In terms of the overall process to apply for a TAP, the applications for TAPs are given to offenders on the first weekend they are in the centre to serve the intermittent sentence. For each application, the assessor would put together the CPIC record, the pre sentence report, do a fulsome review of prior files including breaches and misconducts in jail, including any prior instances of bringing contraband into the jail, community supervision (probation), probation or parole reports particularly related to compliance, where the person planned to live and to work. The assessor would contact collateral sources, sureties and employers. After this is put together it is sent to the Superintendent within the week, with a recommendation or absence of recommendation from the assessor.
32The Superintendent would consider the recommendation by the assessor. The Superintendent would review all of the material, including previous responses to supervision, whether there are prior convictions for the same type of offence, and recommendations by the court. As it relates to applications for temporary absence passes for intermittent sentences, the final decision rests with the Superintendent, who testified she makes the decision on an individual case basis, independent of any concerns related to overcrowding in the detention centre at the time.
33If a TAP is granted, it generally involves a term of general house arrest with GPS monitoring, with extremely few exceptions such as medical emergencies, and potentially a radius of the yard for the house if for example there is a pet that needs to relieve itself. She explained that the rehabilitation component of TAPs would potentially involve a workbook with an expectation that the inmate complete the exercises in it, on topics that could include life skills, decision making, alcohol addiction and beginning conversation about addiction.
34Superintendent Donata Calitri-Bellus testified that there have been no records kept as to the overall rate of approval or denial of TAP requests, nor whether the TAPs have been successful or resulted in breaches. While the Superintendent testified she would consider a recommendation for a judge to approve a TAP request, she also testified she would consider a recommendation for a judge to deny a TAP request. The weight of a judicial recommendation is unclear as it relates to the other factors to be considered by the Superintendent.
LEGAL PARAMETERS:
35Sentence in this case, for the offence of s. 320.14 for impaired driving where the Crown proceeded summarily, and there is one prior conviction for a similar offence, is governed by s. 320.19 which provides :
320.19 (1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection 320.14(1) or 320.15(1) is guilty of
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine of not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or to both, and to a minimum punishment of,
(ii) for a second offence, imprisonment for a term of 30 days
36As a result, Mr. Quammie is now subject to a minimum penalty of 30 days.
37In addition, the offender who is found guilty of this offence is also subject to a driving prohibition order, pursuant to s. 320.24 of the Criminal Code, which provides:
320.24 (1) If an offender is found guilty of an offence under subsection 320.14(1) or 320.15(1), the court that sentences the offender shall, in addition to any other punishment that may be imposed for that offence, make an order prohibiting the offender from operating the type of conveyance in question during a period to be determined in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) The prohibition period is
(b) for a second offence, not less than two years and not more than 10 years, plus the entire period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment
(5) The prohibition period is
(c) in any other case, not more than three years, plus the entire period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment.
38Accordingly the minimum period of the driving prohibition in this case is 2 years in addition to the term of imprisonment imposed and the maximum length is 3 years plus the sentence of imprisonment.
39The court is prohibited from imposing a conditional sentence of imprisonment for this case, given the provisions of s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code, which provides :
742.1 If a person is convicted of an offence and the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years, the court may, for the purpose of supervising the offender’s behaviour in the community, order that the offender serve the sentence in the community, subject to the conditions imposed under section 742.3, if
…(b) the offence is not an offence punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment.
40The defence seeks the imposition for an intermittent sentence. This type of sentence is governed by s. 732 of the Criminal Code, which provides :
732 (1) Where the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of ninety days or less on an offender convicted of an offence, whether in default of payment of a fine or otherwise, the court may, having regard to the age and character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission, and the availability of appropriate accommodation to ensure compliance with the sentence, order
(a) that the sentence be served intermittently at such times as are specified in the order; and
(b) that the offender comply with the conditions prescribed in a probation order when not in confinement during the period that the sentence is being served and, if the court so orders, on release from prison after completing the intermittent sentence.
[emphasis added]
41There is no legal prohibition to an intermittent sentence if the criteria in that section are met. Previously, when intermittent sentences were commonly imposed by the courts, it was often imposed for offences of this nature, where the offender worked full time and did not want to lose an employment position.
42For the first set of criteria, the court must consider Mr. Quammie’s age, character, the nature of the offence and circumstances surrounding its commission as initial criteria specific to the offender and offence. This raises an interesting question for this court, in 2026. Parliament has sent a signal in changes to the Criminal Code and punishments related to drinking and driving offences, to suggest that the penalties should be increased. However there has been no amendment to the provision for intermittent sentences, nor any trend in case law, to suggest that offenders should be disentitled from consideration for intermittent sentences for offences related to drinking and driving. The amendments to the Criminal Code, over time, have suggested that penalties should be increased, but not that offenders should be disentitled to consideration for an intermittent sentence.
43As it relates to the second criteria of availability of appropriate accommodation to ensure compliance with the sentence, the court notes that this was introduced as a requirement by Bill C41 (1995 S.C., c. 22) which came into force in 1996. It was part of a major restructuring of sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code. While the court cannot find any comment about this change in Hansard, it would seem that this criteria might have been introduced to ensure that it can be a viable sentence, in that correctional authorities actually have the capacity to house offenders on an intermittent basis, such as on weekends. It would require detention space and the ability of correctional authorities to have facilities that can physically support a sentence of this nature.
44Some courts have considered this criteria in the past, before the more recent changes set out below. In older cases, the court notes the tension between the courts and correctional authorities as it relates to imposition and serving of intermittent sentences, see R. v. Roper, 2003 72337 (ON SC), [2003] O.J. no. 958 (C.J.). Sometime later, in 2017, in R. v. Moldovan and Nancoo, 2017 ONCJ 625, the court considered the continued tension between the intention of the courts to sentence an offender to short periods of incarceration, perhaps on an intermittent basis, and the tension created by correctional authorities continuing to potentially have those sentences served on a temporary absence basis outside of a detention centre. The court specifically considered the criteria of “the availability of appropriate accommodation to ensure compliance with the sentence..." in para 47, noting that the statutory requirement was provided as a condition precedent for a judge to impose an intermittent sentence. The court considered the scenario where correctional authorities would not retain an inmate on weekends for serving an intermittent sentence, but rather potentially release the inmate on a temporary absence order allowing release of the inmate to serve the sentence in the community on conditions.
45It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Middleton, 2009 SCC 21, considered the nature of an intermittent sentence as being one that is to be served in custody, see para 27.
46Following that, starting in March, 2020 when correctional authorities issued humanitarian TAPs for intermittent sentences as a result of concerns relating to the Covid 19 pandemic, some courts interpreted that scenario as being one where in Ontario intermittent sentences were not legally “available” as required by s. 732. See R. v. Gouin, [2021] O.J. No. 3157 (C.J.). Other courts adopted a different approach finding that intermittent sentences were inappropriate as the sentences would be meaningless if no jail time was served as a result of the TAP procedure, see R. v. Martensen, 2022 ONCJ 91, R. v. Trentadue, 2022 ONCJ 54, at para. 45, R. v. Fredson, 2020 ONCJ 519, at paras 103 to 104, R. v. M.C., 2020 ONCJ 339 at para 10, R. v. Veres, 2021 ONCJ 229 at paras 27 to 39 and this court’s decision in R. v. Mendonca, [2024] O.J. No. 6395.
47Alternatively, other courts have nonetheless imposed intermittent sentences even knowing that there would not be time served in jail and only TAPs issued, see R. v. Craymer, [2021] O.J. No. 1405 at paras 8 to 19, and R. v. Burrill, 2022 ONCJ 274 at paras 40 to 50.
48Nonetheless, at this point in time, in 2026, the evidence is clear that if a court sentences a defendant to an intermittent sentence, much like a short term of straight incarceration of 90 days or less, that inmate would be eligible for a temporary absence pass. That decision falls within the exclusive purview of corrections authorities, see s. 27 of the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.22, and the Regulation R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 778, ss. 36 to 39.1, issued under the Act, and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-20, ss. 7 to 7.6. See also R. v. Passera, 2019 ONCA 527, at paras 23 to 24 and 26. The court stated :
(a) I agree that when a sentence involves a term of imprisonment, the sentencing process can be viewed as encompassing both the term imposed by the sentencing judge and the statutory provisions under which the sentence will be administered by correctional authorities after it is imposed. Together they describe and define the punishment imposed. However, although part of a single process, the determination and imposition of a fit sentence and the administration of that sentence after it is imposed are two distinct functions, performed by different entities, governed by different statutory regimes, and designed to serve different purposes: R. v. Zinck, 2003 SCC 6, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 41, at para. 19. I do not agree with the appellant's characterization of parole eligibility questions as a component of the determination of a fit sentence.
(b) Sentencing judges are charged with imposing a fit sentence for the offence and the offender, having regard to concerns which include rehabilitation, deterrence and denunciation. Correctional authorities take the sentence as imposed and are responsible for administering that sentence. Sentence administration includes determining when and on what terms persons who are serving prison sentences should be permitted to serve some part of that sentence outside of the prison on conditions deemed appropriate by the correctional authorities. That assessment engages different considerations from those that influence the determination of an appropriate sentence. Decisions pertaining to conditional release are, by their very nature, predicated to a considerable degree on events that post-date the imposition of sentence.
POSITIONS OF CROWN AND DEFENCE ON SENTENCE:
49The Crown initially submitted after this trial, that there should be a sentence of 30 days straight incarceration, given the mandatory minimum penalty in place, to be followed by 12 months probation and a 2 year driving prohibition order. The Crown made the alternate submission that if an intermittent sentence were to be imposed by the court it should be in the range of 45 to 60 days, noting the aggravating features arising from the driving record of Mr. Quammie.
50Defence counsel initially submitted that an intermittent sentence would be appropriate and the court expressed its concerns that it was not available in Ontario currently. Counsel requested that sentence be put over. Additional evidence was put before the court, including the testimony of the Superintendent of the TSDC, as set out above. At the conclusion of all of the evidence and submissions, defence counsel continues to submit the absolute minimum penalty for Mr. Quammie of 30 days incarceration, to be served intermittently and a 2 year driving prohibition. It is clear that there would need to be a period of probation to run alongside the intermittent sentence.
51In addition to the cases noted herein, defence counsel relied upon R. v. Thanabalasingam, 2023 ONCJ 29, where the court heard evidence that at the TSDC a significant portion of inmates serving intermittent sentences were granted TAP permits, and the court found that the appropriate accommodation under s. 732 was available based upon some offenders being required to serve the custodial portion of sentence in incarceration, and imposed an intermittent sentence. The defence also relied upon R. v. Wesley, 2025 ONCA 51
52In terms of the quantum of sentence generally, the court considers the following cases dealing with general principles of sentencing.
53In 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada noted in R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206 (S.C.C.), at para. 43, that "[n]o one sentencing objective trumps the others and it falls to the sentencing judge to determine which objective or objectives merit the greatest weight, given the particulars of the case."
54The court bears in mind guiding comments of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] S.C.J. No. 64. In that judgment, the Court stated that sentencing ranges are primarily guidelines, not hard and fast rules. Even if an appellate court has established a range, it may be that a fact pattern may arise which is sufficiently dissimilar to past decisions that the range must be expanded. Sentencing ranges are nothing more than summaries of the minimum and maximum sentences imposed in the past, which serve in any given case as guides for the application of all the relevant principles and objectives. However, they should not be considered "averages", let alone straitjackets, but should instead be seen as historical portraits for the use of sentencing judges, who must still exercise their discretion in each case. Accordingly, a sentencing range is not a straitjacket to the exercise of discretion of a sentencing judge. Each crime is committed in unique circumstances by an offender with a unique profile. Everything depends on the gravity of the offence, the offender's degree of responsibility and the specific circumstances of each case. Sentencing ranges must in all cases remain only one tool among others that are intended to aid trial judges in their work. The Court specifically stated, at para 73 :
73 While it is true that the objectives of deterrence and denunciation apply in most cases, they are particularly relevant to offences that might be committed by ordinarily law-abiding people. It is such people, more than chronic offenders, who will be sensitive to harsh sentences. Impaired driving offences are an obvious example of this type of offence, as this Court noted in Proulx:
o ... dangerous driving and impaired driving may be offences for which harsh sentences plausibly provide general deterrence. These crimes are often committed by otherwise law-abiding persons, with good employment records and families. Arguably, such persons are the ones most likely to be deterred by the threat of severe penalties: see R. v. McVeigh (1985), 1985 115 (ON CA), 22 C.C.C. (3d) 145 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 150; R. v. Biancofiore (1997), 1997 3420 (ON CA), 119 C.C.C. (3d) 344 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 18-24; R. v. Blakeley (1998), 1998 6218 (ON CA), 40 O.R. (3d) 541 (C.A.), at pp. 542-43. [para. 129]
See also R. v. Frickey, 2017 ONCA 1024, at paras 4 and 5
55As it relates specifically to offences related to drinking and driving offences, the court would note that on June 21, 2018, Parliament assented to An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (S.C. 2018, c. 21). In the Preamble, it indicated in part :
Whereas dangerous driving and impaired driving injure or kill thousands of people in Canada every year;
Whereas dangerous driving and impaired driving are unacceptable at all times and in all circumstances;
Whereas it is important to deter persons from driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs;
…Whereas it is important to protect the public from the dangers posed by consuming large quantities of alcohol immediately before driving;
Whereas it is important to deter persons from consuming alcohol or drugs after driving in circumstances where they have a reasonable expectation that they would be required to provide a sample of breath or blood;
Whereas it is important that federal and provincial laws work together to promote the safe operation of motor vehicles;
And whereas the Parliament of Canada is committed to adopting a precautionary approach in relation to driving and the consumption of drugs, and to deterring the commission of offences relating to the operation of conveyances, particularly dangerous driving and impaired driving.
56The increase in the penalties for this offence reflects Parliament’s direction, as generally commented upon by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at paras 99 and 100, that the offences are to be treated as more grave than they have in the past. Accordingly, this court should look at sentences imposed prior to 2018 through that filter which was pursuant to a pre-2018 sentencing regime that provided lower maximum sentences and potentially lower punishments overall. This is consistent with R. v. Seguin, 2024 ONCA 355, at para 14 and R. v. Fazzina, 2024 ONCJ 647, at para 47.
57Sentencing is highly individualized, see R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, para 4.
58In 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, [2021] SCJ No. 46, in the majority judgment at para 10, stated that proportionality is the organizing principle for the court in imposing a fair, fit and principled sentence. Proportionality is the fundamental principle. Sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender, and the unique circumstances of each case. Parity and individualization are important, yet secondary principles. The demands of proportionality must be calibrated by reference to the sentences imposed in other cases. Individualization is central to the assessment of proportionality in that it demands consideration of the individual circumstances of each offender, as set out in para. 12.
59The principle of proportionality is also codified in the Criminal Code, which states that the sentence imposed by the court must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender (see 718.1 of the Criminal Code).
60Further the court bears in mind that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the objectives of denunciation, deterrence (both generally and specifically for the offender), separation of the offenders from society where necessary, rehabilitation, to provide reparation for harm done to victims or to the community, and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or to the community (see s. 718 of the Criminal Code). The court bears in mind any applicable sentencing principles as set out in s. 718.2, and as well the principles of parity, totality and judicial restraint in considering a sentence of deprivation of liberty or imprisonment, as set out in s. 718.2 (b) through (e). The emphasis of the court in considering those various objectives depends on the nature of the offence, and the circumstances of an offender.
61The court considers the nature of the offence, set out above, together with the circumstances of the offender.
62As it relates to the offender, Mr. Quammie is neither youthful, nor a first offender. He has also previously been sentenced to terms of incarceration. Nonetheless the court is mindful of the principle of judicial restraint in terms of sentencing an offender to a term of incarceration, which is required in this case.
63The court considers the family circumstances of Mr. Quammie and that he shares joint custody with the mother of his 16 year old son. Previously he took on sole custody of this son for a very brief period of time when the mother of his son was out of the country. The court is mindful of the circumstance that the mother of his son already has custody of their son on a regular part-time basis, and that any required minimum or longer term of imprisonment may require adjustment to the custody arrangement. He otherwise lives alone in his apartment with his dog, and he has a girlfriend. The court is mindful of the principles set out by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. D.B., 2025 ONCA 577, and in particular paras. 19 to 24 and 37 to 38. There will be collateral consequences of separation from the teenage son of Mr. Quammie flowing from the term of incarceration to be imposed by this court, and the court takes that into account. It is clear that the consequences would be less if the court imposed a term of incarceration that could be imposed intermittently rather than as what is commonly referred to as straight time. It would also not affect his employment and income available to his son, although the defence has not made submissions regarding any financial support provided by Mr. Quammie to his teenage son.
64The fact that Mr. Quammie entered a plea of not guilty and a trial followed is not an aggravating factor. A guilty plea saving the need for witnesses to testify at trial can be a mitigating factor. The absence of a guilty plea is neutral. As the Court of Appeal for Ontario noted in R. v. Kakekagamick, 2006 28549 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 3346, the “failure to accept responsibility for his actions weighs against affording him significant consideration by way of mitigation”.
65Mr. Quammie has no indigenous background and no pre sentence custody in relation to this offence.
66As noted above notwithstanding the amendments to the Criminal Code calling out for higher sentences related to offences of drinking and driving, there have been no amendments to suggest to courts that intermittent sentences should not be imposed for such offences. As it relates to the case at bar, there is a minimum penalty of 30 days incarceration. In this case, Mr. Quammie has a bad driving record. He also was convicted on a significant speeding charge while awaiting judgment in the case at bar. He has not shown a great deal of remorse, although the court does consider his oral statement to the court at the conclusion of submissions by counsel.
67Overall, the court finds that the appropriate sentence in this case is one of 60 days incarceration.
68The court will make an order that this sentence be served intermittently. Mr. Quammie shall report to the jail, at the TSDC, on Friday March 27, at 7 pm, to remain at the jail until Monday morning March 30, 2026 to be released at 5 am, and to turn himself in custody each successive Friday night at 7 pm, to be released the following Monday morning at 5 am, until the sentence is served.
69The court specifically makes a recommendation that there be for this intermittent sentence NO TAP permit granted for Mr. Quammie if there is an application for a TAP permit, in light of his record, as set out in the reasons for sentence, and in light of the law as set out in the Criminal Code. The court has granted the request of Mr. Quammie that he be permitted to serve his sentence intermittently in order to retain his employment and interfere in the least way possible with child care responsibilities related to his child. The criminal law prevents a conditional sentence for this case. If the TSDC grants a TAP permit in this case, converting a sentence of real custody to this more lenient way of serving this sentence in his home on weekends, it would be a total affront to the principles in the Criminal Code, with all due respect to the separate function of Corrections determining how a sentence can be served. It would amount to a weekend conditional sentence far more lenient than a traditional conditional sentence not permitted in criminal law. This court would note that this would be contrary to the principles set out by Parliament for these types of offences where there are prior convictions.
70While serving the intermittent sentence, there shall be a probation order with a term that he turn himself in custody with no alcohol in his system and that he not consume any alcohol or non-medically prescribed drugs within 48 hours prior to turning himself in custody each Friday night.
71The minimum driving prohibition is one of 2 years and 60 days incarceration. Given the bad driving record in this case and the circumstances of the offence, the court finds that the appropriate period for the driving prohibition will be one of 2 years and 6 months.
72There will also be a period of 18 months probation. Mr. Quammie shall report to a probation officer within 3 business days after completion of the term of incarceration and thereafter as directed by his probation officer. He shall be required to attend for any assessment and counseling as directed by the probation officer for substance dependency. He shall sign any releases consents or waivers requested by the probation officer to allow the officer to monitor his attendance at these appointments. He shall seek and maintain employment. He shall not operate or be in the seat ordinary occupied by an operator of a conveyance for the term of probation.
73The victim fine surcharge shall be imposed. The court will permit 3 months within which to impose payment of this surcharge.
Released: March 26, 2026
Signed: Justice Beverly A. Brown