R. v. Connelly-Kereliuk, 2026 ONCJ 204

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. Connelly-Kereliuk, 2026 ONCJ 204 DATE: 2026-04-07 NEWMARKET

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

KAYLA CONNELLY-KERELIUK

SENTENCING

Guilty Plea and Finding of Guilt: December 11, 2025 Heard and Delivered: April 7, 2026

Counsel: Ms. Esti Azizi, counsel for the Crown Ms. Courtenay Cameron, counsel for the defendant

KENKEL J.:

Introduction

1On the morning of June 21, 2024, Mr. Grant Goodine was driving to work. At 9:15 a.m. he drove into an intersection on a green light. He was hit by the accused’s car travelling at high speed through a stale red light. Mr. Goodine was killed and Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk’s passenger was badly injured.

2The force of the collision caused catastrophic injuries. Mr. Goodine sustained multiple blunt force injuries and later died in hospital on July 4, 2024. Mr. Schronk suffered serious but non-life-threatening injuries, including a broken ankle requiring surgery, a cracked sternum, and a laceration to his hand. The collision occurred in clear daytime conditions on a dry roadway. The reconstruction evidence established sustained acceleration, near-full throttle, and the absence of meaningful braking or evasive action by Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk prior to impact.

3Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk pleaded guilty to Dangerous Operation Causing Death s 320.13(3) and Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm s 320.13(2).

4The Crown seeks a custodial sentence of 4 years with a 5-year driving prohibition and further ancillary orders. The defence submits that a global sentence of 2 years less 1 day served in the community with house arrest for the full duration, combined with a 2-year probation and a 5-year driving prohibition would best address the circumstances in this case.

5These reasons consider what sentence should apply where the evidence shows that the offender’s driving was caused by an episode of bipolar affective disorder.

Aggravating Circumstances

6The tragic death of Mr. Goodine and the significant injuries to Mr. Schronk are reflected in the counts charged. The further circumstances that aggravate sentence include:

• Extreme Speed – speeding between 101 to 115km/h in a 60km zone before the crash.
• Deliberate Risk-Taking – the accelerator pedal and engine throttle were at 99.5% and 100% respectively when the vehicle brake was applied a half second before the collision. The aggressive driving was not momentary but started when Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk picked up her passenger and then continued with aggressive acceleration over 1.2km to the crash.
• Ignoring Traffic Signals – Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk ignored a stale red light. She did not stop or slow but accelerated at full speed into an intersection on a busy street.
• Warning – Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk was alerted to the obvious danger posed by her speeding, but she ignored Mr. Schronk’s request to slow down.
• Multiple victims – The fact that the dangerous operation resulted in harm and death to two victims is an aggravating factor – s 320.22(a).
• Impact on the Victims – The impact of Mr. Goodine’s death on his family and friends as set out in the victim impact statements, and the impact of Mr. Schronk’s injuries on him and his mother as set out in her victim impact statement are foreseeable consequences of these offences that aggravate sentence.
• Prior Aggressive Driving – There were instances of aggressive driving prior to this crash, but they were brief and did not result in traffic or criminal charges.

Mitigating Circumstances

7The following factors mitigate sentence:

• No Record – Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk has no prior criminal or provincial driving record.
• Plea – She entered a guilty plea at the outset of her preliminary hearing. It was not an early plea. It came in the face of a very strong Crown case, but it was a resolution before evidence was heard and I accept that it is mitigating and an indication of remorse.
• Remorse – Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk’s allocution showed that she has reflected on the gravity of her conduct and the consequences. Her apologies to both families and her statement of remorse was sincere.
• Insight – It is not always the case that an offender who suffers from bipolar disorder has insight into her condition and is able to recognize the need to engage in continuous treatment. Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk’s statement showed that she fully appreciates the link between her illness and these offences. Her conduct since the offences in re-engaging in treatment and counselling for almost two years without incident bodes well for her rehabilitation.
• Youth – Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk is a youthful offender. She was 26 years of age at the time of the offences.
• Mental Health – As discussed further below, Ms. Connelly suffered from bipolar disorder which was causally linked to the offence.
• Community Support – The letters submitted by the defence showed that she is a person of otherwise good character who continues to enjoy strong support in the community. While that is not unusual for this type of offence, it is one of several factors that indicate a good prospect for rehabilitation.

Mental Health – Bipolar Disorder

8Like many diseases, bipolar disorder is unfair. Persons like Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk are pro-social and successful in high school and university. Then as explained at page 25 of Dr. Pearce’s report, for a person suffering from the disorder the symptoms start to appear in their mid 20’s or later. The person begins to experience episodes of mania and depression. They may experience psychosis, delusions, hallucinations, and grossly disorganized thoughts. The disorder is life-long. There is no cure, although treatments continue to improve.

9Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk’s parents both suffered from depression. She was raised by her grandparents. Dr. Pearce’s report shows that she has suffered from bipolar disorder from 2020 onwards but she sought out medical treatment and counselling and she has generally been compliant.

10Dr. Pearce’s conclusion at page 26 of his report finds that her mental illness was active at the time of the offence and the symptoms were affecting her judgment. Her illness did not provide a defence under s 16, but it wasn’t far off. That finding is consistent with the circumstances – that Mr. Connelly-Kereliuk accelerated dangerously for no reason and continued to do so despite the plain risk to herself and others. It’s the one explanation that is consistent with the circumstances at the time.

11I agree with the Crown that there is evidence that Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk has given different explanations at different times about the reason she drove in that manner. It doesn’t seem she actually knows why she drove that way given her illness. Dr. Pearce reasonably explained at page 26 why the possibility of suicide attempt or more deliberate conduct was unlikely.

12Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk wasn’t detained for mental health issues on the date of the offence, but her treatment was for a broken foot. It’s not plain that any other assessment was done. In any event, within days she was admitted to hospital for the ongoing bipolar episode.

13I find that there was a direct causal connection between Ms. Connelly Kereliuk’s bipolar disorder and these offences.

Range of Sentence

14The maximum sentence for Dangerous Operation Causing Death was increased in 2018 to Life from a prior maximum of 14 years – s 320.21. That change signalled Parliament’s intention that sentences for that offence should increase – R v Lojovic, 2025 ONCA 319 at para 64. Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm has a maximum punishment of 14 years imprisonment – s 320.2.

15Parliament amended the conditional sentence provisions in 2022. A conditional sentence is again available for both of these offences. The Crown submits that the general range of sentence for these offence is 3-5 years. After the 2018 amendments, 5 years no longer represents the top of the range – Lojovic at para 64.

16Different considerations apply where the offender is shown to have been suffering from a major mental illness that is causally related to the offence.

Sentence

17Nothing that I can say, and no sentence that I can impose can repair the loss suffered by Mr. Goodine’s family and loved ones. The court cannot undo the harm caused to him and to Mr. Schronk. The sentencing process cannot provide sufficient consolation or closure to those most deeply affected.

18The purpose of sentence is instead to impose a proportionate and just sanction that reflects the gravity of the offences, the degree of responsibility of the offender, along with the broader objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and the protection of the public. For a first offender the sentence must reflect restraint even in these circumstances. Rehabilitation is an important goal not only for the offender’s sake but also as the best way to protect the community in the future.

19The many aggravating circumstances in this case support the Crown’s submission that a 4-year penitentiary sentence is required. But for Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk’s illness at the time, that would be the sentence that would apply.

20What happens though when the driver’s dangerous actions were directly caused by bipolar affective disorder? When we impose sentences in criminal matters, it’s not just the offence and its consequences that are considered. Also important is the degree of the offender’s responsibility – s 718.1. The moral culpability of the offender is necessarily determined by her state of mind at the time of the commission of the offence.

21Here Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk’s responsibility for the offence is diminished by the fact that she was suffering from bipolar affective disorder which caused her to act in a way that made no sense and led to tragic consequences.

22Denunciation and deterrence are the primary goals in sentencing for dangerous operation causing death and bodily harm – R v Lojovic at para 65. However, when mental disorder plays a central role in the commission of the offence, the role of those factors is diminished – R v Perry, 2025 ONCA 241 at para 27.

23I agree with both parties that a custodial sentence is required to address Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk’s offences and the consequences that resulted. In cases of dangerous operation with other aggravating features such as Perry, and Lojovic jail sentences have been imposed despite a causal connection between a mental health episode and the offence.

24In this case I find that a conditional sentence of 2 years less 1 day with restrictive conditions and strict ancillary orders best meets the purpose and principles of sentence for the following reasons:

• After almost two years in the community complying with treatment and counselling without incident, I find that a sentence served in the community with driving restrictions would not pose a risk to the community.
• This offence is not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment nor is it statute barred under s 742.1.
• A conditional sentence on strict terms combined with ancillary orders can provide for denunciation and deterrence in a manner appropriate to the circumstances of this offender.
• There is a real risk that incarceration would undo the offender’s ongoing medical treatment and counselling and would disconnect her from her strong support network in York Region.
• A conditional sentence best provides for rehabilitation and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in this case which are goals that provide for the long-term protection of society.
• Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk’s driving was caused by the effects of a bipolar episode. The few similar brief incidents of unexplained acceleration mentioned in the psychiatrist’s report were also during episodes of that illness. There is no evidence that Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk is otherwise an aggressive driver.

25I find that a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2.

26The rejection of a penitentiary sentence is no reflection on the significance of the life lost or the harm caused. It does not diminish in any way the gravity of the offences and the accused’s conduct. It simply reflects the fact that the criminal justice system does not punish persons whose judgment is undermined by active mental illness in the same way that we punish persons of sound mind who engage in dangerous conduct deliberately.

27In addition to the mandatory terms in s 742.3(1), Ms. Connelly Kereliuk will obey the following conditions:

• Report to a supervisor within 48 hours by phone and thereafter as required.
• Abstain from the consumption of alcohol, marijuana or non-prescription drugs
• Abstain from communicating with the members of the victim’s families as named by the Crown
• Not occupy the driver’s seat of any motor vehicle.
• Not operate a motor vehicle.
• Not possess keys to any motor vehicle.
• Not possess any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code
• Continue counselling for bipolar affective disorder as directed by your supervisor and sign any releases necessary for your supervisor to monitor compliance with this term
• For the entire term of this order obey a condition of house arrest to remain in your residence at all times with the following exceptions: medical emergencies involving you or a member of your immediate family, except on Saturdays from 12 noon to 4pm for shopping for the necessities of life, except for medical or dental appointments, except to attend mental health counselling, except to perform community service as directed by your supervisor, except for any other purpose approved in advance in writing by your supervisor.
• You are to enter and comply with the provincial GPS program as directed by your supervisor. You will comply with the rules and regulations of that program.
• Perform 100 hours of community service within the first 20 months of this order.

28The conditional sentence will be followed by probation for two years. In addition to the statutory conditions Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk will:

• Report to her probation officer within 48 hours of the expiry of her conditional sentence and thereafter as required.
• Abstain from the consumption of alcohol, marijuana or non-prescription drugs
• Abstain from communicating with the members of the victim’s families as named by the Crown
• Not occupy the driver’s seat of any motor vehicle.
• Not operate a motor vehicle.
• Not possess keys to any motor vehicle.
• Not possess any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code
• Continue counselling for bipolar affective disorder as directed by your probation officer and sign any releases necessary for your probation officer to monitor compliance with this term

29The conditional sentence and probation are concurrent on both counts.

Prohibition

30The prohibition period for dangerous operation where death is caused is “any duration that the court considers appropriate, plus the entire period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment” – s 320.24(5)(a). For dangerous operation where bodily harm was caused, the maximum prohibition would be 10 years, plus the entire period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment – s 320.34(5)(b).

31I disagree with the Crown that a 5-year prohibition provides sufficient protection to the public, even when combined with the custodial sentence served in the community. There were other instances of unexplained aggressive and dangerous driving prior to this incident. While Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk has engaged in treatment from the outset of her illness, there were times when she did not comply with treatment including the day of this crash. She presents a significant danger to the public when she is non-compliant and she chooses to drive in that state.

32The protection of the public remains a central goal of sentence, even in cases like this where a mental health condition diminishes the importance of other sentencing factors. It’s not plain that it will ever be safe for Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk to drive. The answer to that question will only be plain after an extended period of wellness and counselling.

33The prohibition forms part of the overall sentence. Where the sentence imposed is at the lower end of the range, a longer prohibition would also address general and specific deterrence – R c Simard, 2024 QCCA 835 at paras 70-71.

34In this case I find it necessary to impose a driving prohibition for 10 years plus the conditional sentence of 2 years less 1 day for a total prohibition of 12 years less 1 day on the Causing Death count. There will be a concurrent prohibition of 5 years on the Causing Bodily Harm count.

Ancillary Orders

35Both parties jointly submitted that two further orders are necessary:

• DNA – Both Dangerous Operation counts are secondary offences for the purpose of the national DNA databank system. Given the tragic death and injuries caused in these offences, the role DNA can play in the investigation of those types of offences, the strong public interest in investigations where death and significant bodily harm has been caused, and the minimal intrusions on the offender’s personal privacy given the protections in the databank scheme, Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk is ordered to provide a sample of her DNA for registration on the national databank.
• 109 – There will be an order prohibiting Ms. Connelly-Kereliuk from possessing any firearms or related items set out under that section for a period of 10 years.

Delivered: April 7, 2026.