ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
JOSEPH PHILLIPS
Before Justice Seth Weinstein
Heard on February 2, 2026 and March 18, 2026
Reasons for Sentence released on June 9, 2026
Dylan Theriault-Harris counsel for the Crown
David Robinson counsel for Joseph Phillips
WEINSTEIN J.:
Introduction
1Mr. Phillips is a serial recidivist, particularly concerning criminal driving offences. On February 2, 2026, he pleaded guilty to impaired driving and driving while prohibited. This was his third conviction for impaired driving and his eleventh conviction for driving while prohibited. At the time of this offence, he was bound by a lifetime driving prohibition.
2The Crown seeks a total sentence of two and a half years imprisonment. The Crown emphasized that denunciation and deterrence are the primary applicable principles, which are particularly pressing here given Mr. Phillips criminal record and his repeated and flagrant disregard for court orders.
3The defence submits that the statutory minimum sentence of 120 days imprisonment is appropriate. Counsel argues that Mr. Phillips’ repeated offending stems from underlying mental health and addiction issues, and that, as a result, the principles of deterrence and denunciation should yield to rehabilitation. It is further submitted that Mr. Phillips has now addressed the factors contributing to his criminal behaviour, and that a more substantial custodial sentence would jeopardize the progress he has made.
4These are my reasons for sentence.
Circumstances of the Offence
5On August 21, 2023, Mr. Phillips was driving eastbound on York Mills Road toward the intersection at Bayview Avenue. He struck the centre median causing significant damage to the front of his vehicle. When officers attended to check on his well‑being, they observed that he had slurred speech, poor motor coordination, glassy eyes, and a strong odour of alcohol on his breath.
6Mr. Phillips identified himself with a false name using a fake driver’s licence. He was arrested, and a demand was made for the provision of breath samples. Mr. Phillips was then transported to 32 Division to provide a breath sample. He eventually provided two samples, which registered 117 mg of alcohol per 100 mL of blood and 118 mg of alcohol per 100 mL of blood.
7Police eventually determined Mr. Phillips’ identity and learned that he was subject to a lifetime driving prohibition.
Circumstances of the Offender
8Mr. Phillips is 47 years old and a Canadian citizen. He works two jobs; as a chef and as a labourer. I am advised that he also provides care for his 84‑year‑old mother, assisting with cleaning, grocery shopping, and meeting her daily needs.
9Mr. Phillips has an extensive criminal record, including prior convictions for drug trafficking and violent offences, although his last conviction for those types of offences dates to 2015. He also has two prior impaired‑driving convictions, the most recent dating back to 2006. Since then, he has accumulated numerous convictions for breaching court orders, particularly driving prohibitions. Most significantly, Mr. Phillips has ten prior convictions for violating driving prohibitions. His most recent conviction was in 2019, for which he received a custodial sentence of 540 days.
10Counsel for Mr. Phillips filed a Summary of Disability Decision dated August 3, 2023, prepared by the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services. The report notes that Mr. Phillips has been diagnosed with PTSD arising from trauma he experienced while previously in custody, and that he also suffers from obsessive‑compulsive disorder. The author recommended that Mr. Phillips engage in community‑based mental‑health programming and that he be treated by a psychiatrist. Beyond that which is set out below, there is no evidence before me that Mr. Phillips has accessed these services.
11In an affidavit submitted at the sentencing hearing, Mr. Phillips states that this incident has served as a wake‑up call for him. He acknowledges the need to make meaningful changes to prevent any recurrence. He reports that he has stopped consuming alcohol and intends to continue living responsibly and lawfully. He has completed fourteen Alcoholics Anonymous sessions and an eight‑hour anger‑management program through the John Howard Society, which he says have helped him better understand his emotions and provided him with tools to cope with stress without turning to alcohol. Mr. Phillips also states that he has been better able to manage his mental‑health symptoms since he started using a sleep‑apnea machine and by consistently taking his prescribed medications.
Legal Framework
12Sentencing is a highly individualized process that must reflect and balance multiple, and often competing, sentencing objectives: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at para. 58. The maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society is the fundamental purpose of sentencing.
13Determining the appropriate sentence requires that I weigh the sentencing objectives set out in section 718(a) to (f) of the Criminal Code. Ultimately, the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility borne by the offender. However, given his repeated and flagrant disregard for court orders and his propensity to engage in alcohol related offending, the dominant objectives in this case are deterrence and denunciation: R. v. Wolynec, 2015 ONCA 656, at para. 117.
Aggravating Factors
14Sentencing involves balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to the offence and the offender. The principal aggravating factor in this matter is Mr. Phillips’ extremely lengthy and related criminal record. Mr. Phillips’ adult criminal record begins in 1998 and continues uninterrupted until 2019. He has 59 prior convictions, which include:
Two convictions for impaired driving.
Ten convictions for driving disqualified.
Five convictions for failing to comply with his probation.
One conviction for failing to comply with his recognizance.
Two counts escape lawful custody.
Three convictions for obstruct peace officer.
Four convictions for possession of a Schedule I substance.
One conviction for possession for purposes of trafficking.
Trafficking in Schedule I substance.
Robbery; and
Use imitation firearm while committing a robbery.
15While the last entry on Mr. Phillips’ record was in 2019, he received a substantial sentence at that time. He has also received several significant jail sentences for his other convictions, including a penitentiary sentence in 2012. Mr. Phillips received a lifetime driving prohibition in 2018.
16In addition to his criminal record, I find the following are aggravating factors:
(a) There was an accident which caused significant damage to Mr. Phillips’ vehicle.
(b) His level of impairment was significant. Mr. Phillips had slurred speech, poor motor coordination, glassy eyes, and a strong odour of alcohol on his breath. He was so intoxicated that he soiled himself while in custody.
(c) His blood alcohol readings.
(d) Mr. Phillips was carrying a fake driver’s licence and obstructed the police by identifying himself with a false name; and
(e) At the time of the incident, Mr. Phillips was the subject of a lifetime driving prohibition.
Mitigating Factors
17The two significant mitigating factors in this case are Mr. Phillips’ guilty plea and that it appears that he has had a change in attitude and imposed some self-discipline that might reduce the likelihood of further re-offending.
18Counsel submits that Mr. Phillips is entitled to considerable mitigation because his conduct is the by-product of an alcohol addiction and mental health challenges. I have no doubt that Mr. Phillips suffers from these challenges. However, I am not satisfied that there is causal link between those issues and the commission of this offence: R. v. Fabro, 2021 ONCA 494, at para. 25; R. v. Megill, 2021 ONCA 253, at para. 171; and R. v. Pioriello, 2012 ONCA 63, at paras. 11–12.
19Mr. Phillips’ alcohol dependency may offer some explanation for his alcohol‑related offending. However, it does not account for his repeated and deliberate decisions to drive in defiance of court orders. His conduct was not impulsive, nor was it the product of impaired judgment attributable to mental illness. On the contrary, the use of a false driver’s licence demonstrates planning, forethought, and an intentional effort to evade detection. This purposeful conduct significantly undermines any suggestion that his breaches were the result of rash decision‑making or compromised mental functioning. Rather, they reflect a sustained pattern of wilful disregard for court orders.
20I am also not persuaded that Mr. Phillips’ use of a sleep‑apnea machine meaningfully addresses the range of psychiatric and mental‑health issues he identifies, or that it will enable him to make more rational decisions. Moreover, there is no evidence before me that he has sought or engaged in the psychiatric treatment recommended in the August 2023 Summary of Disability Decision. In the absence of any effort to access the community‑based supports available to him, I cannot accept that he is fully committed to obtaining the help he requires.
21I accept that Mr. Phillips will have some difficulties in custody because of his PTSD and anxiety. However, there is no evidence that his mental health issues cannot be managed in jail or that his conditions would be expected to seriously deteriorate while incarcerated. Keeping in mind the seriousness of Mr. Phillips’ conduct and his heightened moral blameworthiness, I do not find that Mr. Phillips’s physical and mental health issues warrant a significant reduction in his sentence.
22Finally, I have considered the impact that Mr. Phillips’ incarceration will have on his mother. Such consequences are regrettable but not uncommon. While collateral hardship to family members is a relevant consideration, the sentence I impose must remain proportionate to the gravity of the offences and to Mr. Phillips’ degree of responsibility: R. v. D.B., 2025 ONCA 577; R. v. L.C., 2022 ONCA 863, at para. 24.
23The hardship his mother may experience does not diminish Mr. Phillips’ moral responsibility for repeatedly breaching court‑ordered driving prohibitions. He was fully aware of his personal and family circumstances each time he chose to drive in defiance of those orders. His ongoing disregard for these prohibitions despite knowing the potential consequences for both him and those who depend on him underscores the intentional and deliberate nature of his conduct. These circumstances cannot now be invoked to mitigate the sentence to a degree that would undermine the proportionality of the response required for his repeated and wilful breaches.
Conclusion
24I must remain guided by the fundamental purpose of sentencing, uphold the principle of proportionality, apply the relevant sentencing principles, and carefully balance the aggravating, mitigating, and collateral factors. Having conducted a comprehensive analysis, I am satisfied that a total sentence of two years imprisonment followed by two years probation is fit and appropriate.
25Mr. Phillips is an incorrigible offender. He is a serious recidivist who is a danger to our community. Mr. Phillips has persistently ignored numerous driving prohibitions. He has been undeterred by lengthy jail sentences he received for similar offences. By continuously driving while prohibited, Mr. Phillips presents a risk to public safety. This risk is heightened given his demonstrated proclivity to commit drinking and driving offences: R. v. Simeunovich, 2023 ONCA 562 at para. 19; R. v. Lavergne, 2018 ONCJ 901, at para. 86.
26A sentence of two years imprisonment reflects Mr. Phillips’ high moral culpability, protects the public, and sends a clear message of deterrence and denunciation. It also sends Mr. Phillips a message that he will face increasingly long sentences if he continues to engage in this type of criminality.
27A two-year sentence also permits the imposition of a term of probation. This supervision will facilitate Mr. Phillips’ access to programming aimed at addressing his substance use and mental health issues. A term of probation will provide ongoing oversight and access to community supports which are essential to reducing the risk of re‑offending. In this way, the sentence not only promotes Mr. Phillips’ rehabilitation, but also enhances the protection of the community.
28I am somewhat encouraged by the insight Mr. Phillips has shown and by the steps he has taken toward rehabilitation. Had these efforts not been made, I would have had little difficulty imposing the two‑and‑a‑half‑year sentence sought by the Crown. It is never too late for an offender to commit to meaningful change. Ultimately, however, insight must be matched by sustained action. It will be up to Mr. Phillips to demonstrate through his conduct that he is committed to abiding by the law. I am hopeful that this sentence will serve as the wake‑up call Mr. Phillips needs to begin respecting court orders and to remain off the road permanently. That is the only way the public can be protected.
29Mr. Phillips’ sentence will be allocated as follows:
Impaired driving, 4 months custody.
Drive prohibited, 20 months custody consecutive.
30In addition to the term of imprisonment, Mr. Phillips will be placed on probation for two years. The terms of the probation are:
(a) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
(b) Appear before the Court when required to do so.
(c) Notify the Court or probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify of any change of employment or occupation.
(d) Report to a probation officer within two working days of your release from custody and after that, at all times and places as directed.
(e) Attend and actively participate in all assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed and complete them to the satisfaction of your probation officer for:
(i) Substance abuse, alcohol abuse and mental health.
(f) Sign any release of information forms as will enable your probation officer to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed.
(g) Do not occupy the driver’s seat of any conveyance.
(h) Do not possess any identification unless it has been lawfully issued in your name.
31There will be lifetime driving prohibition.
32Given that Mr. Phillips will be serving a lengthy sentence, I find that the victim fine surcharge would be an undue hardship so it will be waived.
Released: June 9, 2026
Signed: Justice Seth Weinstein