CITATION: R. v. Sandhu, 2021 ONCJ 534
DATE: September 17, 2021
Information # 1211-998-20-3713-02
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
v.
AZAD SANDHU
REASONS
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LATIMER
on September 17, 2021, at BURLINGTON, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Ms. S. Wollaston Counsel for the Crown
Mr. D. Bayliss Counsel for Azad Sandhu
FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 17, 2021
R E A S O N S
LATIMER, J: (Orally)
Azad Sandhu is an 18-year-old first offender who, on the evidence adduced before me on this sentence hearing, became enmeshed in a motor vehicle theft scheme. He would accompany another male on trips to the dealerships, where the other male would interact with staff and seek a test drive. This male and Mr. Sandhu would leave for the test drive and never return.
On one occasion, Mr. Sandhu personally rented a car that was never ultimately returned.
Following a judicial pretrial, he has plead guilty to two-counts of theft of a motor vehicle and one-count of possession of property obtained by a crime. It falls to me to determine an appropriate sentence.
In these reasons, I propose to address the nature of the offences themselves, then the evidence in relation to Mr. Sandhu as a person, before turning to a legal analysis.
The key questions to be answered, in my view, are whether a custodial sentence is required and, if it’s not, what non-custodial sentence best balances public safety and the other operative principles of sentencing in the context of this youthful first offender.
The Criminal Code instructs judges in the proper approach to a criminal sentencing. Section 718.1 directs that the fundamental principle in sentencing is to impose a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed and the degree of responsibility the person who committed it. This means that for the sentence I impose to be appropriate must be tailored to Mr. Sandhu’s circumstances and the circumstances of the offences he has committed.
Regarding the offences, they are clearly serious for the following reasons:
While I have no victim impact statement, or indication of the extent of the financial loss suffered or whether the victims were compensated, partially or fully, by insurance, I do accept that this conduct would have had a meaningful financial impact on the victim dealerships. Many of the cars taken were luxury motor vehicles.
Mr. Sandhu was part of an overall plan to steal these vehicles. That is evident from the fact that he and Mr. Singh, the person who drove the vehicles, were dropped off by an unknown party at the dealership who shadowed their vehicle upon leaving.
I find, however, that Mr. Sandhu was a lesser or bit-player in this scheme, as evidenced by the fact that on most occasions he was not the person interacting with dealership staff, that was Mr. Singh. Mr. Sandhu would accompany him, take the test-drives as a passenger. His liability in these circumstances is as a party.
However, on one occasion - the incident with the rental car - he was the prime mover in the theft. On the other occasions, to borrow the expression used by the officer who conducted Mr. Sandhu’s post-arrest statement, he was “along for the ride”.
It is aggravating that false identification was involved and that Mr. Sandhu had his own fake identification in his pocket. I accept, however, on the evidence adduced, that Mr. Sandhu was compelled or pressured while intoxicated to participate in the creation of this false identification, and that he was only provided it for the purpose of conducting criminal conduct. Once that was complete, the identity document was taken back from him.
I accept that Mr. Sandhu, who was struggling with an alcohol-abuse problem in the fall of 2020, was intoxicated during the dealership thefts. While that fact does not diminish the seriousness of the crime, it does diminish his moral culpability to a degree.
I note, as Mr. Morrow did in submissions, the fact that this pattern of offending occurred over three months. This was not a one-off situation.
Regarding Mr