ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025-05-20
COURT FILE No.: Whitby 4960-19-2307
BETWEEN:
His Majesty the King
— AND —
Madison Sprayson
Before Justice of the Peace Sydney Thomas
Heard on September 18, 19, 20, 23, 24 and October 1, 2024
Reasons for Judgment released on January 14, 2025
Sentencing Hearing March 8, April 16, 2025
Reasons for Sentencing released May 20, 2025
L. Dayananthan — Counsel for the Crown
A. Touchette — Counsel for Madison Sprayson
INTRODUCTION
[1] This case arises from a tragic collision on July 26, 2019, on Highway 407 near the Kinsale Road overpass in the city of Pickering in the Region of Durham, Ontario. The collision involved a white Dodge Caliber driven eastbound by Madison Sprayson. This vehicle also contained Johnathan Walker-Clements in the front passenger seat and Riley Wamboldt in the rear driver side seat.
[2] The collision occurred at approximately 8:13 p.m. under clear weather conditions. Witness accounts and evidence indicated light to moderate traffic at the time.
[3] The driver of the Caliber was travelling at a high rate of speed, lost control of the vehicle, and crossed the median into westbound lanes.
[4] While crossing the median, the vehicle overturned several times before colliding with a grey Honda Accord occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Gruben, traveling in the westbound lanes of Highway 407.
[5] The collision resulted in the death of Riley Nicholas Wamboldt, a 21-year-old rear-seat passenger in the Dodge Caliber, and significant injuries to Mr. and Mrs. Gruben, the occupants of the westbound Honda Accord.
[6] On January 14, 2025, Madison Sprayson was found guilty of one charge of Careless Driving Causing Death under section 130(3) of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act (HTA).
[7] Two charges of Careless Driving Causing Bodily Harm under section 130(3) of the HTA.
[8] Mr. Riley Wamboldt was in the rear seat of Ms. Sprayson’s Dodge at the time of the collision. He sustained significant blunt force trauma and died from these injuries.
[9] The collision involved a second motor vehicle—a Honda driven by Mr. Keith Gruben, with his wife, Ms. Mary-Lou Gruben, as passenger.
[10] Mr. Keith Gruben suffered injuries including broken ribs and a collapsed lung.
[11] Ms. Mary-Lou Gruben suffered multiple injuries including broken ribs, cervical and vertebrae fractures, a lumbar fracture, broken arm and ankle, a pelvic laceration, PTSD, and anxiety. Her cervical fracture required wearing a neck brace 24 hours a day for three months. She was hospitalized for three months and confined to a wheelchair and hospital bed for several more months after returning home.
THE CROWN’S CASES
[12] In support of their submissions, the Crown submitted the following cases:
(1) R v. Biggar, 2024 ONCJ 23
(2) R v. Henry, 2023 ONCJ 273
(3) R v. Ingram, 2023 ONCJ 141
(4) R v. Miller, 2023 ONCJ 77
(5) R v. Lake, 2023 ONCJ 452
THE CROWN’S SUBMISSIONS
[13] The Crown submits this case calls for a strong and unequivocal message of denunciation, specific and general deterrence, and public protection. They seek a sentence of:
(1) 18 months imprisonment;
(2) A 5-year driving prohibition;
(3) 24 months of probation upon release; and
(4) An order for 250 hours of community service.
[14] These sanctions are necessary, proportional, and just. This was not a case of momentary inattention or an isolated lapse in judgment. The driving behavior was prolonged, deliberate, and egregious. The accused made a series of high-risk choices: speeding, overtaking multiple vehicles, and continuing to drive recklessly before and after the incident.
[15] In the week prior, she was charged with careless driving. Post-offence, she was again caught speeding. This shows a pattern, not a one-time mistake. She refused to change.
[16] Beyond the death of Riley Wamboldt, there are severely injured victims whose suffering is substantial and ongoing.
[17] These victims’ pain cannot and should not be overshadowed by the tragic loss of Riley. Each person’s injuries deserve full recognition.
[18] The court heard four powerful victim impact statements from family members: Taylor Wamboldt, Amber Sloan, Laura Chapman, and Barry Wamboldt. Their grief is profound and permanent. In their words, this tragedy is a "continual sentence."
[19] What is deeply troubling is the offender’s continued denial and lack of accountability.
[20] The Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) paints a concerning picture of narcissistic traits, a victim mentality, and minimization of her own conduct.
[21] She said, “I would never have done anything wrong,” emphasizing fear of losing her licence over the harm caused.
[22] She failed to acknowledge her driving record, which shows multiple infractions. She claimed to be a "good driver" showing no remorse. This makes specific deterrence essential.
[23] Unlike other offenders who pled guilty and accepted blame, this individual remains in denial. The cases of Ingram, Henry, and Biggar reinforce the need for a sentence protecting the public from repeat conduct and sending a clear message.
[24] Ms. Sprayson is young with time ahead, but rehabilitation is not the priority. Her mindset sets her apart. Until reckoning occurs, rehabilitation cannot begin.
[25] While incarceration and a driving ban are critical, the Crown also asks for 250 hours of community service, following Biggar’s emphasis on giving back to the community.
[26] The sentence must reflect the seriousness of the event, the pain of those affected, and the ongoing risk posed.
[27] There is no precedent for this combination of facts: one deceased, two seriously injured victims, a continuing pattern of driving offenses, and an accused who denies it all.
[28] The Crown characterizes the driving as prolonged, dangerous conduct involving overtaking vehicles at high speed, not momentary distraction but calculated risk-taking resulting in foreseeable tragedy.
[29] The Crown highlights the accused’s extensive driving record: prior speeding offences before and after the collision, and multiple licence suspensions indicating recidivism and lack of respect for road safety.
[30] The Crown respectfully submits that 18 months custody, a 5-year driving prohibition, 24 months probation, and 250 hours community service are necessary.
THE DEFENCE’S CASES
[31] Defence submitted the following cases:
(1) R. v. Defreitas, 2020 ONCJ 90
(2) R. v. Stupar, 2015 ONCL 350
(3) R. v. Pellerin, 2006 ONCJ 503
(4) R. v. Watson, 2023 ONCJ 50
(5) R. v. Grosse, 2017 ONCJ 228
(6) R. v. Hiebert, 2022 ONCJ 47
(7) R. v. Bannister, 2022 ONCJ 215
THE DEFENCE’S SUBMISSIONS
[32] Defence counsel submits the appropriate disposition for Ms. Sprayson, convicted under the Highway Traffic Act, is a non-custodial sentence proportionate to her moral blameworthiness and the regulatory nature of the offence.
[33] Defence proposes:
(1) A fine of $5,000;
(2) Two years probation with standard conditions;
(3) No licence suspension due to unique personal and professional obligations; or alternatively,
(4) A custodial sentence not exceeding 10 to 15 days, served intermittently.
[34] At the time of the offence, Ms. Sprayson was 21 and has remained in legal limbo throughout her twenties.
[35] She is a single mother to her daughter Betty, sharing custody with Betty’s father. A custodial term or driving suspension would impair her ability to meet Betty’s needs and maintain stability.
[36] Ms. Sprayson is sole proprietor of a rural animal rehabilitation and rehoming operation caring for approximately 500 animals annually, including large animals requiring specialized medical devices. The business is travel-dependent and irreplaceable in her region.
[37] She built this business independently from a young age, starting with a tack store at 15, then a horse barn, and eventually a full rehabilitation facility. She is one of few such providers in Northumberland County.
[38] Defence submits loss of driving privileges or prolonged custody would collapse her business, impair her ability to provide for her child, and likely cause death or suffering of animals under her care.
[39] Ms. Sprayson sustained significant psychological harm from the incident, having lost a close friend, Riley Wamboldt. She continues to mourn, has recurring nightmares, and was not permitted to attend Riley’s funeral, which affects her.
[40] She honours Riley’s memory annually, reflecting remorse and emotional processing, albeit not conventionally articulated.
[41] Ms. Sprayson has no prior criminal record. While she has previous driving infractions, many were minor speeding tickets (under 20 km/h over). She has had no new infractions for over two years.
[42] Past licence suspensions were administrative, linked to late fine payments, not unsafe driving. She paid all fines, demonstrating responsibility. Defence submits these factors weigh against specific deterrence.
[43] Defence emphasizes careless driving causing death is a regulatory offence, not criminal, governed by sentencing principles for strict liability offences.
[44] Defence urges the court to follow sentencing guidance in:
- R v. Miller, 2019 ONCJ 760, paras 56–63, confirming primary objectives in HTA sentencing are deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality, not punishment;
- R v. Defreitas, 2022 ONCJ 313, para 30, indicating custodial sentences are not mandatory;
- R v. Stupar, 2021 ONCJ 219, paras 39–41, affirming fault element for careless driving lies in momentary lapses, not intentional or gross negligence.
The principle of parity must also be respected. Comparable cases include:
- R v. Miller: 45-day sentence for texting while driving causing death.
- R v. Bertram (2023 ONCJ 236): 14 days custody for striking a cyclist.
- R v. Ingram: 75 days for crossing a yellow line causing death with higher moral blameworthiness.
- R v. Hiebert, R v. Bannister, and others: fines and probation, not custody, for comparable offences.
[45] These authorities suggest sentences for HTA careless driving causing death or bodily harm are measured in days, and custodial terms are rare for first-time offenders with no criminal history.
RESPONSE TO CROWN SUBMISSIONS
[46] Defence acknowledges the tragic consequences but submits Crown’s reliance on post-incident PSR observations must be viewed with caution. The accused’s guarded emotional affect is consistent with trauma and grief, not lack of remorse.
[47] No evidence of alcohol, substance use, or intentional harm. While driving involved speed and passing, no indication of prolonged, egregious recklessness akin to Ingram or similar cases.
[48] Crown's suggested 18-month custodial sentence is unprecedented for HTA matters, given the regulatory nature, and would be disproportionate contrary to section 718.1 of the Criminal Code.
[49] Defence submits a just, fair, and proportionate sentence would be:
[50] A fine of $5,000,
[51] Two years probation,
[52] No driving suspension,
[53] Or alternatively, a short custodial term not exceeding 10–15 days, potentially served intermittently.
[54] Such a sentence reflects denunciation, specific deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality, avoiding undue collateral consequences.
THE LAW
Highway Traffic Act Section 130 — Careless driving causing bodily harm or death.
Penalty:
(4) On conviction under subsection (3), a person is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both, and in addition his or her driver’s licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than five years. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 4, s. 17.
Provincial Offences Act - Probation order
72 (1) Where a defendant is convicted of an offence in a proceeding commenced by information, the court may, having regard to the age, character and background of the defendant, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission,
(a) suspend the passing of sentence and direct that the defendant comply with the conditions prescribed in a probation order;
(b) in addition to fining the defendant or sentencing the defendant to imprisonment, whether in default of payment of a fine or otherwise, direct that the defendant comply with the conditions prescribed in a probation order; or
(c) where it imposes a sentence of imprisonment on the defendant, whether in default of payment of a fine or otherwise, that does not exceed ninety days, order that the sentence be served intermittently at such times as are specified in the order and direct that the defendant, at all times when he or she is not in confinement pursuant to such order, comply with the conditions prescribed in a probation order.
(2) A probation order shall be deemed to contain the conditions that,
(a) the defendant not commit the same or any related or similar offence, or any offence under a statute of Canada or Ontario or any other province of Canada that is punishable by imprisonment;
(b) the defendant appear before the court as and when required; and
(c) the defendant notify the court of any change in the defendant’s address.
(3) In addition to the conditions set out in subsection (2), the court may prescribe as a condition in a probation order,
(a) that the defendant satisfy any compensation or restitution that is required or authorized by an Act;
(b) with the consent of the defendant and where the conviction is of an offence that is punishable by imprisonment, that the defendant perform a community service as set out in the order;
(c) where the conviction is of an offence punishable by imprisonment, such other conditions relating to the circumstances of the offence and of the defendant that contributed to the commission of the offence as the court considers appropriate to prevent similar unlawful conduct or to contribute to the rehabilitation of the defendant; or
(d) where considered necessary for the purpose of implementing the conditions of the probation order, that the defendant report to a responsible person designated by the court and, in addition, where the circumstances warrant it, that the defendant be under the supervision of the person to whom he or she is required to report.
VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS
[55] During sentencing, the court received Victim Impact Statements from members of the Wamboldt family, including Taylor Wamboldt (Riley’s sister), Amber Sloan (cousin), Laura Chapman (mother), and Barry Wamboldt (father). These represented a portion of 26 statements submitted, reflecting the profound emotional and psychological impact.
[56] Statements from Riley’s immediate and extended family and lifelong friends painted a portrait of a vibrant young life deeply cherished and irreplaceably lost.
[57] Keith and Mary-Lou Gruben, occupants of the second vehicle, shared their suffering, including physical injuries and the financial and emotional toll.
[58] The court solemnly recognized the courage of those who spoke, acknowledging the lasting impact of Riley’s loss.
THE OFFENDER
[59] At the time of the collision, Ms. Sprayson was 21. She was convicted on all three charges. A Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) completed April 3, 2025, detailed her background, education, work history, substance use, and disposition.
[60] The PSR describes a positive relationship with her former partner, shared custody of their daughter, and a hardworking, motivated individual focused on animal rehabilitation.
[61] Ms. Sprayson reported low alcohol use but daily marijuana use via bong for five years, to aid sleep and alleviate chronic back pain.
[62] Marijuana use was a theme throughout proceedings; evidence of smoking and a bong was found in the vehicle post-collision.
[63] The report notes Ms. Sprayson postponed her original PSR interview citing uncertainty due to a pending appeal, raising concerns about her engagement.
[64] The report raises concerns about her acknowledgment of the situation and acceptance of responsibility.
[65] She expressed feeling "absolutely defeated" and stated she would never have done something so stupid.
[66] She noted a relatively clean driving record apart from hitting a deer and speeding tickets, asserting she is not reckless.
[67] She described her relationship with Mr. Wamboldt as sibling-like and lamented not attending his funeral, expressing regret.
[68] She attempted therapy post-accident but discontinued after a few sessions.
[69] A friend, Daniel Pearce, stated she is a good, alert driver who cares deeply and would not put loved ones at risk.
[70] The PSR assessment noted profound sorrow but no acceptance of responsibility, attributing fault to her passenger. She expressed compliance but did not believe community supervision was necessary.
[71] The PSR concluded she is not suitable for community supervision based on her statements.
[72] Driving record includes multiple speeding tickets, two prior careless driving convictions, licence suspensions mostly administrative, and the current convictions.
ANALYSIS
[73] The court considered submissions emphasizing parity, restraint, specific and general deterrence, and denunciation.
Parity
[74] Parity requires similar offenders under similar circumstances receive similar sentences, promoting fairness and public confidence. Differences must be understandable.
[75] The parity principle does not require identical sentences but understandable differences. See R. v. Choquette, 2010 ONCA 327.
[76] The Supreme Court in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 explained sentencing ranges are guides, not straitjackets, allowing discretion for unique cases.
[77] This case differs from others due to lack of acceptance of responsibility and shifting blame, an aggravating factor.
[78] Despite guilt, Ms. Sprayson blames the passenger and maintains she is a good driver despite prior convictions, including one days before the fatal collision.
[79] The court is cautious in assessing perceived lack of remorse. Lack of remorse is not an aggravating factor but absence of a mitigating factor. See R. v. J.S., 2018 ONCA 675.
[80] Most cases with remorse and guilty pleas factor mitigation; neither exists here.
[81] Recent guidance from R. v. Perry, 2025 ONCA 241 confirms no fixed range for driving prohibitions; discretion is key. Also, R. v. Williams-Cordeiro, 2025 ONCJ 120 emphasizes general deterrence and denounces street racing behavior.
Specific Deterrence
[82] Specific deterrence aims to prevent reoffending by impressing personal consequences.
[83] Ms. Sprayson’s driving record is troubling; Defence’s minimization of speeding infractions is rejected.
[84] Convictions for speeding, including post-incident, and licence suspensions raise alarm. Two prior careless driving convictions, one days before the fatal collision, reflect a pattern.
[85] Continued denial and distortion of facts, including misrepresentations about grieving opportunities, reinforce need for specific deterrence.
[86] The court learned the Wamboldt family had made arrangements for Ms. Sprayson to attend the funeral privately, contradicting defence assertions.
General Deterrence
[87] General deterrence discourages public from similar conduct by signaling meaningful sanctions.
[88] Deterrence must be balanced with denunciation, rehabilitation, and responsibility promotion. Sentence must be proportionate.
[89] Deterrence is paramount under public welfare statutes. See R. v. Cotton Felts Ltd., 1982 ONCA 3695.
[90] Regulatory offences differ from criminal offences in moral blameworthiness.
[91] Sentencing objectives in regulatory context include compliance promotion, deterrence, and public interest protection. Custody is rare and reserved for serious breaches.
[92] See R. v. Henry, 2023 ONCJ 273, paras 22-27 for legislative context and sentencing principles.
[93] Sentencing regulatory matters involving fatalities can be difficult for public understanding; court must apply principles lawfully.
[94] The court offers condolences to the family and acknowledges the immeasurable grief.
[95] The court recognizes the emotional exhaustion endured by victims and their families.
[96] No sentence can bring closure, but the court hopes for recognition, accountability, and peace.
[97] The court honours the memory of the life lost and respects the suffering.
[98] The sentence reflects harm magnitude, offender’s negligence, context, driving history, victim impact, and offender’s responsibility.
[99] The sentence must reflect seriousness, permanent loss, moral culpability, and public interest in deterrence.
SENTENCE
[100] Submissions spanned a wide range; the court finds the following sentence just and necessary.
[101] The Prosecution proposed 18 months incarceration; Defence requested a $5,000 fine or short custodial term. Given recent driving suspensions and irresponsibility leading to death, a fine is inappropriate. Fines are lenient sanctions, not warranted here. Accordingly, sentence is 12 months custody, reflecting median under amended legislation.
[102] Regarding driving prohibition, Defence requested none; Crown sought 5 years. Prioritizing public safety, the court orders a 4-year driver’s licence suspension due to offender’s disregard for legal obligations.
[103] Both parties agreed to 24 months probation post-release with statutory conditions:
(a) No same or similar offence punishable by imprisonment;
(b) Appear before court when required;
(c) Notify court of any address change.
[104] Crown sought 250 hours community service. Defence made no submissions. Under section 72(3)(b) of the Provincial Offences Act, community service requires defendant’s consent, which was not given. Court cannot impose this order.
[105] No consent was expressed; court will not request it now. This issue should have been addressed during sentencing submissions. No community service condition imposed.
[106] Pursuant to section 72(3)(d), the court orders Ms. Sprayson to report to a probation officer and remain under supervision throughout probation or until otherwise directed.
[107] The court recognizes this is a significant and painful moment for Ms. Sprayson. Rehabilitation and accountability are not mutually exclusive. The sentence reflects harm caused and offers an opportunity to reflect, take responsibility, and make amends.
[108] The court hopes custody and supervision time will be used purposefully to understand the weight of events, confront her role honestly, and rebuild a future grounded in care for others and the law.
[109] There is capacity for change, growth, contrition, and redemption. The path begins with acknowledgment and sustained effort. The court encourages Ms. Sprayson to view this sentence as a solemn chance to honor the life lost and rebuild trust.
[110] Ms. Sprayson is held accountable today. How she carries this accountability will define this chapter’s legacy.
Released: May 20, 2025
Signed: Justice of the Peace Sydney Thomas