Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: October 22, 2025

Court File No.: Hamilton 24-47105836

Between:

His Majesty the King

— And —

Mustafa Al-Dawoodi

Before: Justice J.P.P. Fiorucci

Heard on: June 24 and August 22, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on: October 22, 2025

Counsel:

• Matthew Moser and Ryan Dorsman, counsel for the Crown
• Yaroslav Obouhov, counsel for the defendant Mustafa Al-Dawoodi

FIORUCCI J.:

Overview

[1] Mustafa Al-Dawoodi entered guilty pleas to dangerous operation of a conveyance (s. 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code) and failure to stop after an accident (s. 320.16(1) of the Criminal Code).

[2] Mr. Al-Dawoodi drove into a parked vehicle and fled at a high rate of speed driving dangerously with two passengers in his vehicle. He weaved in and out of traffic nearly colliding with other vehicles that were travelling in the same direction on a one-way street. He then lost control of his car and struck a second parked vehicle. Fortunately, no one was injured or killed. Mr. Al-Dawoodi and his passengers fled on foot. Police apprehended Mr. Al-Dawoodi. He was arrested and charged.

[3] Mr. Al-Dawoodi was 20 years old when he committed the offences. He has a youth court record and a Ministry of Transportation driving record. The Crown seeks a jail sentence followed by probation and a driving prohibition. The defence says that Mr. Al-Dawoodi should be permitted to serve his jail sentence in the community on a conditional sentence of imprisonment order (CSO). The defence agrees that probation and the driving prohibition sought by the Crown are appropriate.

[4] These reasons explain why I sentence Mr. Al-Dawoodi to serve a 120-day jail sentence in a provincial reformatory concurrent on both counts, followed by 18 months of probation and impose a driving prohibition for 2 years plus the 120-day period of incarceration.

Circumstances of the Offence

[5] On October 5, 2024, at about 8:29 p.m., Hamilton police patrolling around the area of McMaster University's homecoming observed Mr. Al-Dawoodi drive his car into a parked vehicle. Mr. Al-Dawoodi did not remain at the scene of the collision. Instead, he fled at a high rate of speed, driving carelessly toward Main Street West. Police lost sight of the fleeing vehicle, but additional police units regained sight of it at the intersection of Main Street West and Dundurn Street South in the City of Hamilton. Mr. Al-Dawoodi was then observed travelling eastbound on Main Street West, weaving in and out of traffic at a high rate of speed without using his turn signals, almost colliding with multiple vehicles traveling in the same easterly direction. At the time, there was a moderate flow of traffic.

[6] Ultimately, Mr. Al-Dawoodi lost control of his car attempting to weave around other vehicles and collided with a second parked car on Main Street West just east of Ray Street South. The impact of this collision pushed the front end of the parked car into the rear end of another parked vehicle ahead of it. Mr. Al-Dawoodi and his passengers got out of their vehicle and attempted to flee the scene, but at 8:45 p.m., police were able to locate Mr. Al-Dawoodi a short distance away with the assistance of two witnesses who had seen the collision occur. Mr. Al-Dawoodi was arrested and released on an undertaking.

[7] A passenger in Mr. Al-Dawoodi's vehicle took a video on his cell phone which shows the view from inside Mr. Al-Dawoodi's vehicle in the moments before the collision on Main Street West with the second parked vehicle. The video was played in court and made an exhibit.

Circumstances of the Offender

[8] Mr. Al-Dawoodi is now 21 years old. He was born in Iraq. His immediate family includes his parents, an older sister, and two younger brothers. When Mr. Al-Dawoodi was about seven years old, he and his family fled to Turkey due to war, where they remained for about two to three years until Mr. Al-Dawoodi, his mother, sister, and an infant sibling immigrated to Canada as refugees. Mr. Al-Dawoodi's mother told the author of the pre-sentence report (PSR) that they immigrated to Canada in 2015. The family resided in a shelter before securing permanent housing. In 2017, Mr. Al-Dawoodi's father joined the family in Canada, but his parents separated approximately five years ago.

[9] According to Mr. Al-Dawoodi, he assumed the role of man of the house after the separation, frequently providing translation services for his mother who does not speak English. Mr. Al-Dawoodi reports a positive relationship with his mother, who currently receives disability benefits. Mr. Al-Dawoodi works in his father's mechanic shop and describes a good relationship with his father. Mr. Al-Dawoodi has occasional contact with his sister.

[10] Mr. Al-Dawoodi's mother says that he was a well-behaved child and that he now contributes financially to the household and helps care for his younger siblings. Mr. Al-Dawoodi currently resides with his mother and two younger brothers who are 11 and 3 years old.

[11] Mr. Al-Dawoodi entered the school system in Canada in grade six. He faced bullying during his early years in Canada. His high school years were much more positive as he made friends and had no issues with teachers. However, during grades nine and ten he did not put much effort into his education which impacted his academic progress. This resulted in Mr. Al-Dawoodi aging out of the traditional secondary school system. He was transferred to an adult learning centre, where he remains enrolled. Mr. Al-Dawoodi has one credit remaining to obtain his GED.

[12] Mr. Al-Dawoodi has completed 600 hours toward his mechanic apprenticeship. Once he obtains his GED, he plans to attend college to complete his in-class portion of the apprenticeship program.

[13] Mr. Al-Dawoodi has a consistent work history. He has been employed in fast food, landscaping and warehouse positions but his most notable employment has been with his father in the mechanic shop, which he started in high school and has continued consistently for the past three years. His father hopes that he will one day take over the business. This employment has given Mr. Al-Dawoodi hands on experience in the trade which aligns with his goal of becoming a certified mechanic. Mr. Al-Dawoodi's father describes him as a good worker, who is reliable and capable.

[14] When interviewed by the probation and parole officer for preparation of the PSR, Mr. Al-Dawoodi advised that he was the victim of a hit and run collision in 2022 or 2023 which resulted in facial injuries requiring stitches.

[15] Mr. Al-Dawoodi has criminal convictions as a young person under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). He was found guilty of the adult offences within the access period for the YCJA convictions. I can consider the YCJA record when determining the appropriate sentences for the adult convictions of dangerous operation and failure to stop after an accident.[1]

[16] On May 17, 2021, Mr. Al-Dawoodi was convicted as a young person of assault, placed on probation for 6 months and prohibited from possessing weapons for 2 years. On November 29, 2022, he was convicted as a young person of possession of a firearm or ammunition contrary to the prohibition order and of carrying a concealed weapon. He received 12 months of probation for these two convictions and was again prohibited from possessing weapons.

[17] Mr. Al-Dawoodi has the following entries on his Ministry of Transportation driving record:

Date	Entry
March 9, 2023	Improper Use of Centre Lane of 3-lane Highway (Offence Date: February 13, 2022)
June 17, 2023	Suspended until 2:35 p.m. on July 17, 2023, Racing Contest or Stunt-Administrative Suspensions: Suspension No. 3795828
July 17, 2023	Reinst-Susp. Expired or Rescinded: Suspension No. 3795828
October 24, 2023	Fail to Share Road-When Overtaking (Offence Date: November 30, 2022)
November 20, 2023	Fail to Produce Driver's Licence (Offence Date: October 4, 2023)
January 10, 2024	New Owner Fail to Apply for Permit (Offence Date: August 3, 2023)
March 20, 2024	Suspended Until 11:38 a.m. on Mar. 27, 2024. Suspended Re: Unpaid Fine. Suspension No. 4029154
March 27, 2024	Reinst-Susp. Expired or Rescinded: Suspension No. 4029154
March 27, 2024	Unsafe Move (Offence Date: October 9, 2023)
March 27, 2024	Speeding 66 KMH in 50 KMH Zone (Offence Date: October 9, 2023)

Positions of the Parties

[18] The Crown submits that 120 days jail followed by 18 months of probation and a 2-year driving prohibition is an appropriate sentence. The Crown acknowledges that Mr. Al-Dawoodi is a youthful offender but says that the principles of denunciation and deterrence require a jail sentence because of the deplorable driving conduct and Mr. Al-Dawoodi's driving record.

[19] The defence submits that permitting Mr. Al-Dawoodi to serve his sentence in the community on a CSO would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. The defence takes no issue with a probation order or the duration of the driving prohibition.

General Principles

[20] The principal purpose of the criminal law, and in particular sentencing, is the protection of society.[2] This is reflected in the sentencing provisions in Part XXIII of the Criminal Code. Section 718 says 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. These goals are to be achieved by imposing just sanctions. Those just sanctions are to have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[21] In R. v. Nasogaluak, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) observed that the objectives of sentencing are given sharper focus in s. 718.1 by the fundamental principle of proportionality, which mandates that a sentence be "proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender".[3] In R. v. Lacasse, the SCC described proportionality as the cardinal principle of sentencing; "the more serious the crime and its consequences, or the greater the offender's degree of responsibility, the heavier the sentence will be".[4]

[22] Individualization is central to the proportionality assessment.[5] As Chief Justice Wagner wrote in Parranto "[w]hereas the gravity of a particular offence may be relatively constant, each offence is 'committed in unique circumstances by an offender with a unique profile'".[6]

[23] Section 718.2(b) states that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. This is known as the principle of parity.

[24] The principles of individualization and parity, while important, are secondary principles.[7] Chief Justice Lamer, writing for the SCC, in R. v. C.A.M., said this:

It has been repeatedly stressed that there is no such thing as a uniform sentence for a particular crime… Sentencing is an inherently individualized process, and the search for a single appropriate sentence for a similar offender and a similar crime will frequently be a fruitless exercise of academic abstraction.[8]

[25] In R. v. Parranto, Chief Justice Wagner said that "parity, as an expression of proportionality, will assist courts in fixing on a proportionate sentence".[9] He went on to say:

Courts cannot arrive at a proportionate sentence based solely on first principles, but rather must "calibrate the demands of proportionality by reference to the sentences imposed in other cases".[10]

[26] The principle of restraint is contained in ss. 718.2(d) and (e) of the Criminal Code mandating that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

[27] Section 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code instructs that a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender.

[28] The offence of dangerous driving encompasses a wide range of behaviour. A driver who engages in persistently aggressive driving can be found guilty of dangerous driving as can a driver who commits a single dangerous act, such as passing in dangerous circumstances.[11]

[29] Although the elements of the offence of dangerous operation cannot be considered as an aggravating factor on sentencing, the nature and duration of the conduct can. The driving conduct in Mr. Al-Dawoodi's case is a significant aggravating circumstance. Mr. Al-Dawoodi's driving conduct is akin to that of the offender in R. v. Parnell,[12] the case provided by the Crown in support of its position. However, Mr. Al-Dawoodi's case has the additional aggravating feature of his involvement in two collisions.

[30] Like Justice Garg in Parnell, I find that the intentionality of Mr. Al-Dawoodi's driving conduct is aggravating. He wilfully drove away from the first collision at a high rate of speed, driving carelessly to avoid the consequences that might flow from being involved in the first collision.

[31] The cell phone video which is Exhibit 1 on the sentencing proceedings captures the dialogue between Mr. Al-Dawoodi and his passengers after Mr. Al-Dawoodi's vehicle was involved in the first collision. One of his passengers asks whether he had real or fake plates on the car. When Mr. Al-Dawoodi tells him that they are real plates, the passenger is surprised that Mr. Al-Dawoodi was "doing this" with real plates. One of the passengers then says, "you want to go to jail man".

[32] At one point, a passenger says, "court services is right behind you, court services is right behind you, court services, they got your plates, they got your plates bro", to which Mr. Al-Dawoodi responded, "no they're not getting my plates, trust, trust, trust, trust, they don't have dash cams, they have to write it down". Shortly thereafter, Mr. Al-Dawoodi accelerates and begins weaving in and out of traffic before his vehicle collides with the second parked car.

[33] Although Parnell involved an offender who was charged with flight from police in addition to dangerous driving, the following observations about Mr. Parnell's conduct from Justice Garg's decision apply with equal force to Mr. Al-Dawoodi's conduct:

Mr. Parnell wilfully drove through a red light at a high rate of speed because he was fully committed to escaping the police. His manner of driving and underlying motivations could be analogized to street racing. The risk to society is similar. I find that Mr. Parnell was racing against police officers that, in his mind, could have been pursuing him.[13]

[34] Mr. Al-Dawoodi's driving conduct on Main Street West just prior to the second collision, which was captured on video, was accurately described by Crown counsel as deplorable. Defence counsel acknowledged that the driving was disturbing and scary. Many vehicles are seen driving in the same direction, in multiple lanes of traffic, as Mr. Dawoodi weaves in and out of lanes increasing his speed to pass vehicles, as he and his passengers are laughing and treating the thrill of the ride as if they are playing a video game.

[35] Mr. Al-Dawoodi's driving was cavalier. He demonstrated a reckless disregard for the safety of others using the roadway, pedestrians who were in the area, his own passengers, and himself. In addition to driving in this manner to avoid detection for the first collision, Mr. Al-Dawoodi treated his vehicle as a toy for his own enjoyment, and according to defence counsel, to show off to his friends.

[36] After the collision with the second vehicle, the video shows Mr. Al-Dawoodi and his passengers getting out of his car. There are pedestrians within feet of Mr. Al-Dawoodi's vehicle and the vehicle that he struck. One person is standing nearby with a dog that is barking.

[37] A further aggravating circumstance is Mr. Al-Dawoodi's criminal and driving record. His youth convictions, which will now be treated as an adult record, are for serious offences, albeit unrelated to driving. His driving record suggests that Mr. Al-Dawoodi has a persistent disregard for the rules of the road and poses a danger to the public when operating a motor vehicle.

[38] There are several mitigating circumstances. Mr. Al-Dawoodi entered guilty pleas as an expression of remorse and acceptance of responsibility. The guilty pleas have spared the valuable court resources that would have been required for a trial. Saving the justice system the time and expense of a trial has been recognized as a mitigating factor to be considered on sentencing.

[39] There are several factors which make Mr. Al-Dawoodi more likely to be successful in his rehabilitative efforts and thus a lower risk to reoffend. First, he has the support of his family. They have been present in court to support him through the criminal proceedings. Mr. Al-Dawoodi's consistent work history and clearly defined goals for his education and future employment are also positive indicators of his prospects of rehabilitation. With respect to his goal to become a certified mechanic, Mr. Al-Dawoodi will benefit greatly from the support of his father who owns his own mechanic shop.

[40] Mr. Al-Dawoodi has demonstrated that he is capable of being a pro-social member of the community. In recognition of the harm his offences caused to the community, Mr. Al-Dawoodi completed 30 volunteer hours with the Muslim Association of Hamilton. He also completed a driver improvement course with G-Class Drivers which entailed 6 in-class hours and 1 hour in-car.

[41] When he spoke in court at the conclusion of sentencing submissions, Mr. Al-Dawoodi apologized, especially to his mother for putting her through the ordeal of the criminal process. He expressed his remorse for the offences. I accept that Mr. Al-Dawoodi is genuinely remorseful, which makes him more likely to be successful in his rehabilitative efforts and thus a lower risk to reoffend. Mr. Al-Dawoodi continues to take classes with the Muslim Association of Hamilton to try to better himself. Again, these are positive steps he has taken toward his rehabilitation.

Analysis

[42] The Crown says that primary consideration must be given to the principles of denunciation and deterrence and that a jail sentence served in a custodial facility is required. The defence says that a CSO can adequately address the need for a denunciatory and deterrent sentence.

[43] Denunciation is the communication of society's condemnation of the offender's conduct.[14] The sentencing objective of denunciation reflects the fact that Canadian criminal law is a "system of values".[15]

[44] Deterrence "refers to the imposition of a sanction for the purpose of discouraging the offender and others from engaging in criminal conduct. When deterrence is aimed at the offender before the court, it is called 'specific deterrence', when directed at others, 'general deterrence'".[16] Specific deterrence focuses on imposing sufficient punishment on the offender before the court to deter the offender from reoffending. General deterrence "is to deter any other like-minded individuals who may consider committing the same offence, by crafting a sentence that demonstrates society's condemnation for such acts".[17]

[45] In R. v. Proulx, the SCC addressed how, in some circumstances, a conditional sentence rather than a jail sentence may sufficiently address the principles of denunciation and deterrence. Defence counsel referred in his submissions to the following passage in Proulx:

Finally, it bears pointing out that a conditional sentence may be imposed even in circumstances where there are aggravating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. Aggravating circumstances will obviously increase the need for denunciation and deterrence. However, it would be a mistake to rule out the possibility of a conditional sentence ab initio simply because aggravating factors are present. I repeat that each case must be considered individually.[18]

[46] I have considered the SCC's guidance on how a conditional sentence which has onerous conditions, and which is of longer duration than the jail sentence that would ordinarily have been imposed, can provide a significant amount of denunciation. As the SCC noted, the "stigma of a conditional sentence with house arrest should not be underestimated".[19] However, the SCC also acknowledged that, "there may be certain circumstances in which the need for denunciation is so pressing that incarceration will be the only suitable way in which to express society's condemnation of the offender's conduct".[20]

[47] As for deterrence, in Proulx, the SCC stated that "[i]ncarceration, which is ordinarily a harsher sanction, may provide more deterrence than a conditional sentence".[21] The SCC cautioned that "Judges should be wary, however, of placing too much weight on deterrence when choosing between a conditional sentence and incarceration", pointing to the empirical evidence which suggests that the deterrent effect of incarceration is uncertain.[22]

[48] The SCC went on to say, "[m]oreover, a conditional sentence can provide significant deterrence if sufficiently punitive conditions are imposed and the public is made aware of the severity of these sentences".[23] There may be circumstances in which the need for deterrence will warrant incarceration which "will depend in part on whether the offence is one in which the effects of incarceration are likely to have a real deterrent effect, as well as on the circumstances of the community in which the offences were committed".[24]

[49] The defence relied on three decisions of trial courts in Ontario in which conditional sentences of imprisonment were imposed for dangerous driving even when bodily harm and death resulted.

[50] In R. v. Boutrous,[25] Justice Dellandrea imposed a conditional sentence of imprisonment for a period of two years less a day followed by a 24-month probation order. The offender was driving co-workers home on her thirty-minute break. She drove at speeds of more than two times the posted speed limit of 60 km/hr. When the driver of another vehicle initiated a U-turn, Ms. Boutrous struck the driver's side of his vehicle. He was pronounced deceased at the scene. Ms. Boutrous' vehicle was traveling at 151 km/hr when she struck the deceased's vehicle. One of Ms. Boutrous' passengers also suffered injuries from which she recovered.

[51] Ms. Boutrous entered a guilty plea to dangerous operation causing death, and a Gardiner hearing was conducted in relation to certain facts. It was not disputed that speed was the only factor which made Ms. Boutrous' driving dangerous. She was 18 years old at the time of the offence. She had no criminal record or driving violations. Justice Dellandrea noted that, "[t]he catastrophic consequences of her offending were the result of but a few minutes of horrendously bad judgment, and excessive speed. She was hurrying to help her friends, and in the process she took another human life".[26]

[52] Mr. Al-Dawoodi's case lacks the aggravating factors in Boutrous of a death and bodily injuries. However, the driving conduct in Boutrous is limited to excessive speed, which is distinguishable from Mr. Al-Dawoodi's persistently aggressive driving even after his collision with the first parked vehicle. Boutrous also lacks the aggravating circumstance of a criminal record and HTA record. Mr. Al-Dawoodi was not rushing to help anyone.

[53] In R. v. Beedawia,[27] the offender was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm after trial. He was a commercial driver operating a tractor trailer unit. Again, the driving behaviour in Beedawia is of a much different character than Mr. Al-Dawoodi's. Mr. Beedawia failed to stop at a stop sign and collided with another vehicle in the intersection. He was distracted in the moments prior to the collision. At the time of the collision, he had been on duty for almost 14 hours and failed to adjust his manner of driving, specifically his speed, to account for fog conditions and reduced visibility. Both vehicles were travelling at the posted speed limit at the time of the collision. Mr. Beedawia had no prior criminal or driving record. Justice Mitchell imposed a CSO of 2 years less a day for the dangerous driving causing death and an 18-month CSO for the dangerous driving causing bodily harm to run concurrently, followed by a 3-year period of probation.

[54] The case of R. v. Da Silva[28] also involved a guilty plea to dangerous driving causing death. Again, the driving conduct is distinguishable from Mr. Al-Dawoodi's case. When Mr. Da Silva realized he had missed his destination, he pulled his pickup truck over to the gravel shoulder to make a U-turn on the highway. When he conducted the U-turn, a motorcycle collided with his truck. The motorcyclist died as a result of the collision. The Da Silva case had the additional aggravating feature of breath readings of 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. However, Mr. Da Silva remained on scene and cooperated with police and showed no signs of impairment. Mr. Da Silva had no prior criminal or driving record. Justice Conlan imposed a 2 year less a day CSO.

[55] In Mr. Al-Dawoodi's case, the parties agree that a jail sentence of under two years is appropriate. This requires me to consider whether a CSO is appropriate. It may be that permitting Mr. Al-Dawoodi to serve his sentence in the community would not endanger community safety in view of the steps he has taken toward his rehabilitation since being charged and the continued support of his family.

[56] However, I find that a conditional sentence of imprisonment would not be proportionate to the gravity of Mr. Al-Dawoodi's offences nor adequately fulfill the principles of denunciation and deterrence. This is a case in which the circumstances of the community in which the offences were committed warrants the imposition of a real jail sentence.

[57] The City of Hamilton has been plagued by incidents of dangerous driving, many of which have resulted in loss of innocent lives and the destruction of families. As a member of this community, and as a judge presiding in this city, I am familiar with the devastation these crimes cause, having read and listened to countless victim impact statements from family members who have lost loved ones because of the senseless and selfish acts of dangerous and aggressive drivers.[29]

[58] The prevalence of dangerous driving incidents in our community is a pressing public concern which requires this court to convey the message that a motor vehicle, when operated in the manner in which Mr. Al-Dawoodi chose to drive, is a weapon that can cause serious bodily injury and death. The danger posed to the community by Mr. Al-Dawoodi's choice to drive the way he did on October 5, 2024, was akin to the danger posed by discharging a firearm into a crowd of people.

[59] The principal purpose of sentencing is the protection of society. The fact that death or serious bodily injury did not result from Mr. Al-Dawoodi's crimes was purely a matter of good fortune. It is incumbent on judges to deter and denounce the conduct which gives rise to threats to public safety. The message must be sent that dangerous drivers can expect real jail sentences when, like Mr. Al-Dawoodi, they selfishly use their vehicle as a weapon that creates danger to innocent citizens on our highways and public streets.

[60] Unlike the offenders in the cases relied on by defence counsel, Mr. Al-Dawoodi engaged in an intentional course of cavalier conduct. Like-minded offenders should expect jail sentences even when death and personal injury does not result from their actions. Having considered the gravity of the offences and Mr. Al-Dawoodi's degree of responsibility, and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, I find that the jail sentence sought by the Crown is the least restrictive sanction that can be imposed. It gives effect to the principle of restraint and accounts for Mr. Al-Dawoodi's youth, personal circumstances, and rehabilitative potential.

Conclusion

[61] Mr. Al-Dawoodi is sentenced to serve 120 days jail in a provincial reformatory on the dangerous operation and failure to stop after an accident counts concurrently, followed by 18 months of probation. I impose a driving prohibition of 2 years and 120 days.

Released: October 22, 2025

Signed: Justice J.P.P. Fiorucci

Footnotes

[1] By operation of s. 119(9)(b) of the YCJA, Mr. Al-Dawoodi's record as a young person shall be dealt with as a record of an adult.

[2] Sentencing, Tenth Edition, Clayton Ruby, LexisNexis Canada Inc., 2020, Toronto, ON, Chapter 1, p. 2, §1.2. R. v. Morrissette et al., [1970] S.J. No. 269 (Sask. C.A.), at para. 3.

[3] R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, at para. 40.

[4] R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at para. 12.

[5] R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at para. 12.

[6] Ibid, at para. 12.

[7] Ibid, at para. 10.

[8] R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 1996 SCC 230; [1996] S.C.J. No. 28, at para. 92.

[9] R. v. Parranto, supra, at para. 11, citing R. v. Friesen, [2019] S.C.J. No. 100, 2020 SCC 9, at para. 32.

[10] R. v. Parranto, supra, at para. 11, citing R. v. Friesen, supra, at para. 33.

[11] Impaired Driving and Other Criminal Code Driving Offences, Second Edition, Karen Jokinen and Peter Keen, Emond Montgomery Publications Limited, 2023, Toronto, ON, Chapter 23, p. 482.

[12] R. v. Parnell, 2024 ONCJ 417.

[13] Ibid, at para. 8. I am not treating the mere fact that Mr. Al-Dawoodi left the scene of the accident as aggravating on the dangerous driving offence given that he is also being sentenced for the s. 320.16(1) offence.

[14] R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5; [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61, at para. 102.

[15] R. v. Friesen, supra, at para. 105.

[16] R. v. B.W.P., 2006 SCC 27, at para. 2.

[17] Prosecuting and Defending Offences Against Children, 2nd Edition, Lisa Joyal, Lisa Henderson, Jennifer Gibson, Judge David Berg, Judge Kasandra Cronin, Emond Montgomery Publications Limited, 2023, Toronto, ON, Chapter 13, p. 622.

[18] R. v. Proulx, supra, at para. 115.

[19] Ibid, at para. 105.

[20] Ibid, at para. 106.

[21] Ibid, at para. 107.

[22] Ibid, at para. 107.

[23] Ibid, at para. 107.

[24] Ibid, at para. 107.

[25] R. v. Boutrous, 2023 ONCJ 266.

[26] Ibid, at para. 78.

[27] R. v. Beedawia, 2024 ONSC 3247.

[28] R. v. Da Silva, 2024 ONSC 5629.

[29] R. v. Lacasse, supra, at para. 48. For the principle that a sentencing judge can consider local conditions, see also R. v. Anderson, 2025 ONCJ 407, at paras. 41-42 and the cases cited therein.