ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: November 20, 2025

COURT FILE No. 4810 998 25 50001701/25 48101305

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

-- v --

KRISTJAN SERRAJ

PROCEEDINGS ON GUILTY PLEA

Before the Honourable Justice B. Brown

On November 20, 2025, at Toronto, Ontario

Appearances:

I. Sunderland -- Counsel for Crown

A. Gold -- Counsel for Defendant

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

BROWN, J. (Orally)

The defendant Kristjan Serraj was charged in an Information with the offence of careless driving cause death, contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. He has plead guilty to that charge, and extensive facts have been read in evidence, which the defence has agreed to. The court has found him guilty of that offence.

It is to be noted that Mr. Serraj was previously charged with the offence of dangerous driving cause death, contrary to the Criminal Code. As a result of that charge, the Crown and defence counsel attended judicial pre-trial meetings with this court with a view to scheduling the trial for that charge. However, as these meetings went on, and they were quite involved, extensive evidence was reviewed and later gathered with respect to that charge.

As the Crown stated earlier the Crown came to the decision, and the Crown acts as a quasi-judicial officer, that the Crown would not have sufficient evidence, considering the testimony that would be at trial from all the witnesses and the expert witnesses, the photographs, and the video. The police gathered a lot of evidence for this case. But even with all of that evidence there wasn't enough evidence to show that there would be a reasonable prospect that he would be convicted of the charge of dangerous driving causing death.

There is no issue that Mr. Serraj caused the death of the victim. The issue was whether what he did in driving amounted to dangerous driving. As a result, the evidence that existed would not support him being found guilty of that charge of dangerous driving because it would not amount to what in law is called a marked departure from the standard of care of driving for a reasonable person.

In addition to that, if the Crown had done a trial for that charge, and if the judge on that case, it would not be me, it would be a different judge, a trial judge, was of the same view that there was not enough evidence to prove it was dangerous driving, Mr. Serraj would have been found not guilty. He would have been acquitted. And he would have had no finding of guilt for any offence related to the driving in this case, and the loss of the victim Agnesa Shukulli.

By operation of law, there is no included or lower offence for dangerous driving, such as careless driving, because careless driving is in a different statute called the Highway Traffic Act. So, he could have only been found guilty of dangerous driving. And if not, he would have been found not guilty and acquitted. If he were charged with careless driving of course, as he is now today, he could have had a trial in that matter and he could have been found guilty of that charge. We do not have to deal with that because he admitted some time ago that what he did was careless driving. It does amount in law to the offence of careless driving. And he has now entered the guilty plea, which has saved the need to go through the trial that probably would have been a week or two long. So, he's admitted all that.

Throughout, the court has been advised that Mr. Serraj wanted to accept responsibility for this offence, for the loss of Ms. Agnesa Shukulli, a woman who he loved. And he has suffered the pain and guilt everyday for her loss, which was caused by his driving. It is guilt he will carry with him for a very long time, if not the rest of his life.

In the end, both counsel for the Crown and for the defence agreed that the appropriate offence for this type of driving is careless driving. And the Crown has charged him now with careless driving cause death. And he has admitted he did that. So, we do not need to have a trial.

The matter is now before the court for the imposition of sentence.

The Facts

A) Circumstances of the Offence

An agreed statement of fact has been read and filed in evidence. The court has considered very carefully those facts, together with the facts indicated earlier that had been communicated to this court on earlier dates. The court will review a portion of the agreed statement of facts.

Firstly, as it related to the driving the court would note as follows. On January 19, 2025, Mr. Kristjan Serraj was driving his van in the area of Lakeshore Boulevard East, in Toronto. He was driving, and his girlfriend Agnesa Shukulli was in the front passenger seat. It was after 9 p.m. and the sun had set. So, it was dark. It was minus eleven degrees Celsius and there was a thin covering of snow on the ground.

The two of them went to the Woodbine Beach parking lot, which is next to Ashbridges Bay, in the City of Toronto. This parking lot is a big parking lot that has space for 270 cars. At the west side of the parking lot there were three separate launches for boats. Those launches or ramps provide access for boats to get into the water of Ashbridges Bay, which is part of Lake Ontario.

At about 9:30 p.m. after being in the parking lot, Mr. Serraj turned on the engine of his vehicle. He turned on his headlights. He began to drive. He turned the car around quickly, performing a U-turn so it was facing west. He then accelerated quickly, and at a high rate of speed drove towards one of the boat launch ramps. He drove down one of them onto the ice-covered water of Ashbridges Bay. The witnesses in the parking lot who saw him drive described the driving essentially as too fast for the circumstances.

There was a CCTV camera that captured some of the driving. It showed the vehicle heading to the ramp at a high speed. The brake lights of the vehicle did come on, but only when the car was at the top of the ramp, so, essentially too late. The car travelled onto the ice, and shortly thereafter the ice cracked and broke apart and the vehicle went into the water beneath the ice. Both Mr. Serraj and Ms. Shukulli were both in the vehicle as it began to sink.

After the vehicle went into the lake there were numerous bystanders, people who were nearby in the dark, and they realized that this vehicle had gone into the lake with one or two people inside it. In what can only be described as a testament to the bravery and courage of a number of regular people who were nearby, many people jumped into action. Into the dark and into the icy waters of Lake Ontario, in a valiant effort to save the occupants of the vehicle, including Ms. Shukulli.

In that regard the court would note from the agreed statement of fact the following. The other people in the parking lot had seen the car drive down the ramp and onto the ice. They saw it beginning to sink after the ice broke apart. The witnesses immediately called 9-1-1 and made efforts to help the occupants of the sinking car. There was an air pocket in the back of the vehicle and both Mr. Serraj and Ms. Shukulli moved into the rear of the car in the air pocket.

One of these bystanders, a witness, grabbed a metal pole and used it to smash the rear window of the car as it was sinking. Another witness used a metal propane tank also to smash the rear side window to allow the occupants to escape. Unfortunately, there was a cage inside this vehicle that had been installed for security reasons to prevent the theft of tools or materials from the van. As the vehicle sank and Mr. Serraj and Ms. Shukulli were in the rear of the vehicle, the cage prevented people from getting the occupants out, and it prevented the people inside from getting out of the back of the van. Although the windows had been broken, the occupants could not escape. The only way out of the vehicle was through the front doors, which were at that point flooded and blocked with cold lake water.

With the passage of time after the incident it became evident that the courageous efforts of regular people were not able to succeed in saving Agnesa Shukulli. She was trapped inside the vehicle and no one was able to rescue her. Even the similar courageous efforts of the Toronto Police officers who attended moments later were not able to save her and remove her from the vehicle. Although Mr. Serraj was able to escape and make his way to shore, as indicated in the facts, he told the people who were there that he needed to get his girlfriend out, that she was in there. He kept repeating "my girlfriend -- my girlfriend". He urged other people on scene to get her, as she was still inside the sinking vehicle.

As the Crown indicated earlier, there was no evidence that Mr. Serraj ever intended to harm her. As indicated above, Mr. Serraj thought he was driving to an exit from the parking lot. He thought he was driving onto another street. He did not realize until it was too late, and he was driving too quickly, that he was driving to a final exit, an entry to the dark, icy cold waters of Lake Ontario by way of a boat ramp that descended deeply and quickly into the lake. By the time he realized where he was headed, and he applied brakes at the top of the boat ramp it was too late. His vehicle went into the lake.

Often in driving cases that the courts deal with there is a situation where a driver has been drinking alcohol or taking drugs, and that is what caused a fatal outcome like this. That is not the case in this case. There is no evidence he had been drinking or taking any drugs. This was not a case of dangerous driving. It was a case of driving without due care and attention, of speeding to the ramp, not knowing for certain if it was a proper exit from the parking lot to the street. He was wrong. It was an exit to the lake.

The Circumstances of the Offender

The court has been advised of the circumstances of Mr. Serraj. Mr. Serraj was born on Christmas Day, December 25, 2001. He attended high school in Albania, where he was a good student, respected by teachers and classmates. He volunteered at the Catholic church in Albania. He was the youngest of five children. His siblings remain with his parents in Albania. He calls them each day before work. He has had a very close relationship with his cousin, who assisted in bringing him here to Canada. He's been living with his cousin for a period of time, starting one and a half years before the incident. His cousin speaks very highly of him. He indicates that his cousin has been a great houseguest. Mr. Serraj respects the people he lives with and follows the rules of the house. He has worked in residential construction for his cousin's company, where he has worked long hours, and sometimes six or seven days a week. He is a very responsible and good worker. His cousin has been impressed by his work ethic. His cousin is here today to show his support for Mr. Serraj.

Mr. Serraj has attended St. Mother Teresa Church in Etobicoke. His church and his work have been important constants in his life. Although he has been getting therapy from his church, and attending there to try to deal with his guilt for this terrible tragedy, and the church has been somewhat successful, it may be that counselling ordered by the court would be of greater assistance to deal with the guilt in this matter, to deal with his driving conduct that caused the loss of his girlfriend, for whom he had the strongest feelings.

There are significant indications of remorse in this case. First, the guilty plea to this charge shows his remorse by saving the need for the Crown to prove that he is guilty of this charge, by saving the need for witnesses to come to court to relive this experience, including the numerous bystanders and police officers who would have been called upon and questioned to relive what was no doubt one of the most traumatic experiences in their lives, of seeing this vehicle go down under the ice in Lake Ontario in temperatures likely to cause hypothermia within a few minutes. They all made valiant efforts. They acted with bravery and courage to do anything they could to save Agnesa. They grabbed whatever they could to break the windows to get to her to bring her to safety. It was just not to be. They could not succeed because she was trapped in the vehicle and unable to be reached in time to be saved.

Mr. Serraj has indicated his remorse to this court. The court has also been advised that he has suffered and continues to suffer every day with this guilt for what he caused. Today he, by his guilty plea, acknowledged in court his responsibility for causing Agnesa's death by his driving. He has served a lengthy jail term already. There is going to be a need for him to continue to get therapy to try and deal with the loss of the girlfriend he caused, the woman he pleaded for others to save as he was by the water's edge. This is an image he will have for the rest of his life, one which he will need to deal with, that hopefully will be assisted by therapy.

Victim Impact and Impact on Victim's Family

While this is an offence under the Highway Traffic Act, the court nonetheless takes into account the impact of this tragic offence resulting in the very sad outcome of the loss of life of Ms. Agnesa Shukulli. She was a 25-year-old lady who had her whole life ahead of her. She was greatly loved by her parents, her sister Anxhela Shukulli, and all of their family.

Anxhela Shukulli read a very moving and emotional victim impact statement, which described the excruciating impact of the loss of her little sister Agnesa, both on her life, on her husband's life, her parents' life, and their whole family. It is tragic and trite to say that there is nothing the court can do to bring her back, as much as the court would like to do that. It is a loss that is unable to be calculated, one that will be suffered over the lifetime of their parents, who should never have had to bury their child at any age. It is a tremendous loss that her bigger sister Anxhela, who cared for her very deeply, and looked after her as an older sister since the two of them were very young girls, will probably never fully overcome. That is not to say though that over time it is hoped that the therapy that she is getting will ease the pain somewhat. It is nevertheless a hole in her life, and a hole in the lives of her parents and family that will never be filled. That is a consequence that this court considers very carefully. The court is deeply moved by that very tragic consequence. I am truly, genuinely very sorry for your loss. My words cannot convey how sorry I am for your tragic loss of Agnesa.

Legal Parameters for Sentence

The offence of careless driving is set out in the Highway Traffic Act. The Act was recently amended to provide for the new offence of careless driving causing death, which reflects the more serious outcomes when that type of driving results in the death of another person.

That offence is set out in s. 130(3) of the Highway Traffic Act. It provides that a person is guilty of driving carelessly if the person drives a vehicle on a highway or in a specified place, this time it was a parking lot, without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons, and causes death to another person.

That law sets out what type of sentence can be imposed by the court. There can be a fine imposed. Neither lawyer is of the view that a fine is appropriate in this case. Or a term of imprisonment, which means jail, can be imposed for up to two years. And in addition, there is a maximum suspension of a driver's licence of five years.

In looking at that range of sentence, the court considers among other things, whether the person has a prior record. Mr. Serraj has no prior record, either under the Criminal Code or the Highway Traffic Act. The court considers the mitigating factors of entering the guilty plea, and the remorse of Mr. Serraj. He has a pro-social record, and strong rehabilitative prospects.

Counsel for the Crown and the defence have agreed after a careful review of what all the evidence would have been, and what the law suggests be done in this case, that the appropriate sentence in this case is one of what's called time served. He has already served a lot of time in jail. Mr. Serraj was arrested at the time of the offence, January 20th, 2025, and he remained in jail until he was released on June 17th, 2025. That is about six months in jail. In law, that would have been considered, with additional credit for each day, according to what is referred to as the Summers credit, of one and a half days credit for each day in custody. That means Mr. Serraj has already served the equivalent of nine months in jail for this charge.

Both lawyers have agreed that is already a sufficient jail term for him. Counsel have agreed essentially to pre-sentence custody of real days of four months and enhanced pre-sentence credit of six months less a day.

Following that the counsel agree that he should be placed on probation for a period of twelve months, with the terms I am going to mention in a moment, and that he also be given a five-year driving suspension, which is the maximum time that he can be suspended from driving.

When counsel agree to a joint submission this is something considered very carefully by the court. Mr. Serraj has given up his right to trial on the basis that the Crown and defence have agreed that given the time he has been in jail this is an appropriate punishment for this offence. The court must follow this according to the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43. The Supreme Court directed all courts in Canada, including this court, that the court should not give a different sentence than the joint submission unless what the lawyers propose would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, or be contrary to the public interest. A joint submission should not be rejected by a sentencing judge such as myself, lightly.

This court cannot say that the joint submission for the offence of careless driving causing death would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Mr. Serraj has already served the equivalent of a lengthy period in jail, and he had no prior record whatsoever. Considering the case law for this type of offence of a careless driving offence which results in death, which is relatively new in law, the court finds that it is a proper sentence in all of the circumstances.

Sentence

As indicated then, the sentence will recognize four months actual pre-sentence custody credit, and six months less a day enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, after which the court will impose a period of twelve months probation with the following terms. Report today to probation, and thereafter as directed, reside at an address approved by the probation officer, and not change that address without prior notification to the probation officer, not to be in the driver's seat or to operate any motor vehicle. Attend for any assessment and counselling as directed by the probation officer for grief or other relevant issues. Sign releases so that the probation officer can monitor attendance at those appointments.

There will also be a five-year driving suspension. The victim fine surcharge is mandatory, with twelve months to make payment.

The criminal charge of dangerous driving causing death is withdrawn.

Released: November 20, 2025

Justice B. Brown