ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2026 02 06

COURT FILE No.: Brampton 21 013859

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

SASHIGAN YOGALINGAM

Before Justice Erin S. Thomas

Plea entered February 3, 2025, Submissions received in writing

Heard on June 3, 2025, November 20, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on February 6, 2026

N. Sohail............................................................................................... counsel for the Crown

G. Zoppi and H. Tse............................. counsel for the accused Sashigan Yogalingam

Thomas J.:

[ 1 ] Mr. Yogalingam pled guilty on the morning of his scheduled trial to impaired driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. Through no fault of Mr. Yogalingam’s, there were some delays in hearing sentencing in this matter. Submissions were received in writing from both parties. Oral response submissions were provided by the Crown with further written submissions from the Defence.

[ 2 ] As part of the plea, an agreed statement of facts were filed. It included: an accident reconstruction report, medical records of the victim, Joanne Fernando, and accompanying MTO video. As part of sentencing materials updated medical records for Ms. Fernando along with her Victim Impact Statement (VIS), letters of support for Mr. Yogalingam from his family and friends, a pre-sentence report (PSR), proof of employment and counselling report were also filed. Mr. Yogalingam also wrote a letter filed as part of sentencing materials.

Factual Background

[ 3 ] On July 19, 2021, Mr. Yogalingam was driving a white Ford F150 pick up truck on Highway 410 northbound. At approximately 1:07 a.m., a 911 caller reported a single vehicle collision on the 410 off-ramp at Queen Street in the City of Brampton.

[ 4 ] A witness reported seeing Mr. Yogalingam’s white pick-up truck airborne, it landed in the ditch, narrowly missing his own vehicle. When police arrived on scene, they observed heavy front-end damage to the white pick-up truck. The truck appeared to have nose-dived into the ditch. There were several smashed Heineken Beer bottles in the vehicle visible inside the passenger area of the truck.

[ 5 ] The Reconstructionist Report included photographs of the scene and pick up truck. They depicted the devastating damage to the F150 that resulted from the total loss of control on the off-ramp. The report detailed the speed at which the vehicle traveled, the use of cruise control and confirmed the brakes were never applied to slow the vehicle when it left the road.

[ 6 ] Both the driver, identified as Mr. Sashigan Yogalingam, and the front seat passenger, identified as Joanne Fernando, had to be extracted from the vehicle. Ms. Fernando was transported to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre with possible life-threatening injuries.

[ 7 ] Mr. Yogalingam’s legs were squished under the steering wheel which had to be cut in order to extract him from the vehicle. Police detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from Mr. Yogalingam’s breath. At 2:07 a.m. he was arrested for impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm. He was read rights to counsel, cautioned and read a breath demand. He was then taken by ambulance to the hospital.

[ 8 ] During the ambulance ride to the hospital, Mr. Yogalingam made utterances to the paramedics, including that he was too drunk to drive and admitted the truck belonged to him.

[ 9 ] A blood demand was read to Mr. Yogalingam, however the hospital failed/refused to cooperate with the valid blood demand. Mr. Yogalingam was released unconditionally.

[ 10 ] A warrant was eventually obtained by police and a sample of Mr. Yogalingam’s blood was sent for forensic analysis. An analysis was completed at the Centre for Forensic Science and projected Mr. Yogalingam’s blood alcohol content to be between 153 to 188 mg. of alcohol per 100 ml of blood at the time of the collision.

[ 11 ] Independent hospital records were also obtained pursuant to the warrant and projected Mr. Yogalingam’s blood alcohol content to be between 159 to 194 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood at the time of the collision.

[ 12 ] Mr. Yogalingam was arrested and charged accordingly once the results were obtained.

Injuries and Impact on Ms. Fernando

[ 13 ] Ms. Fernando suffered a brain bleed, concussion, fractured jaw, a small bleed on the left side of her chest, fractured right rib and a dislocated hip with possible spinal injury. She has permanent scarring to her face, neck and stomach area as a result of the injuries suffered during the accident. The scars around her mouth area are most visible and she needs make-up to cover them. She also has prominent scarring on her neck.

[ 14 ] Following the accident Ms. Fernando was hospitalized for six nights, including time in the intensive care unit. Ms. Fernando has continued to suffer as a result of the injury to her hip. She has pain and it restricts her ability to move, sit or stand for long periods of time. She requires ongoing surgical intervention as a result of the injury caused to her hip and has an upcoming surgery scheduled. The anticipated recovery from this surgery is approximately 6 months, and it will impact her mobility and independence.

[ 15 ] As a result of her injuries Ms. Fernando attends ongoing medical appointments and therapies. Prior to the accident Ms. Fernando described herself as a vibrant and independent young woman. She worked as a server and attended university. As a result of the accident, it took her longer to complete her degree and she required special accommodations. Despite efforts on her part, she has been unable to maintain employment due to her physical limitations and relies on disability benefits for financial support. In her VIS she describes feeling “as though her life is on hold waiting for her health to improve” from the injuries suffered during the accident five years ago. She described a loss of independence, income and negative impact on her relationships.

Mr. Yogalingam

[ 16 ] Mr. Yogalingam is 29 years old. At the time of the offence, he was 24 years old. He is a Canadian citizen. He has a brother, and currently resides with his mother and father and their two dogs.

[ 17 ] A PSR was commissioned for this hearing. Mr. Yogalingam, along with two friends were interviewed. The report is not contested, though as a result of some concerns it has been supplemented by additional material which I will discuss below.

[ 18 ] Mr. Yogalingam completed high school and attended post-secondary studies at a university in Toronto. He studied computer science and business but did not complete his university degree and reported that he stopped attending with four credits outstanding. He left school to work for a home security company, he has a security guard license.

[ 19 ] Mr. Yogalingam has been self-employed since 2019, initially operating auto care businesses until January 2021 when he took over his parents’ restaurant. Unfortunately, that business closed in 2025. He currently co-owns an entertainment company, which hosts events, with a business partner. They have owned this business for eight years. Outside of his business ventures Mr. Yogalingam began working with Clutch Performance in 2025, he has worked with them for nine months.

[ 20 ] Mr. Yogalingam denied any substance use issues and reported reducing his alcohol consumption to once or twice a month as a result of this offence. He reported using marijuana occasionally after the offence, in 2021, to help him sleep and manage anxiety.

[ 21 ] Mr. Yogalingam is actively involved in his community, engaged in volunteering at charity events and at his temple. He has also acted as a mentor for others. His friends and family describe him as reliable and quick to offer help to those in need.

[ 22 ] Mr. Yogalingam is supported by his friends and his parents. Some of his friends were interviewed as part of the PSR. Many provided letters in support of him on the sentencing hearing. Those letters describe Mr. Yogalingam as a caring friend. Many believe Mr. Yogalingam holds himself to a high standard and is disappointed in his conduct during the offence.

[ 23 ] Mr. Yogalingam also suffered physical and psychological injuries in the accident, he had a brain bleed, T12 spinal injury, broken shoulder blade, broken ribs, fractured fingers and fractured knee cap. As a result of these injuries the family restaurant that he took over closed, and Mr. Yogalingam suffered depression. His long-term relationship ended and his struggled to work outside of his own business endeavours. He continues to have trouble sleeping and sitting for long periods of time.

[ 24 ] Prior to the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, I raised concerns about some of the content of the PSR as it relates to Mr. Yogalingam’s insight and acceptance of responsibility. Specifically, I inquired whether his lack of forthrightness with his family and some of his comments to the author of the PSR temper his insight and acceptance of responsibility. [1]

[ 25 ] Mr. Yogalingam’s family were not interviewed as part of the PSR. He admitted that he has not been completely forthright with his parents about these charges because he was concerned about it how it would impact their health. It was clear that he minimized his jeopardy until after the scheduled court date in November 2025

[ 26 ] In response, counsel on behalf of Mr. Yogalingam filed additional submissions along with letters from his mother, father, and Mr. Yogalingam. I appreciate that Mr. Yogalingam supports his parents both financially and physically. I understand from their letters that in their view he demonstrated insight into his behaviour. They rely on him for financial and physical support

[ 27 ] Mr. Yogalingam’s plea is a sign of remorse. In the PSR Mr. Yogalingam told the author that he regrets being a “good citizen” and wished he had not taken the situation into his own hands by driving and instead calling a ride share. In his letter he explained that comment referred to a desire not to have Ms. Fernando uber to Brampton alone, he indicated in his letter he had used a ride share to get home that night as he was drinking and did not plan on driving. Counsel explained that his comments in the PSR reflect a lack of sophistication.

Positions of the Parties

[ 28 ] The Crown seeks a penitentiary sentence of three years concurrent on both counts, a DNA order and a driving prohibition of three years “plus the entire period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment”.

[ 29 ] The Defence seeks a conditional sentence in the range of 18 to 24 months with a house arrest term followed by probation for two to three years. They also seek a driving prohibition of two to three years.

The Law

[ 30 ] Sentencing is a difficult task. I am guided by the principles of sentencing, the need to impose proportionate sentence taking into account the mitigating and aggravating factors, appropriate case law and balancing those against the degree of responsibility of the offender and the nature of the offence. The need to strike a balance in those principles and factors is the reasons that sentencing is highly discretionary.

[ 31 ] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and maintain a “just, peaceful and safe society”. [2] This requires the imposition of “just sanctions” that reflect the principles set out, including denunciation, deterrence (both general and specific), separation of offenders from society, rehabilitation, reparation to victims, promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledging the harm done to victims and the community. [3]

[ 32 ] The fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [4]

[ 33 ] Parity is also an important principle to be considered in determining a fit and proportionate sentence. This requires careful consideration of the circumstances of the offence, and the offender and comparison to other similar offences committed in similar circumstances.

[ 34 ] Sadly, despite decades of warnings, television campaigns, increasing sentences and high-profile tragedy people have not gotten the message about the dangers of impaired driving. It’s been more than 30 years since R. v. Bernshaw where Justice Cory wrote:

Every year, drunk driving leaves a terrible trail of death, injury, heartbreak and destruction. From the point of view of numbers alone, it has a far greater impact on Canadian society than any other crime. In terms of deaths and serious injuries resulting in hospitalization, drunk driving is clearly the crime which causes the most significant social loss to the country. [5]

[ 35 ] The principles highlighted in sentencing these offences are general deterrence and denunciation “in order to convey society’s condemnation” for impaired driving causing bodily harm or death. [6] These principles apply with equal force in cases of dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm as a result of the 2018 changes to the Criminal Code which increased the maximum sentence for both dangerous driving causing bodily harm and impaired driving causing bodily harm where the Prosecution proceeds by indictment, harmonizing them at 14 years in jail, an increase from 10 years in jail.

[ 36 ] Along with changes to the maximum sentences available for dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm, Parliament included section 320.12 which reads:

It is recognized and declared that

(a) operating a conveyance is a privilege that is subject to certain limits in the interests of public safety that include licensing, the observance of rules and sobriety;

(b) the protection of society is well served by deterring persons from operating conveyances dangerously or while their ability to operate them is impaired by alcohol or a drug, because that conduct poses a threat to the life, health and safety of Canadians; [7]

[ 37 ] These changes reflect Parliament’s intention to “create a stronger approach to punishing driving offences” [8] . This is the “evident purpose of Bill C-46”. [9] In these circumstances, the Supreme Court has directed that courts should “respect Parliament’s decision to increase maximum sentences” and “generally impose higher sentences than the sentences imposed in cases that preceded the increases in maximum sentences”. [10]

[ 38 ] The sentencing ranges for impaired driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm vary significantly. Justice Stribopoulos highlighted the relevant sentencing ranges in the context of both impaired driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm in R. v. Jaison [11] . Reviewing the relevant authorities, His Honour found the range for impaired driving causing bodily harm to be sentences in the intermittent range at the low and, compared to high reformatory or lower penitentiary sentences at the higher end. For dangerous driving causing bodily harm, His Honour noted the range from conditional sentences to the penitentiary range. [12] I am mindful that these are guidelines, sentencing is a highly individualized process. [13]

[ 39 ] In 2022, Parliament enacted Bill C-5 which expanded the availability of conditional sentences for a number of offences, including impaired driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. Since that time, there have been some impaired driving causing bodily harm cases where a conditional sentence of imprisonment was imposed in Ontario. [14]

[ 40 ] A conditional sentence may be appropriate where the preconditions set out in 742.1 have been met. Including that the appropriate sentence is one of less than two years and that the safety of the community would not be engaged by its imposition. [15] The Supreme Court in R. v. Proulx held that conditional sentences can have a punitive impact capable of achieving goals of deterrence and denunciation. [16]

[ 41 ] To determine the appropriate sentence, I must consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of the offender to determine his degree of responsibility and the gravity of the offence.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[ 42 ] The Defence accepts the aggravating and mitigating factors set out in the Crown’s sentencing materials, with some additional mitigating factors. There are a number of both aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. I will summarize them below.

[ 43 ] I find the following aggravating factors:

• The serious life-altering injuries [17] suffered by Ms. Fernando and the long-term impact that they continue to have on her ability to work, live independently and on her life generally;

• The blood alcohol readings range of the low end from 153/159 mg. of alcohol per 100 ml. of blood to 188/194 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood this range is statutorily aggravating [18] and is in the range of double the Criminal Code limit; [19]

• Mr. Yogalingam was operating a Ford F-150 which is a large motor vehicle while his ability to do so was impaired by alcohol this is also statutorily aggravating; [20]

• Mr. Yogalingam was driving on a 400 series highway utilizing cruise control at 113-114 km per hour while in a recommended 70 km per hour off-ramp zone and he did not attempt to brake at any time prior to the crash;

• There is a prior MTO driving record for speeding, including an entry from April 2021 only two months prior to the collision; and

• The driving resulted in a major single-vehicle car crash.

[ 44 ] I find the following as mitigating factors:

• Mr. Yogalingam was 24 years old at the time of the offence, he was a youthful adult;

• He has no prior criminal record and is a first time offender;

• He was released on an undertaking with conditions has abided by the terms of his release;

• He is employed and prior to the offence had a history of employment;

• He is supported by his family and friends;

• He pled guilty, which is an acceptance of responsibility and demonstration of his remorse; and

• He enrolled in an alcohol relapse/drive sober counselling program with Just for Today in 2025 and ought to have completed this program on January 7, 2026.

[ 45 ] I accept that Mr. Yogalingam’s guilty plea is a sign of his remorse, I find however that his insight into the conduct that led him before the court is limited.

[ 46 ] I am skeptical of Mr. Yogalingam’s letter. He has had many opportunities to demonstrate insight into his behaviour. It was not until the Court raised concerns nine months after he entered his plea that things appear to have clicked for him. I also do not accept counsel’s submission that Mr. Yogalingam is unsophisticated. He was high achieving in school and nearly completed his degree with a major in computer science and a minor in business at a Toronto university. Mr. Yogalingam has displayed no difficulty with communication.

[ 47 ] Furthermore, nothing in the submissions of counsel or the additional letters provided in support of Mr. Yogalingam assist with the other troubling comments made to the author of the PSR. Such as his desire that the case will simply be dropped or his view that community supervision would be challenging because of his work and enjoyment of travel. [21] These comments demonstrate a failure to appreciate the seriousness of the offending conduct.

[ 48 ] I make these findings based on the totality of the information presented, along with the timeliness of those efforts. Mr. Yogalingam committed these offences in 2021, while he scheduled a trial as he was entitled to do [22] , he undertook absolutely no rehabilitative efforts until after his guilty plea was entered. Rehabilitative efforts are not evidence of guilt, rather they are steps that can demonstrate insight into the seriousness of an event and a commitment to change. Mr. Yogalingam is to be commended for finally taking steps to address his conduct, but the weight given to those efforts is tempered by their timing and his comments during the PSR.

Appropriate Sentence

[ 49 ] I must now turn to a determination of the fit and appropriate sentence taking into account everything set out above.

[ 50 ] The aggravating factors in this case are significant. Reviewing the Reconstructionist Report and the photographs and MTO video, it is a wonder no one was killed in this crash.

[ 51 ] Mr. Yogalingam’s moral culpability is high, despite the significant mitigation from his guilty plea. He made a choice after ubering home from an event where he was drinking to get behind the wheel and drive. He utilized cruise control in a large vehicle, and he failed to take any steps to reduce his speed prior to and after losing control of the vehicle.

[ 52 ] The injuries suffered to Ms. Fernando are life-altering. They continue to have a dramatic impact on her life. Since 2021 she has been stuck unable to move forward, in need of further surgery that causes lengthy upheaval in her recovery and further impedes her ability to work and care for herself. She has lost financial security, independence and is stuck waiting for a time when her injuries improve. She also faces increased risk of degenerative disease, like arthritis as she ages.

[ 53 ] Mr. Yogalingam is a young man. He is hard working and has otherwise led a prosocial life. The difficulty, as most of the case law in this area has recognized, is that these offences are often committed by otherwise upstanding prosocial people well supported in their communities. [23]

[ 54 ] The principle of general deterrence is the predominant concern in sentencing Mr Yogalingam. Rehabilitation is always a consideration, however in this case given all the circumstances it is not a predominant sentencing principle.

[ 55 ] There is no evidence that the injuries he suffered in the crash, or his mental health struggles cannot be addressed in a custodial setting. There is no evidence of the exact nature of any ongoing physical care he requires nor any mental health services that are necessary.

[ 56 ] The parties rely on a number of authorities. The Crown in their written materials highlights a number of cases with sentences ranging from the reformatory range to the penitentiary range. Each of these cases have dramatically different factual landscapes to Mr. Yogalingam’s and none represent cases where someone has pled guilty to both impaired driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. Many involved multi-victim cases of impaired driving.

[ 57 ] The Defence rely on two cases in support of their position, specifically R. v. Cadet and R. v. Ferguson-Kellum . Those cases are of little assistance in determining the appropriate length of sentence as both cases involved only impaired driving causing bodily harm.

[ 58 ] I find Justice Stribopoulos’s decision R. v. Jaison is similar, though Mr. Jaison’s case lacks some of the aggravating features present in Mr. Yogalingam’s case. Like Mr. Yogalingam, Mr. Jaison pled guilty to both impaired driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. There was an accident, and there were serious, life-altering injuries to the victim.

[ 59 ] Mr. Jaison was 19 years old at the time of the offence. He was well supported by his family, and otherwise an engaged pro-social member of his community. The high-speed collision caused significant damage to two vehicles. The victim suffered life-altering injuries that resulted in personality changes and an inability to work. His blood alcohol readings were 96 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood and 89 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. His Honour found Mr. Jaison displayed a high degree of remorse and insight into his conduct. Mr. Jaison received a sentence of 16 months incarceration, and His Honour found in all the circumstances a conditional sentence was not appropriate.

[ 60 ] There are obvious distinctions between the cases, specifically the lack of statutorily aggravating factors, a prior and recent MTO record for speeding, blood alcohol readings that are nearly double and the nature of the driving on a 400 series highway. But given the similarity in offences, and some similarities between Mr. Yogalingam and Mr. Jaison, the case is of assistance in arriving at the appropriate sentence.

[ 61 ] In my view, balancing all the necessary considerations, the appropriate sentence in this case is one of two years imprisonment. I find that the significant aggravating features in this case require penitentiary length sentence to meet principles of sentencing. I find that this is the shortest jail sentence that is appropriate in all the circumstances. But for the significant mitigation of your guilty plea, this sentence would have been much closer to the range sought by the Crown.

[ 62 ] The carnage caused by impaired drivers is well-known and highly publicized, yet our courts are plagued with otherwise good citizens who abuse the privilege of their license and their vehicles after consuming alcohol. Their vehicles become dangerous weapons and the lives of everyone in their path are at risk. Mr. Yogalingam, your decision to get behind the wheel of your truck was incredibly dangerous, and the consequences forever changed the life of your passenger. The decision to drive while impaired endangers the community. It is a serious offence and despite your background a penitentiary sentence is warranted.

[ 63 ] The sentence imposed exceeds the length eligible for consideration of a conditional sentence though I appreciate a two-year sentence is on the cusp of statutory eligibility for a conditional sentence, so I feel duty-bound to briefly discuss the prospect of a conditional sentence in the event I have erred that this must be a sentence outside of reformatory time.

[ 64 ] In determining that a conditional sentence is unfit, inappropriate, and outside of any applicable range, I again must refer to the motor vehicle collision, the driving conduct on a 400 series highway, the prohibitive and dangerous readings, and the life-altering injuries that resulted. A sentence to be served in the community would run afoul of the proper application of the principles of deterrence and denunciation and the public safety and confidence imperatives that animate section 320.12 and the conditional sentence analysis mandated by section 742.1.

[ 65 ] I will note, both cases relied on by the Defence in support of the conditional sentence are distinguishable from the facts before me in this case.

[ 66 ] In R. v. Ferguson-Kellum , Ms. Ferguson-Kellum was convicted of a single count of impaired driving causing bodily harm. There was no additional aggravating offence of dangerous driving causing bodily harm. Mr. Yogalingam’s driving on a 400 series highway is an aggravating feature that distinguishes the facts in his case and elevated his conduct beyond the bad driving seen in Ferguson-Kellum . The breath readings are not known in Ferguson-Kellum , while Mr. Yogalingam pled guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm the amount of alcohol in his blood is admitted as an aggravating feature, and this case, the readings greatly exceed the statutorily aggravating level. Finally, while the injuries to the victim in Ferguson-Kellum were life-altering, they lack similar long-term effects and impacts outlined by Ms. Fernando in her victim impact statement.

[ 67 ] In R. v. Cadet , Mr. Cadet was found guilty of two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm. The person most seriously injured in this collision was Mr. Cadet. His son received injuries that were treatable with physiotherapy and left no permanent physical disabilities. The victim in the other vehicle had permanent hearing loss, he declined to provide a victim impact statement though some impact was described by his girlfriend who had been driving the car. It was general and referred to the impact on their relationship. The accident has other aggravating features, but significant weight was placed on the letter written the mother of Mr. Cadet’s son. She went to great lengths to explain the additional impact on her son that would be caused by Mr. Cadet’s incarceration. Mr. Cadet’s injuries and level of care he continued to require can also be distinguished from that of Mr. Yogalingam. There is no evidence of any additional care required by Mr. Yogalingam nor is there any evidence he cannot receive that care in a custodial setting. A final distinguishing feature in Mr. Yogalingam’s case is the dangerous driving accompanied by the presence of a prior recent MTO record for speeding. Mr. Cadet had no prior MTO record, and while the driving was poor he was not convicted of dangerous driving.

[ 68 ] I find that the aggravating features before me distinguish Mr. Yogalingam’s case from both Ferguson-Kellum and Cadet .

Conclusion

[ 69 ] There will be a total sentence of 24 months or two-years incarceration, concurrent on both counts, there will be a five-year driving prohibition. The driving prohibition reflects the seriousness of the prohibited conduct. It should demonstrate that driving is a privilege, one that requires drivers to use care and act within the law when operating a vehicle. These sections are secondary eligible DNA offences, as such I will make a DNA order on both counts.

[ 70 ] Mr. Yogalingam, I understand that you may not be happy with my decision today, I hope you continue to work on yourself and pursue your goals. I wish you much luck in the future.

Released: February 6, 2026

Signed: Justice Erin S. Thomas

[1] Pre-Sentence Report: “He regrets being a ‘good citizen’” (pg. 6), “hopes the offence being dropped” (pg. 6), although amenable to community supervision it will impact his life as “his work hours are unpredictable and he likes to travel” (pg. 6). He has not been forthright with his family about this matter (pg. 3).

[2] Section 718 Criminal Code of Canada

[3] R. v. Jaison 2025 ONSC 3661 at pgs. 6-7; section 718 (a)-(f) Criminal Code of Canada .

[4] Section 718.1 Criminal Code of Canada .

[5] R. v. Bernshaw [1995] S.C.R. 254 at paragraph 16.

[6] R. v. Lacasse [2015] S.C.R. 1089 at paragraph 5. See also R v. McVeigh , [1985] OJ No 207, R. v. Ramage 2010 ONCA 488 , R. v. Junkert 2010 ONCA 549 .

[7] Section 320.12 Criminal Code of Canada

[8] R. v. Boily 2022 ONCA 611 at paragraph 51 .

[9] R. v. Georgopoulos 2026 ONCA 27 at paragraph 26 .

[10] R. v. Freisen 2020 SCC 9 , [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424 at paragraph 100 .

[11] R. v. Jaison , supra .

[12] R. v. Jaisen supra at pgs. 10-11.

[13] R. v. Nasogaluak 2010 SCC 6 , [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206 and R. v. Lacasse , supra .

[14] See R. v. Ferguson-Kellum 2023 ONCJ 119 , and R. v. Cadet 2023 ONCJ 374 .

[15] Section 742.1 Criminal Code of Canada .

[16] R. v. Proulx 2000 SCC 5 , [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61 at paragraph 22 .

[17] Summarized in full in the factual background.

[18] Section 320.22 (e) Criminal Code of Canada .

[19] This is also 5x the permissible limit of alcohol of 50 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood which would result in Highway Traffic Act consequences.

[20] Section 320.22 (f) Criminal Code of Canada .

[21] I note that at the time the PSR was written Mr. Yogalingam was not employed.

[22] The decision to schedule a trial has no bearing on the appropriate sentence to be imposed.

[23] See R. v. McVeigh , supra and R. v. Ramage , supra .