ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2026 02 12

COURT FILE No.: 23-48121917

Toronto Region

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

Wayne AFEMUI

Before Justice Cidalia C.G. Faria

Heard on December 4, 2025

Reasons for Sentencing released on February 12, 2026

Meher Singh......................................................................................... counsel for the Crown

Elysia Nocida.................................................. counsel for the defendant Wayne AFEMUI

Faria J.:

[ 1 ] After a trial, I found Wayne Afemui guilty of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, and assaulting Sheldon Arnold causing bodily harm. Sentencing was adjourned for submissions and caselaw to be provided.

[ 2 ] These are my reasons for sentence.

Facts

[ 3 ] I provided my findings of fact in my reasons for judgement. [^1] Briefly stated, on September 28, 2023, Mr. Arnold followed Mr. Afemui eastbound on highway 401, to the exit on Kingston Rd, and then to a condo building on Ling Rd because he thought Mr. Afemui was driving dangerously. Mr. Arnold wanted to take down Mr. Afemui’s licence plate and report him to authorities. When Mr. Afemui parked his vehicle in the circular driveway in front of the condo building, he popped his head out of his car window, and asked Mr. Arnold “can I help you?”

[ 4 ] Both men exited their vehicles and had a calm conversation that escalated to a loud dispute laced with profanity. Mr. Afemui was the physical aggressor who moved toward Mr. Arnold. Mr. Arnold said he had something for Mr. Afemui in his car and turned to go to his trunk. Mr. Afemui responded with a threat of his own and said he would hit Mr. Arnold with his car. Mr. Afemui then proceeded to get into his vehicle.

[ 5 ] Mr. Afemui reversed his vehicle quickly in the circular driveway, accelerated and swerved directly into Mr. Arnold, who was standing in the middle of the driveway. Mr. Arnold fell to the ground and then got back up. This is captured on video.

[ 6 ] Mr. Afemui drove to a nearby plaza, called 911 and reported the dispute saying Mr. Arnold had a gun – which he did not, and there was never any reference to a gun.

[ 7 ] Mr. Arnold sustained injuries that caused him pain in various parts of his body for which he attended physiotherapy.

Victim Impact

[ 8 ] Mr. Arnold outlined the physical, emotional and financial impact of Mr. Afemui’s offences. Mr. Arnold said he was unable to work, exercise, and play with his children for a period of time. He had difficulty with some daily tasks because of the pain in his shoulders and his back. The financial repercussions made him feel helpless. The experience has made him afraid of aggressive drivers. He feels he is still putting himself back to together.

[ 9 ] Mr. Arnold did not provide any detailed information about his specific injuries, financial loss, or the period of time he was referring to when he sustained these difficulties. However, it is clear that Mr. Afemui’s actions made Mr. Arnold feel as if he was “nothing” by hitting him with his car, and this feeling is still fresh.

Wayne Afemui

[ 10 ] Wayne Afemui is a 34-year-old Canadian with no criminal record. He was raised by his mother. He had no contact with his father who was deported to Tonga when he was a child. His childhood was unstable as his mother suffered from mental health issues, struggled with substance addition, and engaged in illegal activities. Mr. Afemui was neglected and unfortunately became a victim of child sexual abuse.

[ 11 ] At the age of 15, police entered his home and arrested his mother who was then incarcerated. He has been living independently without any family support since the age of 16. He did not finish high school, but he did acquire his GED in his late 20’s. He has always been employed, predominantly in the construction and renovation sectors.

[ 12 ] Mr. Afemui’s mother recently passed away. He has established a positive relationship with his grandparents and helps with their healthcare treatments. He lives with his common law partner and is a father figure to his partner’s 5-year-old child with autism.

Legal Principles

[ 13 ] Every sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[ 14 ] The sanction that I impose should have one or more of the following objectives:

• to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

• to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

• to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

• to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community;

• to denounce unlawful conduct; and

• to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

[ 15 ] In addition, I must also consider the aggravating and mitigating factors including principles of restraint, rehabilitation, and parity.

Positions

[ 16 ] Ms. Singh for the Crown submits Mr. Afemui should be sentenced to 10 to 15 months in jail, a 2-year probation order, a 2-year driving prohibition, and a 5-year weapons prohibition to reflect the denunciation and deterrence required for these offences.

[ 17 ] Ms. Nocida for Mr. Afemui submits that a 12-month conditional sentence, followed by a 2-year probation order with a driving prohibition term is more appropriate so as to reflect restraint, Mr. Afemui’s personal circumstances, as well as deterrence and denunciation.

Analysis

[ 18 ] Driving is a privilege. The Criminal Code states:

320.12 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 observation of rules and sobriety;

[ 19 ] In 2018, Parliament raised the maximum sentence for dangerous operation causing bodily harm from 10 years to 14 years to reflect the seriousness with which courts are to consider this offence and stated:

Whereas dangerous driving and impaired driving are unacceptable at all times and in all circumstances. [^2]

[ 20 ] It is agreed that denunciation and deterrence are the primary applicable principles in this case. The issue is whether a conditional sentence is sufficient to reflect these principles in this case with these facts and this offender. The Crown argues it does not, while the Defence argues it does.

[ 21 ] It is aggravating that:

i. Mr. Afemui did not remain on scene after having hit Mr. Arnold with his car.

ii. He tried to avert suspicion from himself by telling the 911 operator Mr. Afemui had a gun, when no gun was involved in his dispute with Mr. Arnold. Firearms are a serious concern in the city of Toronto. Alleging someone is in possession of a gun, turns a 911 call into a priority police firearm response situation.

iii. Although unspecified, and undocumented, the injuries Mr. Arnold sustained caused him some physical, financial, and emotional distress for some unspecified time.

[ 22 ] In mitigation, I consider that:

i. Mr. Afemui is a first-time offender who has led an exemplary life with no support.

ii. He has overcome familial, personal, financial, and educational challenges.

iii. Though exposed to illegal activities and substance use at an early age, he rejected that life for himself.

iv. He had to drop out of high school but earned his GED.

v. He had no parental role models, but is in a stable and supportive relationship, co-parenting a child, and assisting his grandparents.

vi. He is employed and always has been.

vii. During his allocution Mr. Afemui expressed regret, remorse and apologized.

[ 23 ] The Crown relied primarily on Justice Molloy’s analysis in R. v. Georgopoulos, 2024 ONSC 5922 for her position. This decision was recently upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal, R. v. Georgopoulos , 2026 ONCA 27 . Mr. Georgopoulos was driving his Lamborghini at 112km/h on Queen Street East, stopping and starting for a period of time for a thrill-seeking purpose. He crashed into two vehicles and the streetcar. He caused catastrophic injuries to his passenger, including brain damage and permanent life altering disabilities. He had no criminal record, had a pro-social history, was a father, and a businessman. He was sentenced to 2.5 years in the penitentiary after trial.

[ 24 ] Justice Molloy helpfully situates dangerous driving causing bodily harm in its legislative, jurisprudential, and social context as a serious offence that requires a significant sanction to reflect the views of Parliament, the courts, and the community.

[ 25 ] The Defence relies on numerous cases with far more serious consequences to support her position that a conditional sentence can reflect the gravity of the offence and the blameworthiness of the offender, and is appropriate in this case.

[ 26 ] She referred to R. v. Abou-Akrouche , [2008] O.J. No. 5934 , R. v. Bakker , 2025 ONCJ 264 , R. v. Caissey , 2008 ONCJ 716 , R. v. Cheema , 2022 ONCJ 632 , R. v. Creft , 2022 ONCJ 572 , R. v. Dhindsa , 2020 ONCJ 518 , and R. v. Hutchinson , 2022 ONCJ 276 , all of which sentenced the offender to a conditional sentence.

[ 27 ] Upon review of these cases, I take note that both Abou-Akrouche and Caissey were decided prior to the 2018 legislative increase in criminal penalty for the offence, and thus place less weight on their analysis.

[ 28 ] Dhindsa involved a youthful first offender who stabbed the victim after a road rage interaction with his brother, and thus the facts are significantly dissimilar to those before me today.

[ 29 ] The offenders in Bakker , Cheema , Creft , and Hutchinson all pled guilty, which Mr. Afemui did not, and so benefited from that mitigation factor.

[ 30 ] However, all 5 offenders also caused catastrophic consequences unlike Mr. Afemui. Ms. Bakker’s dangerous driving on a highway killed a little boy. Mr. Cheema’s purposeful acts of vengeance caused serious and long-lasting injuries to 3 teenagers, one of whom was in coma to recover from his injuries. Mr. Creft, who did not have a licence was driving dangerously in a parking lot, hit the victim, and left him pinned to a wall and crying out for help. Ms. Hutchinson’s speeding and lane maneuvers killed a man on an e-bike. All 5 were sentenced to conditional sentences of various lengths.

[ 31 ] This review reflects what the Supreme Court recognized in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 , at para. 58 :

There will always be situations that call for a sentence outside a particular range: although ensuring parity in sentencing is in itself a desirable objective , the fact that each crime is committed in unique circumstances by an offender with a unique profile cannot be disregarded. The determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a purely mathematical calculation. It involves a variety of factors that are difficult to define with precision.

[ 32 ] In this case, neither party is submitting a sentence outside the range, however, this case reflects that highly individualized approach I must take.

[ 33 ] The gravity of Mr. Afemui’s offences are serious, as is his moral culpability. However, his dangerous driving was momentary and in a private driveway. Mr. Arnold’s pursuit of Mr. Afemui, and his threat to get something in his car for him in no way excuses Mr. Afemui’s criminal action, but it does provide context. Mr. Afemui’s flight and attempt to mischaracterize the dispute afterward is also aggravating. The bodily harm Mr. Afemui caused Mr. Arnold is on the lower end of the spectrum. Both men are fortunate in that result.

[ 34 ] These offences easily meet 4 of the 5 pre-conditions for a conditional sentence. Neither offence is an excluded offence from s. 742.1. Neither offence requires a minimum sentence. Both parties agree that neither a suspended sentence nor a penitentiary sentence is warranted. Mr. Afemui has pro-social antecedents, no criminal record, and has abided by his bail conditions for almost 2.5 years, there is no indication that he is a danger to the public.

[ 35 ] What remains is the issue as earlier differently stated; is a conditional sentence consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2. Specifically, is a conditional sentence sufficient to reflect the denunciation and deterrence required in this case.

[ 36 ] In my view, it is.

[ 37 ] In R. v. Proulx , 2000 SCC 5 , at para. 22 , the Supreme Court specifically stated that a conditional sentence is “also a punitive sanction capable of achieving the objectives of denunciation and deterrence.” In addition, the Court stated at para. 117: "[P]unitive conditions such as house arrest should be the norm, not the exception." House arrest is not jail, but it is and, in this case, will be a significant and lengthy restriction on Mr. Afemui’s liberty. It will affect his daily activity, when he does it, where, with whom, for how long, and with no remission for the entirety of its length.

[ 38 ] I have no difficulty finding that a conditional sentence for Mr. Afemui is proportionate to the gravity of his offences and the degree of his responsibility. It will be a heavy sanction, as it should be given his offences, to reflect the values and intentions of Parliament, the courts and the community. It also reflects restraint and parity.

Conclusion

[ 39 ] I sentence Mr. Afemui to an 18-month conditional sentence, during which time, he will be under house arrest conditions, with limited exceptions subject to submissions from counsel and the Crown followed by a 2-year probation order.

[ 40 ] I will also order a 2-year driving prohibition, a DNA sample be provided today, and a s. 110 weapons prohibition for 5 years.

Released: February 12, 2026

Signed: Justice Cidalia C.G. Faria

[^1]: R. v. Afemui , 2025 ONCJ 310

[^2]: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offenses relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, S.C. 2018, c. 21, Preamble