ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2026 02 23
COURT FILE No.: Toronto Region
22-40002265-02

BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —
Sherneil JOSEPH

Before Justice C. Faria

Heard on September 24, 2025, and January 13, 2026

Reasons for Sentence released on February 23, 2026

Greg Elder............................................................................................ counsel for the Crown

Vahan Tutunjian........................................... counsel for the defendant Sherneil Joseph

Faria J.:

[ 1 ] On September 24, 2025, Sherneil Joseph pled guilty to driving a motor vehicle dangerously contrary to s. 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code . Sentencing was adjourned for the preparation of a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) and submissions.

[ 2 ] These are my reasons for sentence.

Facts

[ 3 ] In the early morning hours of April 26, 2022, Mr. Joseph was driving an Acura. He drove an old high school acquaintance, Elvis Atta, and an unidentified man to the Sunshine Spa at 1290 Finch Ave West in Toronto. Mr. Joseph stayed in the car. These two men left the spa and returned to the Acura. Mr. Atta got into the rear seat and the unidentified friend into the front passenger seat. They told him to drive.

[ 4 ] Unfortunately for Mr. Joseph, Mr. Atta, who was wanted by police at the time, and the unidentified friend, had both just allegedly threatened to kill a young woman at the spa. This young woman called a friend; the friend called the police.

[ 5 ] Police responded to the 911 call in marked scout cars with emergency lights and sirens activated. They saw Mr. Joseph’s Acura speed out of the Sunshine Spa parking lot and gave chase. The Acura ran 2 red lights, one at York University Busway, and one at Keele Street. Officers ran into the Acura’s driver side door to try to stop the vehicle, but Mr. Joseph continued to drive, including off the roadway on the sidewalk. The police chase continued. The Acura then hit a police scout car that was attempting to block the Acura’s path at the intersection of Evelyn Wiggins Drive and Murray Ross Parkway. Eventually the Acura came to a stop at Four Winds Drive.

[ 6 ] Mr. Joseph’s friend, Mr. Atta, in the back seat, and his unidentified friend in the passenger see fled. Mr. Joseph was arrested on scene. He was not the registered owner of the Acura, the plates were not registered to the Acura, nor did the car have insurance. Mr. Atta was located close by at Sentinel Road.

Sherneil Joseph

[ 7 ] Mr. Joseph is almost 30 years old now and was 26 at the time of the offence. He has no criminal record.

[ 8 ] Pursuant to his PSR [^1] , Mr. Joseph was born in Barbados and came to Canada in 2003. He grew up in a single parent household after his father left the family when Mr. Joseph was 5 years old. The family experienced financial hardship, and housing instability until his grandmother took the family in. Though money was tight, there was no violence, children’s aid involvement, substance use, or criminality in his family. Mr. Joseph had to take on family responsibilities as a child. He did well academically and graduated from high school though he attended 3 different schools. He played basketball, volunteered at school, at the community centre and at the local food bank, all of which was confirmed by a teacher.

[ 9 ] Mr. Joseph lives with his younger sister. Mr. Joseph is currently in a supportive relationship, and has no children. He has no substance or alcohol issues. His social group is hard working, intelligent, with no criminal records and are positive influences.

[ 10 ] Mr. Joseph was worked since he was 16 years old. He attended an apprenticeship program after high school but had to leave the program after 7 months to work. He has always worked, first as a forklift operator and currently in an auto parts store, a sector he hopes to pursue a future in.

[ 11 ] Mr. Joseph expressed remorse and regret.

Position of the Parties

[ 12 ] Mr. Elder for the Crown recommends a 6-month conditional sentence, 12 months probation, and a 12-month driving prohibition. He acknowledges that Mr. Joseph has numerous mitigating factors but emphasizes that denunciation and deterrence require a penal sentence served in the community.

[ 13 ] Mr. Tutunjian for Mr. Joseph submits there is a unique circumstance that led to Mr. Joseph’s offence, in addition to mitigating factors and personal circumstances, that warrant consideration of a conditional discharge, probation, and a driving prohibition to be the appropriate sentence.

Legal Principles

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

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

• To deter Mr. Joseph and others from committing offences

• To separate Mr. Joseph from society, where necessary

• To assist in his rehabilitation

• To provide reparations for harm done to any victims or to the community

• To denounce unlawful conduct

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

[ 16 ] Aggravating factors and mitigating factors must be considered, as should the principles of parity, restraint, and rehabilitation.

Analysis

[ 17 ] The Supreme Court of Canada said it best when it stated in Nasogaluak that sentencing is an individualized process that requires the Court to have regard to the circumstances of the specific offence and the attributes of the specific offender. [^2]

[ 18 ] As the Crown proceeded summarily, the maximum sentence for the offence is 2 years less a day. Both a conditional discharge and a conditional sentence are available sanctions in these circumstances.

[ 19 ] Driving is a privilege, one that requires drivers to follow the rules of the road and do so in a sober and safe fashion. We all depend on that for our sense of security and safety when travelling as motorists, pedestrians, or cyclists. Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle thus warrants sanctions that reflect deterrence and denunciation.

[ 20 ] The issue is whether Mr. Joseph’s dangerous driving requires a conditional sentence to reflect denunciation and deterrence consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in s. 718 to 718.2, or whether in the circumstances, a conditional discharge, which is in Mr. Joesph’s best interests, is not contrary to the public interest and sufficient to reflect specific deterrence and denunciation.

[ 21 ] I consider the following aggravating factors:

i. Mr. Joseph’s driving was dangerous for a period of time, and in a number of ways. He was driving at a high rate of speed. He ran 2 red lights. He went off road and mounted the sidewalk. A police scout car hit his vehicle, and he kept driving. He hit a police scout car, and he kept driving.

ii. The dangerous driving was in the context of fleeing from police.

iii. He was driving dangerously while he had 2 passengers in the vehicle.

[ 22 ] I consider the following to be mitigating factors:

i. This matter was judicially pre-tried several times, and Mr. Joseph indicated his intention to plead guilty early on. The guilty plea is a sign of accountability, saved resources in this jurisdiction, and obviated witnesses from having to testify.

ii. Mr. Joseph did not flee the scene like his passengers.

iii. Mr. Joseph has no criminal record.

iv. Mr. Joseph sought and attended counselling [^3] . His psychotherapist noted that Mr. Joseph felt that his offence brought humiliation to his family and his community. Through counselling, Mr. Joseph identified a number of issues from his upbringing that cause him distress, and he is now dealing with them.

v. Mr. Joseph has expressed remorse, insight and regret in his PSR.

vi. He is currently working and has been employed in various workplaces for over a decade. His previous employer described as conscientious, respected, diligent and regularly available to work overtime, and on weekends. [^4]

vii. He has family support and is described as having overcome a difficult upbringing. [^5]

viii. He does volunteer work at the North York Harvest Food Bank. [^6]

[ 23 ] In addition to these mitigating factors there are two more applicable considerations: Morris factors and collateral consequences.

[ 24 ] Mr. Joseph is a Black man who has experienced racism, and some of the consequent disadvantages that can emerge as a result. These were referred to by his counsellor and family support letters. For instance:

i. He comes from a woman led single family home without a male role model as his father did not participate in his upbringing.

ii. Financial insecurity and unstable housing.

iii. Limitations on education because of the need to work and contribute to the household.

iv. Immigration which required acclimatization into different cultural norms, expectations, and environments.

v. Negative peer influence because of living in a neighbourhood experiencing challenges with violence.

vi. Being stopped by police and having unpleasant experiences during these interactions creating discomfort and fear of police.

[ 25 ] These last two factors are particularly relevant to the offence Mr. Joseph committed. He was with a high school acquaintance whose history of violence was known to him, he was not aware of what that acquaintance and his friend had just done inside the Sunshine Spa, and he suddenly found himself being told to drive while police cars chased him.

[ 26 ] The context of being in that car at that time with those men while being unexpectedly chased by police, without knowing why, led him to panic and drive dangerously. This does not excuse nor justify nor minimize his blameworthiness. But it does explain his conduct in an otherwise law-abiding life that has demonstrated resilience against the pitfalls of poverty, marginalization, limited education and bad influences.

[ 27 ] In addition, there are two collateral consequences to consider.

[ 28 ] The first collateral consequence is that a conviction has a negative impact on Mr. Joseph’s employability. For instance, Mr. Joseph will not be able to return to a forklift position with a conviction. [^7] Given Mr. Joseph’s successful efforts with employment, but limited education, a conviction would therefore have a significant limiting impact on his future work life.

[ 29 ] The second collateral consequence involves his status in Canada. Mr. Joseph is a permanent resident. Should he be convicted of this offence rather than be discharged, the legal opinion letter filed, [^8] states Mr. Joseph would be subject to a Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) report deeming him to be criminally inadmissible in Canada. This in turn would lead to a hearing wherein the CBSA would advocate for his removal from the country. The Immigration Division would have no option but to issue the order. Mr. Joseph would then, have to appeal this removal order, and request a stay of the order on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

[ 30 ] The Supreme Court in Pham [^9] outlines that collateral consequences are not aggravating nor mitigating but are relevant objective and subjective circumstances that flow from the application of the principles of individualization and parity under s. 718.2(b). Per Suter , [^10] collateral consequences cannot be used to reduce a sentence to a point where it becomes disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the moral blameworthiness of the offender.

[ 31 ] Two cases provided by Mr. Tutunjian were very helpful. In R. v. Fathe Ahmed, Mahmood Ahmad, Mohamed Taha, Russell Bullock , [^11] Mr. Taha like Mr. Joseph, drove a friend, and the friends of his friend to an apartment. Unbeknownst to him, his passengers robbed the person in the apartment then ran back to his car and told him to drive while police attended and gave chase. Mr. Taha saw one of his passengers with a shot gun and drove as directed. He collided into a TTC bus. His passengers fled, Mr. Taha remained. Mr. Taha too was not involved in the criminality inside the apartment, did not have a criminal record, held down numerous jobs, and had good rehabilitative potential, just like Mr. Joseph. Justice O’Marra sentenced Mr. Taha to a conditional discharge after trial on the charge of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

[ 32 ] In Lund , [^12] the offender pled guilty to dangerous operation and was sentenced to a conditional discharge by Justice Harris. Mr. Lund was 18 years old at the time, he and a number of friends all decided to drive their vehicles in excess of the speed limit. As one sped up, the others sped up to keep together. One friend lost control of his car and hit a light pole. Both the driver and the passenger were killed. Mr. Lund too had no criminal record, was in school then became a fork lifter. He was remorseful and had good rehabilitation potential.

[ 33 ] These cases demonstrate that even with grave offences and significant blameworthy conduct, a conviction may not be the appropriate sanction, and a conditional discharge may reflect the requisite principles.

[ 34 ] I therefore turn to the earlier stated question: is a conditional sentence necessary to reflect the denunciation and deterrence required for this offence for Mr. Joseph?

[ 35 ] I find a conviction is not required in the unique combination of circumstances of this offence and this offender at this time.

[ 36 ] It has been almost 4 years since Mr. Joseph committed his offence. He has been on strict release conditions ever since his arrest. He has continued to obtain and maintain employment. He has overcome several challenges to avoid criminal involvement and a criminal record. Not only is it in his best interests, but it is in the public interest and not contrary to it, to have Mr. Joseph continue to work, and contribute to his community, his Canadian community which he has been a part of since he was 7 years old.

Sentence

[ 37 ] I find a conditional discharge, and probation with strict terms that limit his mobility for a period of time, including a curfew for the first 6 months, and 100 hours of community service, as well as other terms, to be sufficient to reflect the denunciation and specific deterrence required for Mr. Joseph in this case.

[ 38 ] I sentence Mr. Joseph to a conditional discharge, and a period of probation for 2 years, as well as a driving prohibition for 2 years.

Released: February 23, 2026

Signed: Justice Cidalia C.G. Faria

[^1]: Exhibit 1: Pre-Sentence report, January 9, 2026. [^2]: R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 at para. 43-45 . [^3]: Exhibit 2: Letter dated September 20, 2023, Counselling Services, Coslyn Selby, Psychotherapist. [^4]: Exhibit 4: Letter dated Augus 24, 2023, Martinrea Automotive Inc. George Brusse. [^5]: Exhibit 3: Letter dated April 5, 2023, Uginia Edward. [^6]: Exhibit 7: Letter dated November 18, 2024, North York Food Bank, Lisa Anderson. [^7]: Exhibit 5: Letter dated November 10, 2023, George Brusse, Martinrea Automotive Inc. [^8]: Exhibit 8: Letter dated January 23, 2026, M. Max Chaudhary, Solicitor and Barrister, Chaudhary Immigration Law Professional Corporation. [^9]: R. v. Pham , 2013 SCC 15 [^10]: R. v. Suter , 2018 SCC 34 at para. 56 . [^11]: R. v. Fathe Ahmed, Mahmood Ahmad, Mohamed Taha, Russell Bullock , 2015 ONSC 4241 [^12]: R. v. Lund , 2017 ONCJ 261 .