Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-16-40000034-00AP Date: 20170615 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty the Queen – and – Nathan Buress

Counsel: Melissa Mandel, for the Crown, Respondent Nathan Buress, for himself

Heard: June 14, 2017

R.F. GOLDSTEIN J.

Reasons for Judgment on Summary Conviction Appeal

[1] On July 26, 2015 Mr. Buress was on a driving prohibition. He had a long criminal record, including convictions for driving offences. He was found driving by the Toronto Police and arrested accordingly. On October 1, 2015, he was driving again (while on a prohibition). A police officer tried to pull him over. Mr. Buress chose to flee, driving on a sidewalk and almost striking two pedestrians.

[2] Mr. Buress pleaded guilty to driving while disqualified contrary to s. 259(4) of the Criminal Code and dangerous driving contrary to s. 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. He also pleaded guilty to one count of driving while suspended contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.

[3] The trial judge, Justice Chaffe of the Ontario Court of Justice, sentenced him to 11 months in jail (less pre-sentence custody) and a 10-year driving prohibition.

[4] Mr. Buress appealed the driving prohibition. He argued that it was too long given his personal situation. He required his partner to drive him to his job and other errands. In fact, he had lost his job when he spent time in custody.

[5] Mr. Buress was 31 at the time of the sentencing. He has a long criminal record. It includes youth and adult convictions for taking an automobile without consent; two convictions for flight while being pursued by a peace officer; and multiple fraud, property, and theft-related convictions. He was convicted of driving while disqualified in 2005, 2007, and 2015. He was also convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle in 2015.

[6] At the time of the October offences, he was on two probation orders, a conditional sentence, and a driving prohibition. As Justice Chaffe pointed out, the principles of sentencing required specific and general deterrence. Justice Chaffe also pointed out that the public had to be protected from Mr. Buress. I respectfully agree.

[7] In submissions, Mr. Buress conceded that the trial judge made no error in imposing a 10-year driving prohibition. I agree. Mr. Buress should simply not be behind the wheel of a car. If he does decide to drive, there is, tragically, the very real possibility that innocents could be killed or seriously injured as a result.

[8] The appeal is dismissed.

R.F. Goldstein J. Released: June 15, 2017