Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-24-50000482-0000 Date: 2025-10-17 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty the King and Tara MacMunn

Crown Counsel: Simon King Defence Counsel: Rachel Lichtman

Heard: July 4, 2025

Before: Corrick J.

Reasons for Sentence

Overview

[1] On April 18, 2023, Hazela Baksh was driving her Toyota Rav4 on Albion Road. She was slowing down as she approached Finch Avenue West when she was struck from behind by a car driven by Tara MacMunn. Ms. Baksh was fatally injured as a result of the collision. She died at the scene.

[2] Ms. MacMunn and her passenger were taken to the hospital. A review of Ms. MacMunn's hospital records showed that her blood alcohol level was 214 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood. A sample of Ms. MacMunn's blood was obtained by warrant from the hospital and sent to the Centre of Forensic Sciences. A toxicology report revealed that she had a blood alcohol concentration of 210 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood at the time that the sample was collected.

[3] At the time of the collision, Ms. MacMunn was travelling more than 110 kms/hour, well in excess of the posted speed limit of 50 kms/hour. In addition, her driver's licence had expired.

[4] On June 12, 2025, Ms. MacMunn pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration that exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood and thereby causing the death of Ms. Baksh. The matter was adjourned to July 4, 2025 for sentencing submissions, and further adjourned to today's date for sentence.

Positions of the Parties

[5] Mr. King, on behalf of the Crown, submits that a sentence of four years is the appropriate disposition given the gravity of the offence, Ms. MacMunn's degree of responsibility, and the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances. He also seeks an eight-year driving prohibition and a DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051(3)(b) of the Criminal Code.

[6] Ms. Lichtman, on behalf of Ms. MacMunn, submits that a three-year sentence is the fit sentence in this case given Ms. MacMunn's otherwise good character and the mitigating circumstances of the case. Ms. Lichtman does not oppose the driving prohibition but does oppose the DNA order.

Victim Impact

[7] Ms. Baksh was 64 years old when she died. She was a member of a very closely-knit family. She was a beloved daughter, sister, sister-in-law, aunt, and cousin. She was a valued member of her religious community. I received victim impact statements from Ms. Baksh's mother, her three sisters, her brother, her sister-in-law, her brother-in-law, three nephews, three cousins and her niece. Many members of Ms. Baksh's family attended court in person.

[8] The poignant statements painted a vivid picture of Ms. Baksh as a thoughtful and selfless woman who put others ahead of herself. She was a source of strength and wisdom for her family. Her culinary skills brought people together, her family, her neighbours, and her community. People spoke of her willingness to share with others.

[9] I cannot possibly capture the sorrow and profound sense of loss Ms. Baksh's family members have described in their victim impact statements. Ms. Baksh was buried on Eid, a day that is meant to be joyous but will now always be a painful reminder of what they have lost. Ms. Baksh's family continue to struggle with overwhelming grief and the immense hole that has been left in their lives by her death.

[10] Ms. Baksh's loved ones are left to mourn not only her untimely and needless death but must now face a future without her. The events of April 18, 2023 have left them with scars that will never heal.

[11] I have considered the significant impact this crime has had on them in reaching my decision.

Circumstances of Ms. MacMunn

[12] Ms. MacMunn is 41 years old. She is the sole support, financially and emotionally, for her three daughters. She left an abusive marriage and has been divorced since 2013. Her two youngest daughters live with her, and her eldest is studying at Dalhousie University on a full scholarship. All three daughters have mental health challenges that require medication that is paid for by the health benefits Ms. MacMunn has through her employment.

[13] As a result of being charged with this offence, Ms. MacMunn lost her full-time employment at a large Canadian bank. She is now employed by an investment services firm.

[14] I have reviewed the more than 20 letters speaking to Ms. MacMunn's character that were filed. They describe Ms. MacMunn as a warm and generous person with a strong work ethic. She is a pillar of her community where she is the Vice-President of her co-op board and frequent volunteer at the local school. She is known as someone who opens her home to those in need, particularly young people, whether it is to provide a safe place to sleep, a hot meal or just a willing listener. Ms. MacMunn's daughters wrote of the importance of their mother's love and support to them.

[15] The night of the offence, Ms. MacMunn was out with a friend when she received a phone call from a former boyfriend who had been harassing her. He told her that he was armed with a gun and was going to her home. He had previously sent her photos of himself with a gun and had previously appeared at her home armed with a gun. Ms. MacMunn's daughters were at home. She panicked and without thinking drove her friend's car to get home quickly.

[16] Ms. MacMunn has not consumed alcohol since this offence.

Governing Sentencing Principles

[17] In determining the fit sentence for Ms. MacMunn, I am governed by the sentencing principles set out in the Criminal Code.

[18] The fundamental purpose of sentencing, as set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society by imposing sentences with objectives that include denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, the separation of offenders from society, when necessary, the promotion of responsibility in the offender, and the acknowledgement of the harm that criminal activity does to victims and to our community. The sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's degree of responsibility.

[19] Furthermore, the sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances related to the offence or the offender. It should also be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances

[20] I turn now to consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of this case.

[21] Several features of this offence are aggravating.

[22] Ms. MacMunn's blood alcohol level of 214 or 210 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood was extremely high. This is not a case of a person who had one drink too many before getting behind the wheel of a car.

[23] Ms. MacMunn was driving at a high rate of speed on a road that was under construction and reduced to two lanes. Data retrieved from the car she was driving revealed that she was travelling in excess of 110 kms. per hour just prior to the collision. The speed limit was 50 kms. per hour.

[24] Ms. MacMunn was not a licenced driver. She had allowed her driver's licence to expire because she suffers from anxiety and panic attacks and feared that she would suffer a panic attack while driving.

[25] The loss of Ms. Baksh has devastated her family. The pain and heartache they have endured for more than two years was vividly described in their victim impact statements. They will carry that with them for the rest of their lives.

[26] In mitigation, I have considered that Ms. MacMunn has no criminal record. She is otherwise a person of good character, well respected by others for her selflessness and generosity of spirit. This offence was out of character for Ms. MacMunn. She has led a pro-social life and contributes significantly to her community.

[27] Ms. MacMunn pleaded guilty. Crown counsel fairly acknowledged that his position on sentence reflects the fact that there were triable issues in this case. Ms. MacMunn's guilty plea saved the state the time and resources that would have been required to prosecute these charges. It is also a sign of her remorse and acceptance of responsibility. This is deserving of credit.

[28] She is deeply remorseful for her actions. She acknowledges that she is responsible for the immense suffering of Ms. Baksh's family and that she must be held accountable for it. She expressed her remorse publicly in the courtroom at her sentencing hearing and directly to Ms. Baksh's family.

[29] Ms. MacMunn has strong support from her family and the broader community, which will assist her in her rehabilitation.

[30] For the duration of the prison sentence I impose, Ms. MacMunn will be separated from and unable to care for her daughters. This will add to the harshness of her incarceration, and I have considered that.

Range of Sentence and Applicable Principles

[31] The range of sentence for cases of driving with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood and causing death is very broad. The maximum sentence is life in prison: Criminal Code, s. 320.21.

[32] The parity principle requires that similar offenders who commit similar offences in similar circumstances be given similar sentences. Past cases create sentencing ranges to help guide sentencing judges. Ultimately, a fit sentence is one that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence, the moral blameworthiness of Ms. MacMunn, and the aggravating and mitigating features of the case.

[33] The circumstances of any case, including this one, can be readily distinguished from any other case. Sentencing is not a precise science. It is instead a profoundly individualized process driven by the unique facts of every offence and the unique characteristics of every offender. Despite this, prior decisions assist in determining the principles that must guide my decision.

[34] Denunciation and general deterrence are the overriding sentencing principles in cases of drinking and driving, particularly when the consequence is a tragic death.

[35] Counsel have referred me to three decisions: R. v. Canavan, 2018 ONSC 7218, R. v. Osman, 2019 ONSC 327, R. v. Altiman, 2019 ONCA 511. In each case, the sentencing court had the difficult task of determining the appropriate sentence for an offender of previously unblemished character who has committed a serious crime with devastating consequences.

[36] In Osman, the offender was sentenced to five years in prison after being found guilty of impaired driving causing death and criminal negligence causing death following a trial.

[37] In Canavan, the offender was convicted following a trial of impaired driving causing death, two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm and driving with more than 80 mg. of alcohol in 100 ml. of blood. He had a prior record for impaired driving, driving while disqualified and assault. He also had 18 speeding convictions. He was sentenced to five and a half years.

[38] The Court of Appeal in Altiman reviewed the appellate and trial sentencing jurisprudence in cases of impaired driving causing death. By way of summary, Brown J.A. wrote at para. 70, "This review of the case law leads me to conclude that, since the turn of the decade, in this province sentences for impaired driving causing death typically have fallen in the four to six-year range, unless the offender has a prior criminal or driving offence record."

Determination of a Fit Sentence

[39] Sentencing is one of the most difficult things a trial judge does. It is especially difficult in a case like this. On the one hand, it involves the loss of Ms. Baksh's life and the profound heartbreak of those she has left behind. On the other hand, Ms. MacMunn has an unblemished record, significant family and community support, and excellent rehabilitative potential.

[40] I want to make two things clear. No sentence I impose on Ms. MacMunn can ever compensate Ms. Baksh's family for their terrible loss. And the sentence I impose cannot and does not reflect the value of Ms. Baksh's life or the degree of suffering her death has caused. A life lost cannot be measured by the length of a prison sentence.

[41] Offenders convicted of drinking and driving offences are often people, like Ms. MacMunn, of otherwise good character who have led pro-social lives. The imposition of sentences that give effect primarily to specific deterrence and rehabilitation is not required. I am satisfied that Ms. MacMunn is very unlikely to appear as an accused person again in court.

[42] As I have already indicated, general deterrence and denunciation are the paramount sentencing principles in this case. The sentence must express society's condemnation of Ms. MacMunn's conduct and send a message to others who might be inclined to drink and drive for whatever reason that they will face significant prison sentences if their behaviour causes someone's death.

[43] The three-year sentence submitted by Ms. Lichtman is below the range of sentence for drinking and driving offences that result in death and fails to recognize the significant aggravating factors in this case. Given the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of this case, and Ms. MacMunn's high degree of moral blameworthiness, in my view, the fit sentence is four years in prison. This sentence addresses all of the applicable principles of sentencing, including restraint, and reflects the serious crime Ms. MacMunn has committed.

[44] Ms. Lichtman has asked that I recommend that Ms. MacMunn be considered for parole at the earliest opportunity. In my view, parole decisions are best left to the Parole Board of Canada, who will have fuller and more current information about Ms. MacMunn at the relevant time. For that reason, I decline to make such a recommendation.

Ancillary Orders

[45] The Crown is seeking an order that Ms. MacMunn provide a sample of her DNA. Ms. MacMunn is not consenting to the order.

[46] Ms. MacMunn has been convicted of a secondary designated offence within the meaning of s. 487.04 of the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code provides that such an order may be made in the case of a secondary designated offence if the court is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to do so: s. 487.051(3)(b).

[47] In deciding whether to make the order, I am required to consider the person's criminal record, the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission and the impact such an order would have on the person's privacy.

[48] Ms. MacMunn has been convicted of a very serious crime committed in circumstances that I have found to be aggravating. The procedures for taking a DNA sample are minimally invasive, and there is an important societal interest in having a comprehensive DNA databank to aid in effective law enforcement. In my view, requiring Ms. MacMunn to provide a DNA sample is in the best interests of the administration of justice and I so order.

[49] I also order that Ms. MacMunn be prohibited from driving for a period of eight years to commence when she is released from custody.

Corrick J.

Released: October 17, 2025