His Majesty the King v. Akamjot Sandhu, 2025 ONSC 98

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R.v. Sandhu, 2025 ONSC 98

COURT FILE NO.: CR 23-345

DATE: 2025-02-10

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

R. Moir, for the Crown

Crown

• and -

AKAMJOT SANDHU

L. Sandhu, for the Defendant

Defendant

HEARD: December 18, 2024

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

1A jury convicted Mr. Sandhu of seven charges including one count of dangerous driving causing death, two counts of dangerous driving, and two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm. The Crown seeks a total sentence of ten years incarceration while defense counsel seeks a total sentence of six years incarceration.

BACKGROUND

2On January 9, 2022, Mr. Sandhu was driving his vehicle northbound on Winston Churchill Boulevard at a high rate of speed when he T-boned a vehicle which was turning left at the intersection where the accident occurred. As a result, Mr. Matthew Cruz, a 34-year-old passenger in the rear seat of the vehicle was killed while the driver, Mr. Chintan Vora, suffered serious injuries including an injury to one of his arms which has permanently limited his ability to lift any items with that arm. Mr. Sandhu’s girlfriend, Jasnit Badwal, who occupied the front passenger seat of his vehicle, also suffered serious injury and is still receiving physiotherapy on account of her injuries.

3During the trial, Ms. Badwal testified that immediately following the accident, Mr. Sandhu counselled her to lie to the police about who was driving the car when the accident occurred. The Crown also led evidence during the trial that Mr. Sandhu told the police that a stranger he had met at a bar drove his vehicle when the accident occurred, and that the person had fled the scene immediately following the accident.

CRIMINAL RECORD

4Mr. Sandhu has no criminal record. He had some outstanding charges at the time of the time of the accident but these charges were subsequently dismissed.

ANALYSIS

5Section 718.1 states that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

6Section 718.2 (a) states that a sentence should be increased or reduced for any relevant aggravating or mitigating fact relating to the offence or the offender.

7Section 718.2 (b) states that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.

8Section 718.2 (d) states that an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS

9Mr. Moir submits that the following factors justify a term of incarceration in the double digits:

a) Mr. Sandhu was assessed to be driving at an approximate speed of 124 KPH in a posted 60 KPH zone at the time of the accident;

b) The accident occurred around midnight with limited visibility at the intersection;

c) The accident occurred in a busy intersection in a residential neighbourhood;

d) Mr. Sandhu had consumed alcohol and had smoked marijuana prior to the accident;

e) Mr. Sandhu tried to shift responsibility for the accident to another person;

f) Mr. Vora and Ms. Badwal suffered serious injuries on account of the accident; and

g) Mr. Sandhu has not sought any counselling neither has he shown any remorse;

MITIGATING FACTORS

10Mr. Sandhu submits that the following factors justify a six-year term of incarceration in addition to the ancillary orders court may make:

a) He has served five days pretrial custody;

b) Mr. Sandhu was on house arrest for 20 months;

c) Mr. Sandhu has completed an auto-mechanic’s course;

d) Mr. Sandhu is very remorseful and has made a significant change in his life;

e) Mr. Sandhu enjoys significant family and communal support evidenced by the fifty-five letters of recommendation filed on his behalf;

f) Following the tragic accident, Mr Sandhu went to the vehicle he had collided with and offered assistance to the driver.

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS

11The Crown filed a number of such statements with the court. Mr. Andrew Freeman, a close friend of Mr. Cruz wrote poignantly that losing Mr. Cruz has left a hole in his heart that can never be filled. Mr. Cruz’s mother talked about her “increased depression” following her son’s death and her struggle with coping with her loss. Mr. Cruz’s stepmother read her statement and amongst other things, described Mr. Cruz as a dedicated employee, a wonderful son, friend, and exemplary young man who gave up a chance at marriage to care for his mother. Mr. Cruz, the deceased’s father, spoke eloquently about the magnitude of his loss, and the irreparable anguish it has caused him and his family. Mr. Cruz’s biological mother wrote about the tragic event that took her son’s life and noted that she will continue to celebrate her son’s life since “that is the only sanctuary I have to remind myself that I was gifted to have Matthew Cruz as my son.” A friend, Kevin Pick, commented that “there is not a day that goes by that I don’t wish I could still take out my phone and message my best friend”. Another friend, Paul Semeniuk, wrote about the deep grief that follows tragedy “and his sorrow over the tragic passing of Mr. Cruz”. The victim’s brother also described the challenges having to replace Mr. Cruz as their mother’s main caregiver and the fundamental change in his life since September 11, 2021.

PRE-SENTENCE REPORT

12The Report is generally positive. Mr. Sandhu is the elder of two children. He enjoys a close relationship with his family. His father stated that prior to the accident he had been concerned about the persons his son socialized with. He also stated that since the accident, his son has become a baptized Sikh and goes to the temple on a regular basis. He assists in the kitchen and serves food at the temple. Mr. Sandhu advised the probation officer that he had been unable to work because of the charges for which he has been convicted. He goes to the gym regularly and is seeking employment as a personal trainer.

ANALYSIS

13The death of Mr. Cruz was very tragic but totally avoidable. Mr. Sandhu, prior to the accident, had engaged in a pattern of consuming alcohol and smoking marijuana before deciding to drive off from the drinking establishment. The evidence called during the trial indicated that he was driving well in excess of the speed limit before he T-boned another vehicle at the intersection. A number of persons who witnessed the accident testified that Mr. Sandhu’s vehicle was travelling at a high rate of speed when the accident occurred. He cynically tried to shift responsibility to a phantom third party. The accident has had a devastating effect on the Cruz family, and the other two victims who have suffered serious injuries.

14Undoubtedly, there are mitigating facts to be considered in determining an appropriate sentence. Mr. Sandhu has no record; he enjoys wide communal support and despite the Crown’s submissions to the contrary, he is remorseful given that a) he tried to apologize to the Cruz family and b) he has changed the trajectory of his life by becoming a baptized Sikh. Needless to say, no amount of contrition on his part can alter that fact that by his own actions, Mr. Sandhu has tragically taken the life of an innocent human being who had taken a Uber vehicle to report to work.

15Given the carnage on the streets on account of dangerous and impaired driving, the paramount sentencing considerations are that of general deterrence and denunciation. Given Mr. Sandhu’s antecedents, wide support in the community and his training as a mechanic, rehabilitation is a factor to be considered in determining the appropriate sentence.

16What then, is an appropriate sentence, considering the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case and the applicable caselaw? The Crown relies on a number of cases, including the following, to support his position on sentence:

1. R.v. Muzzo, 2016 ONSC 2068 where an accused who pled guilty to 4 counts of impaired driving causing death received a 10 year custodial sentence and a 12 year driving prohibition;

2. R.v. Ramage, 2010 ONCA 488 where the accused who was convicted after a trial of impaired causing death, impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, received a custodial sentence of 4 years in jail and a five-year driving prohibition.

3. R.v. Robertson, 2022 ONCJ 240 where a recidivist who had 17 driving convictions, pled guilty to dangerous driving causing death and was found guilty of 4 counts of impaired causing bodily harm. The accused fled the scene and two days later collided with a van, killing a mother and her three daughters. The accused received a global sentence of 17 years imprisonment.

4. In R.v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 2015 SCC 64 a first-time youthful offender who pled guilty to two counts of impaired driving causing death, received a sentence of 6.5 years in custody and a driving prohibition of 4 years and 7 months;

5. In R.v. Bush, 2012 ONCA 743. affirming [2010] O.J. No. 6265 (Sup.Ct.), the accused pled guilty to criminal negligence causing death, impaired causing death and drive while disqualified. He had been on bail on a charge of impaired driving and had been convicted of driving while suspended on eight separate occasions. He received a 12-year jail sentence and a lifetime driving prohibition.

6. R.v. Mascarehas, 2020 CanLII 41625 where a recidivist who pled to 2 counts of criminal negligence causing death and impaired driving causing death, received a 12-year jail sentence reduced on appeal to 10 years.

17These cases all confirm that a sentence of incarceration is the appropriate sentence for someone convicted of impaired driving causing death or dangerous driving causing death.

18I agree with Ms. Sandhu’s counsel that the facts in many of these cases, such as Muzzo, Roberston, Bush and Mascarehas are more egregious than that in this case.

19In Mascarehas, the accused, who pled guilty, received a 10-year custodial sentence but had three prior conviction for impaired driving offences. Given these cases, I am not persuaded that a 10-year jail sentence is an appropriate sentence in this case.

20Defence counsel relies on the following cases to justify his position on sentence:

1. In R.v. Norris, 2024 ONSC 1284, the accused, who had been convicted following a trial on two counts of dangerous and impaired driving causing death and who had been previously convicted of three counts of impaired driving, received a global sentence of eight years incarceration.

2. Similarly, in R.v. Thakur, 2024 ONSC 3539, the accused who had pled guilty of impaired and dangerous operation causing death and bodily harm, received an 8-year term of imprisonment.

3. In R.v. Saini 2023 ONSC 445, the 76-year-old first time accused received a global sentence of 6 years incarceration after being convicted of four counts of dangerous driving causing death and nine counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

21The cases relied upon by Mr. Sandhu collectively reveal that sentencing is an individualized process which must be tailored to reflect the circumstances of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The sentence imposed in these cases range from 6 to 8 years although the facts in some of these cases, such as Norris and Saini, are more egregious that the facts in this case.

22In my view, a sentence of 6 years would not adequately reflect the imperatives of general deterrence and denunciation in this case. The toll of drinking and driving offences in the region has been immense. Furthermore, Mr. Sandhu’s post-offence conduct in trying to deflect responsibility for the fatal accident is simply reprehensible. Additionally, both Mr. Sandhu’s passenger and Mr. Vora suffered permanent injuries while Mr. Cruz lost his life as a result of the accident.

23No sentence, as Mr. Cruz’s family members have acknowledged, will bring back Mr. Cruz. However, in my view, a global sentence of 8-years imprisonment less credit for time served and time spent on house arrest, should go a long way in assisting Mr. Cruz’s family to heal and treasure the memories of Mr. Cruz.

CREDIT

24Mr. Sandhu will receive credit of 10 days for time spent (5 days) in pretrial custody. He will receive credit of an additional 2 months and 20 days for the time he spent under house arrest. He will therefore have to serve an additional 7 years and 9 months in custody.

25The sentence is broken down as follows:

Count 1 - 8 years custody less 3 months credit for pretrial custody and time spent on house arrest;

Count 2 - 5 years custody concurrent;

Count 3 – 5 years custody concurrent;

Count 4 – 6 years custody concurrent;

Count 5 – 5 years custody concurrent;

Count 6 – 5 years custody concurrent;

Count 7 – 1 year in custody concurrent.

ANCILLAY ORDERS

1. A section 320.02 (4) driving prohibition for 15 years to commence as of the date when Mr. Sandhu is sentenced.

2. A victim Fine Surcharge under s.737;

3. A DNA order under s.487.04 of the Code;

4. A non-communication order under s.743.21 of the Code relating to Jasnit Badwal, Mr. Vora and the family of the deceased.

Andre J.