CITATION: R. v. Paul Pirocchi, 2026 ONSC 1164
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: R. v. Paul Pirocchi
BEFORE: J. Di Luca J.
COUNSEL: D. Galluzzo, Counsel for the Crown D. Marcovitch, Counsel for the Applicant
HEARD: February 5, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
1The applicant, Paul Pirocchi, applies for an extension of time to commence a summary conviction sentence appeal.
2The sentence appeal is limited to the issue of the length of the driving prohibition imposed.
3For the reasons that follow, the application is granted.
4By way of background, on October 4, 2011, the applicant entered a guilty plea to a charge of "Driving Over 80" that occurred on March 7, 2010.
5On the date of the guilty plea, the presiding judge, Chisvin J. imposed a lifetime driving prohibition under the Criminal Code of Canada. No submissions were made on the issue, and it appears that everyone simply proceeded on the basis that a lifetime driving prohibition automatically followed upon a finding of guilt for the offence charged.
6The transcript of proceedings from this date reveals the following brief exchange:
THE COURT: What do we do with the driving prohibition?
MS. BARNIER: It is irrelevant, he can't right now.
MR. ROMBIS: He can begin it now, Your Honour. If Your Honour may recall from our Judicial Pretrials Mr. Pirocchi is already subject to a previous driving prohibition that still continues.
THE COURT: Does this make it a lifetime one?
MS. BARNIER: Yes.
MR. ROMBIS: Yes, it does.
THE COURT: All right. So, he is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle anywhere in Canada for life. So, can we just confirm his address? He's going to need to sign that.
7The sentencing hearing was adjourned to allow the applicant to complete some up-front counselling and on March 8, 2012, the applicant was sentenced to 120 days in custody less pre-trial custody of 2 days.
8As set out in the evidence filed on the motion, the applicant was advised by his trial counsel that he could review the lifetime driving suspension issued under the Highway Traffic Act after ten years had elapsed. It does not appear that he was advised of anything in relation to reviewing the Criminal Code driving prohibition.
9Following the passage of 10 years, it appears that the applicant took steps to seek a reduction of the lifetime driving suspension. However, on January 18, 2022, he was advised that the lifetime suspension under the Highway Traffic Act could not be reduced because he was also the subject of a lifetime driving prohibition under the Criminal Code.
10It was at this point that the applicant formed the intention to appeal the lifetime driving prohibition imposed by Chisvin J. After consulting with his initial trial counsel, the applicant sought advice from appellate counsel and eventually retained counsel in October or November of 2025. The application to extend time was filed in December 2025.
11The material filed includes a letter from trial counsel, Mr. Rombis, who explains that it was his understanding that the lifetime driving prohibition under the Criminal Code was reviewable at the 10-year mark, much like the Highway Traffic Act suspension. He further asserts that he may have failed to advise Mr. Pirocchi of the difference between the Highway Traffic Act lifetime suspension and a lifetime driving prohibition under the Criminal Code of Canada.
The Test for an Extension of Time
12A summary conviction sentence appeal must be commenced within 30 days of the imposition of sentence. Where a person misses the deadline to commence an appeal, they may seek an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal.
13The granting of an extension of time is a discretionary decision. The test for an extension of time includes a consideration of the following factors, inter alia:
a. Whether the applicant formed an intention to appeal within the prescribed time;
b. Whether the applicant has explained the delay in filing the notice; and,
c. Whether the proposed appeal has merit.
14Other factors such as the length of the delay, the extent of prejudice to the respondent, the diligence or inattentiveness of counsel, and whether the applicant has taken the benefit of the judgment may also, depending on the specific facts of the case, be relevant considerations.
15Ultimately, the overarching consideration is whether the applicant has demonstrated that the justice of the case requires that the extension of time be granted, see R. v. Menear (2002), 2002 7570 (ON CA), 162 C.C.C. (3d) 233 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 20-21 and R. v. Ansari, 2015 ONCA 891 at para. 19-27.
Analysis and Findings
16I will start with an assessment of the merits of the appeal. On this issue I note the following:
a. At the time of the guilty plea, the applicable Criminal Code driving prohibition under the version of s.259 in operation at the time would have been between a minimum of three years and a maximum of life. It was not a mandatory lifetime prohibition.
b. Neither counsel made submissions on the appropriate length of a driving prohibition in view of the facts of the case including the applicant's criminal and related driving record.
c. Chisvin J. appears to have viewed the lifetime prohibition as mandatory and, in any event, gave no reasons for imposing it.
d. Separate and apart from the Criminal Code driving prohibition imposed by Chisvin J., the applicant was also automatically subject to a driving suspension under the Highway Traffic Act. In view of his criminal record, the Highway Traffic Act suspension was for a mandatory period of life.
e. A lifetime Highway Traffic Act suspension can be reviewed after 10 years and may be reduced administratively by the Ministry of Transportation.
f. While not addressed by counsel in their submissions on this application, a lifetime Criminal Code driving prohibition may also be reduced by application to the Parole Board under section 109 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
17Based on the foregoing, I am satisfied that there is merit to the proposed appeal, though not exactly on the basis set out in the materials filed. Contrary to submissions made, the applicant is not subject to a permanent non-reviewable lifetime driving prohibition. It is clearly open to the applicant to seek relief from the Parole Board and if successful, then also seek relief from the Ministry of Transportation. In this sense, the applicant is not stuck with a lifelong penalty with no potential avenue for relief.
18That said, based on the record before me, it is clearly arguable that Chisvin J. (and both counsel at the guilty plea) were mistakenly of the view that a lifetime Criminal Code driving prohibition was mandatory in the circumstances of this case when, in law, it was not.
19This is an error warranting a review.
20In reaching this conclusion, I want to be clear that at this stage I am not deciding whether Chisvin J. actually erred in this regard. While it does not appear to be the case, it may be that the imposition of a lifetime driving prohibition was the product of discussions held in a judicial pretrial and not reflected in the record. I leave it to counsel on the appeal proper to address this issue.
21As well, I am not deciding whether a lifetime Criminal Code driving prohibition would nonetheless have been warranted on the facts of this case, even if it was not mandatory. That is an issue that will be addressed by the appeal judge, assuming an error warranting review is found.
22Turning to the issue of the passage of time, I note the following:
a. It is entirely understandable that the applicant would not have formed an intention to appeal within 30 days. In the circumstances of this case, such an intention would only have crystalized once the applicant learned of the reasons for the denial by the Ministry of Transportation. As such, I am prepared to find that the applicant formed an intention to appeal promptly once he learned of the basis of the appeal. I am further satisfied that this finding explains the delay up until January 2022.
b. The delay from January 2022 until December 2025 is more problematic. The material filed is sparse on what steps the applicant took during this timeframe in order to advance his appeal. That said, in the particular circumstances of this case, I am not prepared to find that this portion of the delay warrants a dismissal of the application. First, as indicated, I am satisfied that the appeal is clearly meritorious. This factor weighs strongly in favour of granting the extension. Second, there is no prejudice to the Crown. The applicant is not driving and remains subject to a lifetime Highway Traffic Act suspension. The appeal is limited to a very narrow issue and the applicant does not otherwise seek to set aside his conviction or re-visit his custodial sentence which has long been served. This factor also weighs strongly in favour of granting the extension.
23Taken all together, I am satisfied that is in the interests of justice to grant the extension sought.
24The applicant shall have 14 days from the date of the release of this decision to file his notice of appeal against sentence.
Justice J. Di Luca
Date: February 24, 2026