Court File No. CR-23-00000063-0000
Date: 2026 01 09
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
v.
JAGSIR SINGH DHALIWAL
R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE C. CONLAN
on January 9, 2026, at MILTON, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
E. O'Marra Counsel for the Crown
C. Bottomley Counsel for Jagsir Singh Dhaliwal
H. Toor Counsel for Jagsir Singh Dhaliwal
Friday, January 9, 2026
R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E
I would like to thank counsel very much. I'm grateful for your very helpful submissions because this matter was so extensively pre tried and because counsel had been very focused in their submissions. I am going to proceed to impose the sentence now, and then give some oral reasons as to why I think this is a fit disposition for this offender on these facts. In terms of the sentence being imposed, and I will outline the specific terms and conditions later, but the actual sentence is as follows on count number two. The victim fine surcharge is waived in light of the other components of the sentence that is being handed down. Mr. Dhaliwal is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of two years less one day in duration, to be served in the community by way of a conditional sentence order. The conditional sentence order shall be followed by a period of probation for 12 months. There is a one-year driving prohibition order issued. And finally, there is a secondary DNA order issued. Mr. Dhaliwal is before the court after pleading guilty to count number two on the indictment dated June 26th, 2023. That offence is that Mr. Dhaliwal, on or about April 2, 2022, at the town of Milton, did operate a conveyance in a manner that was dangerous to the public and thereby caused bodily harm to Thomas Stewart, contrary to section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code. The specific facts underlying the offence are outlined in Exhibit number one, the agreed statement of facts, and they may be summarized as follows.
On the date in question, in the early evening hours, Mr. Dhaliwal was driving eastbound on 5 Side Road in the town of Milton. There was one other occupant of the vehicle, Thomas Stewart. As the vehicle, a Ford Mustang, approached the intersection, it crossed a lane of travel, struck a curb, travelled through the intersection, across two more lanes of travel and collided with a utility pole. The occupants, both Mr. Dhaliwal and the victim, Mr. Stewart, sustained serious injuries. Prior to the collision, Mr. Dhaliwal and Mr. Stewart were at an event with others in attendance and they both consumed some alcohol at that gathering. Witnesses who observed the collision described the vehicle being operated by Mr. Dhaliwal as proceeding very fast prior to the collision. An accident or collision reconstruction report was prepared in this case. The roadway at the time of the collision was in a good state of repair and was bare and dry. The weather was not a factor in the collision. The vehicle being operated by Mr. Dhaliwal was in fact travelling at a high rate of speed. It had reached a speed of 138 kilometres per hour four seconds prior to the collision. The brakes were applied 3.6 seconds prior to the collision. Due to its high speed, the vehicle was unable to navigate the bend in the roadway approaching the stop sign controlling eastbound traffic on the dead-end portion of 5 Side Road. Consequently, the vehicle being operated by Mr. Dhaliwal struck a curb and travelled across both lanes of the through portion of 5 Side Road before striking the utility pole. In addition to the serious injuries sustained by the occupants of the vehicle, both Mr. Dhaliwal and the victim, Mr. Stewart, the collision resulted in severe damage to the vehicle. A demand for a blood sample was made and a blood sample was taken from Mr. Dhaliwal while he was at the hospital after the collision. The demand was found not to be in compliance with the Charter. That finding was made by another justice as part of a pre-trial application that was dealt with in this case. Mr. Dhaliwal's medical records were obtained pursuant to a production order. Those records contained a blood alcohol concentration for Mr. Dhaliwal, and the Centre of Forensic Sciences provided a Toxicology Letter of Opinion as to Mr. Dhaliwal's projected blood alcohol concentration at about the time of the collision. The lower end of the range was 55 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. Mr. Stewart's injuries from the collision included a broken right leg, broken right ribs, and a laceration to his head. Mr. Stewart required staples to his head, underwent reconstruction surgery to his right leg, and had sustained a brain bleed. Mr. Stewart's recovery has been a lengthy one and is ongoing. Mr. Dhaliwal's injuries included multiple facial fractures and a facial laceration. The damage to the hydro pole was considerable, totalling close to $25,000. The collision reconstruction report is included at tab A of the agreed statement of facts, and the toxicology evidence is included at tab B of the agreed statement of facts.
In terms of the circumstances of the offender, this court knows the following through the able submissions of Mr. Bottomley on behalf of his client. Mr. Dhaliwal is currently 40 years of age. He did suffer considerable familial losses when he was a young person. Mr. Dhaliwal's father died when Mr. Dhaliwal was very young, and Mr. Dhaliwal's sister died when Mr. Dhaliwal was a young person. Despite those losses, Mr. Dhaliwal has been able to lead a relatively prosocial life as an adult. He is currently married and has two children. He is gainfully employed in the trucking industry for a company called Maverick Trucking. Mr. Dhaliwal has been in Canada for a lengthy period of time but remains a permanent resident. And needless to say, this criminal matter that is before the court today poses some risk to Mr. Dhaliwal of being deported away from Canada and back to India. That, in my opinion, although I have no control over the matter, would be most unfortunate. Mr. Dhaliwal is certainly a man of general good character as exemplified in the materials filed by the defence. There are numerous letters of support that have been authored by various persons and have been filed with the court. The authors of the letters include family members, friends, employment colleagues and others. I will not name all of the authors of the various letters to maintain their confidentiality should they wish to remain anonymous, but I will observe that the letters do have common themes to them. Generally, the letters describe Mr. Dhaliwal as a deeply responsible and caring person; as a devoted father to his children and a devoted partner to his wife; as someone who is always there to provide assistance to family members and to friends in their times of need; as a generally selfless person; as someone who has taken full accountability for what happened with Mr. Stewart and for his dangerous driving that seriously injured Mr. Stewart. The letters describe Mr. Dhaliwal as a devoted, committed, and loyal employee; as a person who is heavily involved in the community, having, for example, organized events for neighbourhood children and sporting activities for children in the neighbourhood. The letter from Mr. Dhaliwal's employer indicates that Mr. Dhaliwal has been an integral part of the organization for over 15 years; that Mr. Dhaliwal has always demonstrated exceptional professionalism, dedication, and integrity; that Mr. Dhaliwal is one of only two individuals who works for the company who is qualified to conduct road tests. As I indicated earlier, the nature of Mr. Dhaliwal's employment is in the trucking industry. The letter from his employer goes on to say that Mr. Dhaliwal is consistently punctual, efficient, and very hard working. Just as important as those observations, however, in my opinion, the employer also observes that Mr. Dhaliwal is a person of strong character and is a committed family man. There is a part of the letter from the employer that I want to quote because I had highlighted this sentence earlier when I was reviewing the letters. The president of the trucking company writes as follows:
[As Read] During the lockdown, [that is, the Covid lockdown] when uncertainty was at its highest, [Mr. Dhaliwal] played a crucial leadership role by encouraging other drivers to continue working, reminding them that transportation professionals are frontline and essential workers responsible for keeping food and medicine moving across the country.
In terms of victim input in this matter, the court has been provided with Mr. Stewart's victim impact statement, and there is no question that what occurred here has had a devastating impact on Mr. Stewart. I was struck by the fact that Mr. Stewart's victim impact statement has been written in a way that the court much appreciates. Sometimes victim impact statements in these matters are written with a view to retribution. The victim impact statement written by Mr. Stewart is very eloquent and focuses on what such a statement is meant to focus on, which is the ways in which Mr. Stewart has suffered as a result of the collision. Mr. Stewart describes that he had to have a ramp built at his residence to get up the stairs after the collision due to his injuries. He remained in his home for about six months, not being able to bear any weight. His wife had to quit her job in order to take care of Mr. Stewart; that included bathing Mr. Stewart, providing medication to Mr. Stewart, helping Mr. Stewart use the bathroom. Mr. Stewart explains that it was a very emotional and depressing six months of time as he was unable to do anything besides sleep and sit while suffering in pain. After the six months, his recovery continued, he has had to undergo extensive physical therapy. Mr. Stewart describes in his statement that in addition to the mental and the physical pain that he has gone through, this has caused him much stress; family stress, financial stress, financial hardship. It has been a very depressing experience for Mr. Stewart as sometimes he sees the future as not looking very promising. Mr. Stewart is looking forward to the day that he can regain his independence for his sake personally and for the best interests of his family. Mr. Stewart indicates in his statement that he was diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety, and depression. He suffered some short-term memory loss after the collision, and he has been constantly worried about the future for his family. He and his partner have five children and thus, financial hardship is something that is top of mind for Mr. Stewart. Madam Registrar, may I see the criminal record, please?
CLERK REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: It should be noted that Mr. Dhaliwal is not a first offender, although his criminal history is isolated and very dated. Mr. Dhaliwal's record consists of two convictions from more than 13 years ago. In Brampton, near the end of 2012, Mr. Dhaliwal was convicted of driving while his ability to do so was impaired, contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, and further, he was convicted of failure or refusal to provide a breath sample, contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code. On both matters, he received fines: a $1,200 fine for the impaired and a $1,000 fine for the failure or refusal to provide a breath sample. He was also prohibited from driving for 12 months.
In terms of the principles of sentencing, I think that the two most important principles of sentencing here are denunciation and deterrence, general deterrence and individual deterrence. I also think that rehabilitation is an important sentencing principle in this case. It is secondary to denunciation and deterrence, but it is not unimportant because the jurisprudence tells us that rehabilitation is particularly relevant for persons with either no criminal history or a very limited criminal history, and who have shown some potential for positive rehabilitation. I think Mr. Dhaliwal falls into that category. He has a very limited and dated, though related, but very limited and dated criminal history, and he has shown good potential for rehabilitating himself that is illustrated in the support letters that have been filed on his behalf, and illustrated by the fact that he did not incur any criminal problems between the end of 2012 and the date of the offence that is before the court today. And he did not incur any criminal difficulties after this offence was committed, which was quite some time ago. The aggravating factors in this case are the criminal record. It is limited. It is dated. But as I have indicated a couple of times now, it is related, and it is aggravating on sentence. The severe impact that this has had on Mr. Stewart is also an aggravating factor on sentence. The mitigating factors in this case include the following three items. First of all, the guilty plea by Mr. Dhaliwal. The guilty plea is an unqualified acceptance of responsibility by Mr. Dhaliwal. It is an expression of his genuine remorse, an expression that he repeated today in his allocution to the court. The guilty plea in the face of triable issues brought some finality to this matter and some certainty to Mr. Stewart, the victim. It also saved the administration of justice considerable time and resources that would have been expended in the event of a trial. The second mitigating factor is that Mr. Dhaliwal is a person of general good character as made out in the numerous support letters that have been filed on his behalf. And the third mitigating factor, although quite frankly it is not really correct to see it as a mitigating factor, it is more of something that ought to be taken into consideration on sentencing, and that is the collateral consequences that have already been suffered by Mr. Dhaliwal and that may be suffered by Mr. Dhaliwal as a result of this criminal matter, including the potential immigration consequences. I agree with both counsel that sentencing is a highly individualized process. No two sets of facts are the same. No two offenders are the same. Having said that, there are numerous court decisions in Ontario where conditional sentence orders have been imposed on dangerous driving cases, including on dangerous driving causing death cases, and two of those decisions have been highlighted by defence counsel. I will not go into details about those two cases, but they do support the sentence being imposed by this Court today on Mr. Dhaliwal. Those two decisions are the decision of this court in R. v. Da Silva, 2024 ONSC 5629 and the decision of Justice Goldstein sitting in Toronto in the case of R. v. He, 2022 ONSC 2100. Succinctly put, the reason why this court has decided that a conditional sentence order would be a fit disposition in this case is because I am satisfied that a sentence of less than two years is appropriate. There is no statutory bar to this court imposing a conditional sentence order for Mr. Dhaliwal. I am satisfied that a conditional sentence order would not place the public at risk, would not endanger the public. I am satisfied that a conditional sentence order would not be contrary to the public interest in this case, and I am satisfied that a conditional sentence order is consistent with the general principles of sentencing as outlined at section 718 and following sections of the Criminal Code. The test for a conditional sentence order has clearly been met in this case, in my view. The Crown requested a carceral sentence for Mr. Dhaliwal of 12 months. There is nothing per se, unreasonable about that request. It is simply that in this case, I have decided that a more fit disposition would be a conditional sentence order of maximum duration followed by the 12 months of probation. The Crown requested a lengthier driving prohibition order in the range of five years. I think that a one-year driving prohibition order is sufficient in this case given all of the factors at play, but in particular, given that Mr. Dhaliwal's livelihood is in the trucking industry. This court would like to do what it can within reason to support Mr. Dhaliwal's continued employment so that he can support himself and his family. The Crown had requested two years of probation. I think that 12 months of probation is sufficient given that this court is imposing the longest conditional sentence order that is available at law. The Crown requested a secondary DNA order. Mr. Bottomley made some submissions about that. I have decided that the order shall issue because Mr. Dhaliwal is not a first offender, and I think that the value of such an order in this case outweighs any very limited invasion of Mr. Dhaliwal's privacy. The DNA sample will be taken by way of a simple and quick blood sample to the authorities. The utility of such an order outweighs any prejudice to Mr. Dhaliwal in this case, in my view.
In terms of the details of the conditional sentence order and the details of the probation order, they are as follows. And this will essentially mirror the submissions of the defence with a couple of caveats. The conditional sentence order is for a period of two years less one day. For the entire length of the conditional sentence order, the following terms apply. Mr. Dhaliwal shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour, appear before the court when required to do so, report to the conditional sentence supervisor within two working days after today and thereafter as directed by the supervisor, remain within the jurisdiction of the court unless written permission to go outside that jurisdiction is obtained from the court or the supervisor, reside at an address approved of by the supervisor, notify the court or the supervisor in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or the supervisor of any change of employment or occupation. Mr. Dhaliwal shall not operate or be in care or control of any motor vehicle. Mr. Dhaliwal shall not consume any alcohol or drugs except in accordance with a medical prescription in his own name. Mr. Dhaliwal shall not consume any controlled substance unless prescribed by a doctor. He shall have no contact, directly or indirectly with Mr. Thomas Stewart, except through legal counsel. And Mr. Dhaliwal shall not possess any firearm or weapons as defined by the Criminal Code. As well, Mr. Dhaliwal shall attend for any counseling or treatment as recommended by the supervisor, and not leave that counseling or treatment program without the prior written permission of the supervisor. In order to monitor Mr. Dhaliwal's compliance with the counseling or treatment term, Mr. Dhaliwal shall sign any releases of information demanded of him by the supervisor or by the service provider. For the first 12 months of the conditional sentence order, Mr. Dhaliwal shall be the subject of home confinement. He shall remain at his approved residence or on the property of the approved residence at all times. Mr. Dhaliwal shall not leave that residence except to attend at meetings with the supervisor, and except for medical emergencies relating to Mr. Dhaliwal or a member of his immediate family, and except to attend at scheduled medical appointments for himself, his children, his wife or his parents, and except to attend his place of employment for a scheduled shift, and except to attend for counseling or treatment, and except for attendance for religious services on weekends, and except for attendance at the gym, and except for between 2:00p.m. and 5:00p.m. each Sunday to acquire groceries and to do other shopping as may be needed, and except with the express written permission of the supervisor. All of the exceptions to the home confinement term include travel directly to and from. The exception to the home confinement that deals with employment requires that Mr. Dhaliwal shall provide to his supervisor in advance his schedule of employment. And the exception to the home confinement that deals with attendance at the gym requires that Mr. Dhaliwal shall attend the gym when approved to do so by the supervisor. In other words, Mr. Dhaliwal is required to speak with the supervisor in advance and arrive at a schedule for attendances at the gym that is approved of by the supervisor. To be clear, Mr. Dhaliwal is not permitted to attend at the gym unless approved of by the supervisor, and only to the extent that it is approved of by the supervisor in terms of the schedule. For the next 12 months less one day of the conditional sentence order, there is no home confinement. Rather, there is a curfew between 10:00p.m. and 6:00a.m. daily. Each day for that 12 month less one day second half of the conditional sentence order, Mr. Dhaliwal shall obey a curfew between 10:00p.m. and 6:00a.m. and not leave his approved residence between those hours, except for medical emergencies relating to himself or a member of his immediate family and except with the express permission of the supervisor. In terms of the 12-month probation order, all of the statutory terms apply. In addition, Mr. Dhaliwal shall report to a probation officer within two working days after the commencement of the probation order, and thereafter as directed by the probation officer. Mr. Dhaliwal shall attend for any counseling or treatment as recommended by the probation officer, and not leave that program without the express written permission in advance of the probation officer. And in order to monitor his compliance with the counseling term during the currency of the probation order, Mr. Dhaliwal shall sign any necessary releases of information demanded of him by the probation officer or by the service provider. As well, during the 12-month probation order, Mr. Dhaliwal shall have no contact directly or indirectly with Mr. Stewart except through legal counsel. And as part of the 12-month probation order, Mr. Dhaliwal shall not possess any firearm or weapon as defined by the Criminal Code.
So, to summarize, the sentence is the conditional sentence order for a duration of two years less one day, to be followed by a period of probation for 12 months. A one-year driving prohibition order, and a secondary DNA order. The victim fine surcharge is waived. Counsel, before I ask Mr. Dhaliwal about his understanding of the sentence and the various orders, is there anything that you want me to clarify or anything that I left out?
C. BOTTOMLEY: Not from my side, sir.
E. O'MARRA: Not for the Crown. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Just one moment. Ms. O'Marra, is count number one to be marked withdrawn?
E. O'MARRA: Yes, please, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Mr. Dhaliwal, stand up please. It is my job, you have very experienced counsel representing you, but it is my job, my independent job, to make sure that you understand the sentence. So, first of all, there has been a DNA order issued, which means that you will have to give a sample of your DNA to the authorities. It is usually done by way of a blood sample. You must comply with the authorities in giving that sample. If you do not, you could be charged with a further criminal offence of breaching the order and if found guilty of that, you could be sentenced to a period of time in jail. Do you understand?
JAGSIR SINGH DHALIWAL: Understood.
THE COURT: There has been a driving prohibition order issued for a period of one year. You must obey that order. If you do not, you could be charged with breaching the driving prohibition order and if found guilty, you would likely be prohibited from driving even longer and you could be sentenced to a period of time in jail. Do you understand?
JAGSIR SINGH DHALIWAL: Understood.
THE COURT: The victim fine surcharge has been waived. There's nothing more I need to say about that. You have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment for two years less a day, but it is not imprisonment in a correctional facility, a jail, it's imprisonment by way of a community, a community setting, a conditional sentence order for two years less one day on several terms and conditions that I outlined. Did you hear me review the terms and conditions?
JAGSIR SINGH DHALIWAL: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you understand the conditional sentence order?
JAGSIR SINGH DHALIWAL: I do.
THE COURT: You must comply with that order. If you do not, several consequences could result. First of all, you could be charged with breaching the conditional sentence order, and if found guilty of that, you could be sentenced to a period of time in jail just for the breach. But as well, if it is found that you breached the conditional sentence order, you could be forced to serve the entire balance of the order in a real jail setting, you understand? The probation order for 12 months will follow the conditional sentence order. You must obey that order entirely. If you do not, you could be charged with a further criminal offence of breach of probation, and if found guilty of breach of probation, you would likely be sentenced to a period of time in jail. Do you understand?
JAGSIR SINGH DHALIWAL: Understood.
THE COURT: If you want any of the terms or conditions of the conditional sentence order or the probation order to be varied, to be amended, you should speak with your lawyer first and then you should talk with the supervisor or the probation officer about changing a term or more than one term. Okay? Okay, just have a seat, please. So, Madam Registrar, I know there's quite a lot of paperwork. You could be assisted on the terms and conditions by counsel if they were kind enough to assist you with them, but they can also provide you with the defence materials that were filed because in large part, what I outlined is contained in those materials. There were some few changes I made. Counseling, for example, and a few exceptions, but in large part, that document will give you the terms and conditions of the conditional sentence order. Okay, is there anything else, counsel?
C. BOTTOMLEY: Nothing that your diligent staff can't help us with. We'll have some questions once Your Honour is off the bench, but it's all logistical.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Ms. O'Marra?
E. O'MARRA: Not from the Crown.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much.
C. BOTTOMLEY: I think I would be remiss if I didn't thank my friend for her collegiality throughout these proceedings, Your Honour. It's been a pleasure.
THE COURT: Thank you. I'm not surprised. Ms. O'Marra always does a tremendous job for the Crown. So, just give me one moment here. And I did make clear in the endorsement, by the way, that the finding of guilt is being entered now, and the conviction is being registered now.
C. BOTTOMLEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
E. O'MARRA: Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel, for your very hard work on this matter.
C. BOTTOMLEY: Thank you, Your Honour. Ms. Toor was instrumental, as she always is.
. . .WHEREUPON THIS MATTER WAS COMPLETED
FORM 3
ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5(2))
Evidence Act
I, Eric Magri, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R v. Dhaliwal in the Superior Court of Justice held at 491 Steeles Avenue East, Milton taken from Recording Number 1211_6_20260109_080928__10_CONLANC.dcr, which has been certified in Form 1.
January 17, 2026
Date (Electronic signature of authorized person)
3595206113
(Authorized court transcriptionist's identification number - if applicable)
Ontario, Canada
(Province of signing)
LEGEND
[sic] - Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error.
(ph) - Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically.
Transcript Ordered: January 12, 2026
Transcript Completed: January 13, 2026
Transcript Approved for Release: February 5, 2026
Ordering Party Notified: February 17, 2026
A certificate in Form 3 is admissible in evidence and is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the transcript is a transcript of the certified recording of evidence and proceedings in the proceeding that is identified in the certificate.