CITATION: R v. Tambling, 2026 ONSC 2689

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-00000018-00

DATE: 2026 03 26

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

v.

JOSHUA GREGORY FOSTER TAMBLING

R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE C.J. CONLAN

on March 26, 2026 at OWEN SOUND, Ontario

INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 539 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA

BY HIS HONOURABLE JUSTICE T. STINSON, DATED OCTOBER 26, 2023

APPEARANCES

L. Grant Counsel for the Provincial Crown

J. Baldasi Counsel for Joshua Tambling

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 539 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA

BY HIS HONOURABLE JUSTICE T. STINSON, DATED OCTOBER 26, 2023

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

8

LEGEND

[sic] Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim

and is not a transcription error.

(ph) Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically.

.../.... Indicates interruption and/or incomplete thought.

[Indiscernible] Indicates where a word or phrase is impossible

to discern, and all avenues to ascertain what

was said have been exhausted.

Transcript Order Received: April 20, 2026

Transcript Completed: May 6, 2026

Ordering Party Notified: May 6, 2026

THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 2026

THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Tambling, you do not need to say anything. You are not required to say anything, but this is your only opportunity to say something if you wish. Would you like to say anything?

JOSHUA TAMBLING: I’ll do my best, sir. Do you want me to stand?

THE COURT: Well, if you’re able to stand, you should stand, yes.

JOSHUA TAMBLING: Do I face you, or do I face the family?

THE COURT: You can face whomever you wish.

JOSHUA TAMBLING:

[As Read In]

To the court, and the Berberich family.

THE COURT: Okay, you have to try to keep your voice up, sir.

JOSHUA TAMBLING: Sorry.

[As Read In]

Not a day goes by, where the accident loss of Berbs – sorry – Brayden, has impacted me. I – I live with the physical pain – ailments, as well as the emotional impact of losing my best friend to this terrible motor vehicle accident. The pain and the emotional and physical will shadow over me and others like you forever. I’ve thought many times about the impact that this has had on me, but as well as the community, and youse as a whole.

Brayden was my best friend. Well, we got to know each other quite a bit, and talked about the love of you guys. He was very passionate, like you guys said about his work and his brother, and he absolutely loved baseball. That’s where we connected the most.

And, like him, I love my family as well, and I’ll do everything and aim(ph) for them no matter what state of mind I’m in, or how I’m feeling. My daughter and step-son have a future; mean more to me than anything in the world; so does my nieces and nephews.

I am also very passionate about sports, and like I said up there – oh, sorry – that’s how Brayden and I really got connected, originally. Seeing the Jays in the World Series last year, all I could think about was Berbs; the passion he would have had watching the Blue Jays despite the loss. He – he would have been yelling at Josh Schneider’s decisions for what – what he was doing half the time, like everybody else probably.

I don’t find joy in really anything anymore. The only thing that I’ve put my main focus on is to just being better – getting better, and putting all of my energy into my daughter. She deserves to have somebody be there for her – the best efforts every day. So, I had no choice, but to wake up, and be there for her.

I am the primary caregiver of my daughter, who’s 20 months now – well, 21. It’s been a great duty for me. With all my issues, mentally and physically, and she’s been really good for - to - my mind at ease. Due to the – my situation, I’ve been unable to return to work, due to my both - on bail, and my physical limitations and mental limitations. Like, Ms. Baldasi said, my partner Courtney, she works nights, so I’m the only one who can take care of my daughter at night while she’s at work, and during the day while she sleeps. Both my parents have full-time jobs during the day. Sometimes, they work late – late as[sic] night as well. So, they’re not home to help me at all – take care of my daughter. Though I have no income coming in, my partner’s been very amazing and perfect with taking care of that for our daughter, and for the bills that have to be paid. I do my best to make sure my daughter’s taken care of, and doing all the housework to make sure that everybody’s happy.

So, without me, my daughter and my partner will struggle immensely. I don’t know what the plan will be going forward. My brother’s kids have also relied on me heavily as they work long hours, and can’t afford childcare as well. So, my family is relying on me immensely, which has given me some sort of purpose on days, where I don’t feel I can have that. So, it’s gonna be a major adjustment for myself of course, but my family, which is most important to me.

I’ve spent a lot of time with my counselor, Carole Eastman now, and she’s directed me into the right path and ways of thinking that I didn’t think before. It’s been helpful and insightful, and very important for me to take these steps, and I hope I get the opportunity to continue to do so.

I do hate myself greatly every day, and I doubt it’ll ever get better, but I want to feel better and be better. My daughter deserves a father that’s gonna do better; be better.

I find comfort in going for walks when I need time and space. Each day has been a blessing even though I don’t deserve them, and I don’t know why God chose – chose me instead.

I am terribly sorry for the loss I’ve caused in your family, and everybody. Ugh, Brayden was my best friend, and I would never wish this on anybody. It’s been a long four or five years, and I am truly sorry. I really am. I could never imagine what you guys are going through, especially being a father now. So, I – I know “sorry” is

– it doesn’t mean anything. It’s not gonna do anything, but truly I’m sorry for all of you, especially those who came today. I’m so sorry guys. I didn’t – I didn’t mean to. Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Tambling. Okay counsel, this matter was extensively pre-tried, so I will be giving my decision today. The matter needs to come to some conclusion today, so there will be no further court dates after today, but I want to take a recess, so I can write a few things down. Come back at four o’clock. I’ll give my decision then.

COURTROOM SERVICES OFFICER: All rise.

COURTROOM REGISTRAR: This court is in recess ‘til 4:00 p.m.

R E C E S S

U P O N R E S U M I N G:

COURTROOM SERVICES OFFICER: Order, all rise.

CLERK REGISTRAR: This court is resumed. Please be seated.

THE COURT: Here you go.

CITATION: R. v. Tambling, 2026 ONSC 2689

R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E

CONLAN, J. (Orally):

Mr. Joshua Gregory Foster Tambling is before the

court to be sentenced for the offence of impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death, contrary to Section 320.14(3) of the Criminal Code.

PART ONE – THE FACTS

The facts underlying the offence are contained in Exhibit 1, and may be summarized as follows:

The victim, Brayden Berberich, was born on September 27, 1992, making him 28 years old at the time of the offence.

Mr. Berberich had been friends with the offender, Mr. Tambling, for a number of years. Mr. Tambling was 26 years on the date of the offence.

On August 2, 2021, not long before the date of the offence, Mr. Tambling received a 72-hour license suspension after registering an alert on an approved screening device. An approved screening device is calibrated to register an alert in response to a breath sample containing between 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, and 99 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

Mr. Tambling has no prior criminal record.

On Sunday, August 15, 2021, shortly before 8:30 p.m., a witness was operating a skid steer on his property situated at 150 Concession 2, North Durham Road West, adjacent to Sideroad 5, just outside of Walkerton, Ontario. At that time of day, it was still light out. That witness observed a car travelling north on Sideroad 5, at what the witness believed to be a speed that was well above the speed limit. At the point where there is a culvert and a slight dip in the road, the witness saw the car become slightly airborne, leaning with the driver’s side up and passenger side down, before it disappeared out of sight. The witness then saw something fly up high into the air, followed by a large cloud of dust. The witness at the time was about 400 yards west of the collision point. When that witness responded to the scene, he observed that the car obviously struck at least one tree.

Another witness at the time was living at 672 Sideroad 5. When the collision occurred, he was home with his family. His attention was drawn to the sound of a car travelling quickly down Sideroad 5. The witness heard the sound of a vehicle hit the dip in the road; then the sound of brakes and tires squealing. That witness proceeded to his front door, when he heard a loud bang, like something had exploded. That witness yelled to his wife to call 9-1-1. That witness went outside and saw part of a car against the tree in front of his house, as well as a man lying on the ground some distance away. There was debris scattered everywhere spanning from 50 to 60

feet away to as much as 200 feet away.

After being removed by first responders from the motor vehicle in question, a Volkswagen Jetta, the offender, Mr. Tambling, was transported to the Walkerton Hospital, and then taken by air ambulance to London Health Sciences Centre. As a result of the collision, Mr. Tambling sustained several injuries including a fracture to his right femur, a laceration to his thigh area, a right distal fracture, where the bone was broken in three or more places, a right distal ulnar fracture, where the bone was broken in more than three places, a right basal thumb fracture, left side pulmonary contusion, a bowel injury, a right open knee laceration, and several foot fractures.

A second male, the victim, Mr. Berberich, was located with vital signs absent, and tragically he was pronounced deceased. He died as a result of the collision. Officers who responded to the collision scene observed debris all around the Volkswagen and several alcohol containers on-site, that had obviously been inside the motor vehicle.

As is customary in these situations, a formal collision reconstruction examination was performed, and the report outlined several findings. Those findings included that the collision occurred at approximately 8:29 p.m. The sun was setting at that time, but it was still bright as the sun was above the horizon. The motor vehicle in question was mostly destroyed in the collision, and sustained catastrophic damage.

The motor vehicle had been equipped with an air bag control module that was supported by the current Crash Data Retrieval computer software program. The module, however, was seriously damaged during the high impact collision, and as a result, no data about speed or braking prior to the collision was available to the authorities.

As I indicated, the motor vehicle sustained massive damage, and had a large portion of its entire passenger side torn off. The collision reconstruction expert concluded that on the date in question at approximately 8:29 p.m., the motor vehicle was travelling northbound on Sideroad 5 South in Bruce County. The vehicle lost control and slid across the roadway into the lawn located at 672 Sideroad 5 South and struck a tree. The massive damage sustained to the vehicle combined with the extensive debris field speaks to the excessive speed involved in the collision. It was concluded that the vehicle was travelling at a high rate of speed, northbound, on Sideroad 5 South, well above the posted speed limit. The front passenger, the victim, Mr. Berberich, was ejected from the vehicle.

The expert reconstructionist, Constable Wilson, testified at the preliminary inquiry that was held in this case. He had prior to that hearing, investigated approximately 432 collisions that involved personal injury or death. He provided evidence at the preliminary inquiry that this case was the most catastrophic collision that he had ever investigated. The catastrophic degree of this collision is undoubtedly explained at least in major part by the excessive speed that the motor vehicle was travelling at before it lost control.

A post-mortem was conducted on the body of the victim, Mr. Berberich. The cause of the victim’s death was multiple blunt impact trauma. There were multiple points of blunt impact trauma to the victim’s head, chest, abdomen, and pelvis.

A toxicology letter of opinion dated December 9, 2021 was commissioned in this case, and the expert toxicologist found as follows:

• Using the Centre of Forensic Sciences result, the detected serum alcohol concentration in this case converts to a blood alcohol concentration of 133 milligrams in 100 millilitres of blood.

• The projected blood alcohol concentration at approximately 8:29 p.m., the time of the collision, is 133 to 163.

• Using the hospital result, the detected serum alcohol concentration converts to a blood alcohol concentration of 143 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

• The projected blood alcohol concentration using that result, at approximately 8:29 p.m., the time of the collision, is 143 to 173.

Under either measure, it is obvious that Mr. Tambling’s blood alcohol concentration was well above the legal limit, and was a contributing factor to the collision, and to the death of Mr. Berberich.

It is agreed that the motor vehicle in question was travelling at a rate of speed well above the posted speed limit, and that Mr. Tambling’s ability to operate the vehicle at the time was impaired by alcohol. Mr. Berberich unfortunately died as a result of the actions of Mr. Tambling. Mr. Berberich died as a result of the significant injuries that he sustained in this catastrophic collision. It is acknowledged by Mr. Tambling that the cause of Mr. Berberich’s death is the result of Mr. Tambling’s impairment by alcohol, while operating his vehicle at a high rate of speed.

It should be noted, and it is part of the agreed facts, that Mr. Tambling was compliant with the police during the investigation, and further, that he has been compliant with the terms of his release order since March 15, 2022.

That is a summary of the facts underlying the

criminal offence.

PART TWO – THE OFFENDER

This court has the benefit of significant materials that were filed by defence counsel as well as a pre-sentence report dated April 17, 2025. As I indicated earlier, Mr. Tambling has no criminal record. Mr. Tambling is currently 30 years of age, born July 5, 1995. He is a Canadian citizen. He does have a young child with his partner. Mr. Tambling’s daughter is currently approximately 20 months old.

Prior to the offence date, Mr. Tambling did have a relatively good employment history, mainly in the automotive dealership industry. However, Mr. Tambling has been unemployed for a number of years now. He told the author of the pre-sentence report that his unemployment has been largely due to his restrictive bail conditions.

It is clear that Mr. Tambling was not completely forthright with the author of the pre-sentence report, in that he indicated that he had never abused alcohol at any time in his life, and had no problem regarding the use of alcohol.

Mr. Tambling did describe to the author of the pre-sentence report the injuries that he sustained in the collision, and the effects of those injuries that he has continued to experience in

the years since the collision.

The overall assessment by the author of the pre-sentence report included the following findings:

• That Mr. Tambling had a stable upbringing with no incidences of abuse or financial hardship.

• That Mr. Tambling enjoys a close relationship with his parents, and a close relationship with his brother and step-brother.

• That Mr. Tambling has been involved in a relationship with his partner for a few years. This is the same person, who is the mother of his 20-month-old child.

• Mr. Tambling did express some remorse to the author of the pre-sentence report, indicating that he was carrying a lot of guilt for the death of his best friend.

• He indicated as well to the author of the pre-sentence report, a willingness to attend for counselling, and to take whatever steps were necessary towards rehabilitation.

As I indicated, defence counsel has filed some extensive materials with the court, which serve to provide a more fulsome picture of Mr. Tambling. Those materials do confirm the significant injuries that Mr. Tambling sustained in the collision, and the ongoing treatment that he’s received for these injuries since the date of the

collision.

It should be noted that Mr. Tambling has been the subject of a relatively strict judicial interim release order since March 15, 2022. There have been no difficulties with that order that I am aware of. The order provided that Mr. Tambling shall reside with his sureties, and remain in his residence, or on the property of his residence at all times except when in the direct presence of a surety. The release order also provided that Mr. Tambling shall not operate or have care or control of any motor vehicle, and not occupy the driver’s seat of any motor vehicle. The release order compelled Mr. Tambling to surrender his driver’s license to the police. Mr. Tambling has been the subject of that order now for approximately four years.

The materials provided by the defence do confirm that Mr. Tambling presents as having a “high probability of substance use disorder”. According to the materials filed, such a finding means that Mr. Tambling presents with extensive symptoms of substance use disorder, extreme negative consequences resulting from alcohol and or drug use, and exceptional difficulty recognizing the impact of substance misuse on his life. Of course, all of this would have been known when Mr. Tambling met with the author of the pre-sentence report.

The materials filed by the defence confirm that

Mr. Tambling has taken post-offence pre-sentence rehabilitative steps. There is a very recent letter, dated March 22, 2026, from Carole Eastman, an addiction counsellor, indicating that Mr. Tambling is officially enrolled and presently attending individual addiction counselling sessions, that Mr. Tambling has attended six sessions thus far, and that the program consists of 10 individual addiction counselling sessions.

The materials filed by the defence also contain numerous support letters about Mr. Tambling. I will not read out those letters verbatim, but suffice it to say that they may be summarized by observing that Mr. Tambling is described in the letters as being generally, a reliable and dependable person, as a good father to his child, and as a good partner, and as someone who has expressed extreme remorse to others about what happened to Mr. Berberich. The support letters also confirm some of the physical and mental health challenges that Mr. Tambling continues to experience as a result of the injuries that he sustained during the collision. The support letters are not only from family members of the offender, but also from others in the community including Mr. Tambling’s former employer.

The materials filed by the defence also include Mr. Tambling’s own letter addressed to the court, and to the family members of the victim, Mr. Berberich. The letter is consistent with the allocution that Mr. Tambling delivered to the court today. The letter describes Mr. Tambling’s remorse for what happened to Mr. Berberich. The letter authored by Mr. Tambling concludes with this sentence:

[As Read In]

I wish none of this had ever happened. Brayden was my best friend. I’m so remorseful. There are no words, but obviously, I wish I could take it all back. I am sorry.

That is a brief summary of the circumstances of the offender.

PART THREE – THE POSITIONS OF THE CROWN AND THE DEFENCE

There is a joint submission before the court by counsel that this court impose the following ancillary orders against Mr. Tambling:

• A six-year driving prohibition order on Mr. Tambling’s release from custody;

• As well, a Section 109 Criminal Code firearms and weapons prohibition order for life; and

• A secondary DNA order.

Counsel differ on the length of custody that ought to be imposed against Mr. Tambling; that is the primary area of departure between the two

positions.

The Crown’s position is that any pre-sentence credit that Mr. Tambling ought to receive, including any Downes credit, should be capped at a maximum of 12 months. And, the Crown’s ultimate position on imprisonment is that this court sentence Mr. Tambling to a period of imprisonment between four and five years from today. The Crown urges the court to impose a net sentence of imprisonment from today, closer to the five-year mark than to the four-year mark.

The defence position is that the court sentence Mr. Tambling to a period of imprisonment of two years from today. The defence submits that an appropriate sentence before consideration of pre-sentence custody would be three years’ imprisonment for Mr. Tambling, but that the court give Mr. Tambling 12 months’ credit on account of the time that he spent at Central North Correctional Centre, and for the time that he spent on a relatively strict judicial interim release order, resulting in a net sentence of imprisonment from today of two years.

So, in summary on the subject matter of imprisonment, the Crown’s position is four to five years’ imprisonment from today. The defence position is two years’ imprisonment from today.

PART FOUR – THE PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING

The fundamental purpose of sentencing, which is a highly individualized process, is that the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. We know that from a reading of Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code. Sentencing, it has been said by many judges over the years - including myself - is more art than science. It is a delicate and difficult balancing exercise. It involves a great deal of discretion on the part of the judge who is presiding over the case.

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the individualized nature of sentencing in many decisions, including the decision in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64.

In order to respect the individualization of sentences that are – although there are guidelines and there are ranges, and although a judge’s discretion is not completely unfettered – there are no hard and fast rules that apply no matter what. The Supreme Court of Canada told us that at paragraph 44 of its decision in R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6.

In this case, in my view, the paramount sentencing objectives are denunciation and deterrence, both general deterrence and specific, or individual deterrence. This court must pronounce a sentence that will sufficiently denounce and condemn the very serious criminal conduct demonstrated by Mr. Tambling. This court must impose a sentence that adequately deters other like-minded members of the public, and deters Mr. Tambling himself from doing anything like was done on August 15, 2021.

Any other sentencing principle besides denunciation and deterrence is secondary in this case.

It must be said, however, that the defence is correct, that the principles of rehabilitation and restraint, although not paramount considerations in this case, cannot be ignored. Mr. Tambling after all, is a first offender, and he has shown a capacity to take positive rehabilitative steps.

PART FIVE – THE AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS

The Crown is correct that Mr. Tambling’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of the collision is a statutorily aggravating factor in this case. His blood alcohol concentration at the time of this collision was well above the legal limit. Put bluntly, someone driving around on a country road with this level of blood alcohol concentration, being impaired by the consumption of alcohol, and driving at some crazy fast speed was bound to result in something terrible, and it did.

It is particularly aggravating in this case, that the dangerousness of Mr. Tambling’s driving was multi-faceted. When one looks at the pictures of the scene, one is struck by the nonsense of someone driving at some ridiculously fast speed on that type of road. Excessive speed is inherently dangerous on its own, but excessive speed on this type of road is particularly dangerous. And, it is aggravating that the excessive speed was coupled with impairment by alcohol, and a blood alcohol concentration level well above the legal limit.

It is aggravating as well, that this was not per se an isolated incident for Mr. Tambling, as illustrated by the fact that only weeks prior to the date of the collision, he was stopped by the police for driving with alcohol in his blood, resulting in a short license suspension. Obviously, at the time of this collision, Mr. Tambling had a serious alcohol problem, and he had no business exposing his friend to this type of dangerous conduct in driving around with his friend in the vehicle.

It is also aggravating, that the death of Mr. Berberich has had a profound and devastating impact on the members of his family, as illustrated in the poignant impact statements that the court received today.

At the same time, it must be observed that there

are some mitigating factors in this case. The lack of any criminal record on the part of Mr. Tambling tends to mitigate the sentence that would otherwise be imposed. His positive rehabilitative steps pre-sentence are a mitigating factor on sentence. And, his guilty plea is a mitigating factor on sentence.

Finally, it appears that Mr. Tambling generally speaking, is a person of relatively good character, and has demonstrated that he is a good father to his child, and a good partner.

On the mitigating effect of the guilty plea:

• It is mitigating.

• It is an acceptance of responsibility on the part of Mr. Tambling.

• It is an expression of his remorse, an expression which was repeated today in his allocution to the court.

• The guilty plea does save the administration of justice, resources and time, and the guilty plea did assist in bringing this proceeding to finality.

It certainly is not the type of guilty plea that one would describe as being highly mitigating, because the guilty plea was entered in the face of what I would describe as an overwhelming Crown case, and the guilty plea was entered very late in

the proceeding.

PART SIX – THE JURISPRUDENCE

Counsel have been very helpful with the court in filing sentencing charts and numerous authorities. No two sets of facts are ever the same. No two offenders are ever the same. But, looking at other jurisprudence is helpful in determining what would be a fit sentence for this offender on our facts.

I have read all of the decisions that have been filed. I do think that the two cases that are most similar to ours, factually, are the decision of Husseini filed by the Crown, and the decision of Jeyaruban filed by the defence. I do not mean to suggest that the other cases filed by counsel are not relevant, but those two decisions are most closely tied factually to our case.

R. v. Husseini is reported at [2022] OJ No. 1363 an Ontario Court of Justice decision. In that case, the accused pleaded guilty to impaired operation cause death after a preliminary inquiry, which is the same situation as our case.

In Husseini the accused drove into oncoming traffic and struck a motorcycle head-on. The motorcyclist was killed as a result of the collision.

In Husseini, the offender’s blood alcohol

concentration was even higher than Mr. Tambling’s. It was between 185 and 255, an exorbitant level of blood alcohol concentration. The sentencing judge in that case specifically highlighted the very high level of blood alcohol concentration.

And the sentencing judge in Husseini also spoke at length about the devastating impact that the offence had on the victim’s family, which is exactly our case. In fact, not only has Mr. Tambling’s criminal conduct in our case had a truly devastating impact on all of those who have been left behind in Mr. Berberich’s family, but it has had a devastating impact on Mr. Berberich’s co-workers, and the community-at-large.

The offender in Husseini, like Mr. Tambling, entered a guilty plea. The offender in Husseini, like Mr. Tambling, had no criminal record. The offender in Husseini, like Mr. Tambling, had considerable family support, and had expressed genuine remorse for what happened. The offender in Husseini, had completed a residential treatment program for substance abuse. Mr. Tambling has not completed quite the same degree of program, but he is, to his credit, involved in ongoing counselling for alcohol abuse.

The sentencing judge in Husseini commented that:

[As Read In]

Society continues to look down on the

carnage and harm caused by drunk drivers. Drunk driving continues to be an epidemic in our society.

The sentencing judge in Husseini observed that:

[As Read In]

There is an upward sentencing trend in these types of cases, and that the primary principles of sentencing are denunciation and deterrence.

The sentence imposed in Husseini was five years and six months, plus an eight-year driving prohibition order.

Now, as I said, it must be pointed out that Husseini is not on all fours with Mr. Tambling’s case. The offender in Husseini had a blood alcohol concentration level much higher than even Mr. Tambling, and one “might”, “might” describe the driving of the offender in the Husseini case as even worse than the despicable driving that Mr. Tambling showed.

The other case that is quite similar to ours is the case of R. v. Jeyaruban, (21 Nov 2023), Toronto, 22-015 (Ont. S.C.), a decision of Justice Woolcombe. In that case it should be remembered that the sentence imposed was the result of a joint submission on sentence, which is not our case.

And, Justice Woolcombe, we might say, accepted the joint submission with some degree of hesitancy. Her Honour found that the sentence that she was imposing was undoubtedly lenient for that offender. Nevertheless, Mr. Jeyaruban was sentenced to five years in prison, after entering guilty pleas to two counts of dangerous driving causing death. Mr. Jeyaruban drove the vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 191 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, a blood alcohol concentration level even higher than Mr. Tambling’s.

In the motor vehicle with Mr. Jeyaruban, were two other persons. Mr. Jeyaruban drove in the Town of The Blue Mountains, not far from where we are today, and not far from Walkerton, which is in Bruce County.

• Mr. Jeyaruban, like Mr. Tambling, drove at a very high rate of speed.

• Mr. Jeyaruban, like Mr. Tambling, lost control of the motor vehicle, when the motor vehicle went off the roadway and became airborne.

• The motor vehicle that Mr. Jeyaruban was operating, just like the motor vehicle that Mr. Tambling was operating, struck a tree, and then hit another tree.

Mr. Jeyaruban’s motor vehicle flipped and slid

through a parking lot. One victim died in the passenger seat. The other was ejected from the car and died at the scene as well.

Mr. Jeyaruban’s speed at the time of the collision was at least 140 kilometres per hour in a posted zone of 50 kilometres per hour. So, Mr. Jeyaruban was travelling at close to three times the posted speed limit.

And, the collision occurred because Mr. Jeyaruban was driving so fast with a highly illegal blood alcohol concentration in his system, and the motor vehicle failed to properly navigate the curve in the roadway.

• Mr. Jeyaruban was a 27-year-old first offender, not much different than Mr. Tambling.

• Mr. Jeyaruban was a Canadian citizen born into an immigrant family from Sri Lanka.

• Mr. Jeyaruban had a very close and supportive relationship with his family members.

• He had no criminal record, just like Mr. Tambling.

• Mr. Jeyaruban was also seriously injured in the collision, similar to Mr. Tambling.

Justice Woolcombe in accepting the joint submission, and imposing a sentence of five years’ imprisonment on Mr. Jeyaruban, summarized the

aggravating factors in that case as:

• First, the high level of the offender’s blood alcohol concentration. More than double the legal limit. An even higher blood alcohol concentration than Mr. Tambling.

• Second, the very high rate of speed. Almost three times the posted speed limit.

• Third, the fact that there were two deaths, and it’s awful for a judge to say this: It’s absolutely no solace to the members of the family who are here, but the jurisprudence in the Criminal Code does say, that the number of victims is a factor – the number of deaths is a factor on sentence. There were two deaths in the Jeyaruban case.

Justice Woolcombe also said that:

[As Read In]

The terrible and life-changing effect that the offences have had on the family members of the victims was an aggravating factor.

And this is definitely an aggravating factor in our case.

And, Mr. Jeyaruban had a significant MTO driving

record. I’m not aware of any such a record for Mr. Tambling.

Thus, I think it’s correct for the defence to say that the overall circumstances in the Jeyaruban case were even more aggravating than they are in the case of Mr. Tambling. That is not in any way to minimize the seriousness of this case. I’m simply saying, as compared to the overall facts in Jeyaruban, the circumstances of this case are somewhat attenuated.

PART SEVEN – WHAT IS A FIT SENTENCE FOR THIS OFFENDER ON THESE FACTS?

I agree with the Crown, that unfortunately this court cannot impose any sentence on Mr. Tambling that will have the effect of turning back the clock. And, this court will not be able to impose any sentence on Mr. Tambling that will make the hearts and souls of these folks healed. It’s very difficult for a judge to sit in a courtroom - even a judge, who has been doing it for 16 years, like I have - and listen to the victim impact statements. Very difficult. Each and every one of the victim impact statements was heart-wrenching to listen to. Because, in a heart beat, the lives of these folks have been changed forever as a result of what you did Mr. Tambling.

It is not something that can be forgotten by the family members. I suspect that they think about this loss more than they don’t think about it.

In the end, I think that the most appropriate

disposition for Mr. Tambling in this case, is something that falls between the two positions that have been put forward by the Crown and the defence.

I’m not prepared to go along with the position put forward very ably by Ms. Baldasi, because I think it is too low. I think it would be an unfit sentence for Mr. Tambling. I think it would fail to recognize the aggravating factors in this case. I think it would fail to meet the principles of denunciation and deterrence. I also think that the position advanced by the defence gives Mr. Tambling too much credit for pre-sentence custody. I think a 12-month credit is too much to give to Mr. Tambling on account of the time spent at Central North Correctional Centre, and on account of the relatively strict bail conditions.

On the other hand, I think that the position put forward by the Crown, although a very meritorious position, is perhaps a little higher than what the sentence needs to be. This court must be careful to not completely ignore the principles of rehabilitation and restraint.

And thus, I have endorsed the matter as follows:

This is the sentence of the court. You can stay seated.

The victim fine surcharges imposed against Mr.

Tambling: He is granted six months to pay the discharge.

There is a driving prohibition order imposed for a period of six years. The six years shall commence on the date of Mr. Tambling’s release from custody.

There is a Section 109 Criminal Code firearms and weapons prohibition order for life, for all items listed therein.

There is a secondary DNA order imposed.

And, Mr. Tambling is sentenced to a period of imprisonment from today for a duration of three years and nine months.

The net sentence of imprisonment is calculated as follows: four-and-one-half years’ imprisonment, less nine months credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving a net sentence from today of three years and nine months in the penitentiary.

This court has a duty to explain the calculation of pre-sentence custody credit. The nine months’ credit for pre-sentence custody has been calculated as follows: 30 days for the time spent at Central North Correctional Centre, after accounting for the Duncan/Marshall mitigating factor of the overly harsh conditions at the facility during the COVID-19 pandemic, plus eight months on account of Downes credit, for the approximately four years that the offender was the subject of relatively strict conditions on his judicial interim release order.

To repeat, the sentence of imprisonment from today is three years and nine months in length.

Before I ask Mr. Tambling about his understanding of the sentence, is there anything that counsel would like clarification of?

L. GRANT: Not for the Crown, I thank, Your Honour.

J. BALDASI: Not for defence, thank you.

THE COURT: What about count two on the indictment?

L. GRANT: Asking that that be marked withdrawn, please?

THE COURT: Count two on the indictment is marked withdrawn at the request of the Crown.

Mr. Tambling, please stand. The victim fine surcharge. You must pay that within six months. I know you’re going to be in prison. You can have someone pay it for you. Do you understand that order?

JOSHUA TAMBLING: Yup – sorry, yes.

THE COURT: You must obey that order. If you do

not comply with it, you could be charged with a further criminal offence of breaching that court order, and if found guilty, you would likely be sentenced to a period of time in jail. Do you understand?

JOSHUA TAMBLING: Yes.

The driving prohibition order for six years. It does not start now. It will start when you are released from custody. Do you understand that order? Yes?

JOSHUA TAMBLING: Yes, sir, yes.

THE COURT: You must obey that order. If you do not, you could be charged with a further criminal offence of breach of that order, and you would likely be sentenced to a period of time in jail. Do you understand?

JOSHUA TAMBLING: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: The Section 109 Criminal Code firearms and weapons prohibition order. It applies to a whole host of items, that you will be prohibited from possessing for life. Do you understand?

JOSHUA TAMBLING: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: You must obey that order. If you do not, you could be charged with a further criminal offence of breach of that order, and if found guilty, you would likely be sentenced to a period of time of in jail. Do you understand?

JOSHUA TAMBLING: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: The secondary DNA order. The DNA sample will be taken from you by the authorities by way of a blood sample. You must co-operate with the authorities in giving a sample of your DNA. If you do not, you could be charged with a further criminal offence, and if found guilty, you could be sentenced to a period of time in jail. Do you understand?

JASON TAMBLING: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: And finally, on top of the time that you have already served – on top of the pre-sentence custody credit, you are sentenced to a period of imprisonment of three years and nine months from today.

Do you have any questions that you want to ask me about any aspect of the sentence?

JOSHUA TAMBLING: No, sir.

THE COURT: Thank you, you may have a seat.

Okay, I would like to say a few final things. First of all, to Mr. Tambling, I recognize that this is not the result that you were hoping for today, and I recognize that you will be separated from your family for a lengthy period of time. I do not wish you any ill will, despite the imposition of this sentence today, and I do hope that you continue your pathway towards rehabilitation while you are incarcerated. And, I hope that when you are reunited with your family, in particular, your daughter, you can help your child be a productive member of society for many years to come.

And, to the victims – and they are victims – the

members of Mr. Berberich’s family, I am sure that this proceeding has been excruciating for you. I hope that the finality of the proceeding will in time provide some small benefit to you; the fact that it’s finally over, because it is over today. Not for the victims, because it will never be over for them, but the proceeding is finally over today.

And, to counsel, thank you very much for your help with this case. So, I’ll step out now to give Mr. Tambling a moment to be taken into custody, and if you wouldn’t mind, Ms. Grant and Ms. Baldasi, just remain. You’re welcome to speak to your respective client and members of the family, but just remain in the courtroom for a few moments until I come back in. Thank you.

J. BALDASI: Thank you.

COURTROOM SERVICES OFFICER: All rise.

CLERK REGISTRAR: Oyez, Oyez, Oyez, the sittings of this court are now concluded. Long live The King.

...WHEREUPON THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED

FORM 3

ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5(2))

Evidence Act

I, Isabel Horvath ,

(Name of Authorized Person)

certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of

R. v. Joshua Tambling in Superior Court of Justice ,

(Name of Case) (Name of Court)

held at 611 9th Ave. East, Owen Sound for 207 Cayley Street West, Walkerton, Ontario,

(Court Address)

taken from recording: 0311_CRTRM#1_20260326_080548__10_CONLANC , which has been certified in Form 1 by Amber Thomson.

_ May 6, 2026 ___ _ _

(Date) (Electronic Signature of Authorized Person)

___ 9134496130___ __

(Authorized Court Transcriptionist’s Identification Number, -

if applicable)

________Ontario, Canada

(Province of Signing)