CITATION: R. v. Patel, 2026 ONSC 3521
COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-30000771-0000
DATE: 20260805
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
rahil patel
Kathleen Farrell, for the Crown
Thomas Evangelista, for Rahil Patel
HEARD: January 27, 2026, and May 13, 2026
KELLY J.
Reasons for sentence
[1] Mr. Rahil Patel was impaired by alcohol when he drove his motor vehicle into oncoming traffic at the crest of a hill on Steeles Avenue in the City of Toronto. At the time, it is estimated that he was traveling at a speed of 120 to 140km/hr. in a posted 60 km/hr. zone.
[2] Mr. Patel hit a Toyota driven by Mr. Prapananth Logeswaran, head on. Tragically, Mr. Logeswaran died. Mr. Patel’s passenger, Mr. Tharun Thavendran suffered significant injuries but lived. Mr. Patel, as well, suffered significant injuries.
[3] Mr. Patel was charged with several offences arising from his conduct. He pleaded guilty to impaired driving cause death and impaired driving cause bodily harm, committed contrary to ss. 320.14(3) and 320.14(2) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, respectively. Mr. Patel appears before me now for sentencing.
[4] Crown counsel seeks a sentence of seven to eight years’ imprisonment. She submits that a 10-year driving prohibition should be imposed when Mr. Patel is released from custody and that he should provide a sample of his DNA.
[5] Counsel for Mr. Patel submits that the appropriate sentence is two years less one day to be served in the community followed by two years of probation. He submits that a five-year driving prohibition should be imposed. Mr. Patel consents to providing a sample of his DNA.
[6] For the reasons set out below, I find that a sentence of imprisonment for six years is appropriate. Mr. Patel will be subject to a driving prohibition for five years following the completion of his sentence. Mr. Patel will provide a sample of his DNA.
The Facts
[7] The facts giving rise to the convictions were provided by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts. It may be summarized as follows:
a. On the evening of Monday August 1, 2022, Mr. Patel was driving his father’s white Mercedes sedan with Ontario licence plate CHSB097 on Steeles Avenue East near Reesor Road in the City of Toronto. Mr. Patel had a front-seat passenger, Mr. Thavendran.
b. Steeles Avenue East at this location is a two-lane highway with one lane travelling eastbound and one lane travelling westbound. The posted speed limit is 60km/hr. The surrounding area consists primarily of parks and farmland.
c. Mr. Patel was traveling eastbound on Steeles Avenue. At multiple points, witnesses observed Mr. Patel driving his vehicle into the oncoming westbound lane to, apparently, pass other vehicles traveling eastbound.
d. At approximately 10:22 p.m., upon approaching the crest of a hill in the road, Mr. Patel suddenly drove into the oncoming westbound lane again. He immediately collided head-on with a Toyota sedan that had been traveling in the right direction in the oncoming lane in accordance with the posted speed limit. The driver of the Toyota, Mr. Logeswaran, had no time to react and was killed.
e. A witness, Mr. Thivagar Mahendran, had been driving his van in the eastbound lane on Steeles Avenue shortly before the collision. His wife was in the front passenger’s seat. Mr. Mahendran observed Mr. Patel’s vehicle traveling behind him at a very high rate of speed. He estimated that the vehicle was traveling double his own speed of 60-70 km/hr. Another witness estimated that Mr. Patel’s vehicle was travelling between 130-140 km/hr. at the time she observed his driving.
f. Mr. Mahendran observed Mr. Patel’s vehicle pulling into the oncoming westbound lane at the crest of the hill and could see that the Mercedes and Toyota were going to collide. He swerved his own vehicle into the gravel ditch just south of the eastbound lane to avoid the pending collision, which then occurred a bit behind his own vehicle as he was passing. Debris hit the back of his vehicle, causing damage. There were no injuries to anyone in his vehicle.
g. The force of the collision caused Mr. Patel’s Mercedes and Mr. Logeswaran’s Toyota to be propelled to each side of the roadway. Mr. Patel’s Mercedes caught fire.
h. Mr. Mahendran and another civilian attended Mr. Patel’s Mercedes and acted quickly to remove Mr. Patel and his passenger, Mr. Thavendran, who were both trapped in the burning vehicle. Mr. Thavendran was removed first. Mr. Mahendran brought Mr. Thavendran to the south side of Steeles, away from the fire. At that time, Mr. Patel remained trapped inside the vehicle.
i. Mr. Tabrez Ali arrived on scene after the collision, but before emergency personnel arrived. When he arrived, civilians were trying to figure out if there was anyone else in the burning Mercedes, other than Mr. Thavendran.
j. Mr. Ali approached the driver’s side of the Mercedes and heard knocking on the window from inside. He opened the vehicle door and extracted Mr. Patel from the driver’s seat. As Mr. Ali was extracting Mr. Patel from the vehicle, Mr. Patel’s skin was coming off in his hands due to severe burns on his arms.
k. The Mercedes almost burned out entirely. The fire was significant and required the work of numerous firefighters and other emergency personnel to control. Toronto Fire noted that 26 personnel responded.
l. Mr. Logeswaran was pronounced dead at the scene. His Toyota was severely damaged. Officers observed the entire engine component in Mr. Logeswaran’s lap. He needed to be extracted out of the vehicle by Toronto Fire.
m. Mr. Patel’s passenger, Mr. Thavendran, was transported to hospital from the collision scene. He suffered several injuries. He had multiple fractures, including fractures to his hip, that required surgery to repair and lengthy post-surgery rehabilitation.
n. Mr. Patel was taken by ambulance to Markham Stouffville Hospital and subsequently transferred to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre with life-threatening injuries. He had burns to approximately 20% of his body.
o. Toronto Police Service (“TPS”) obtained a warrant to seize blood drawn by hospital staff for blood alcohol (ethanol) testing. A vial of blood that was drawn from Mr. Patel at 11:40 p.m. on the night of the collision was sealed by TPS and sent to the Centre of Forensic Sciences for analysis.
p. Toxicologist, Ms. Inger Bugyra, tested the vial, which had a blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) of 92 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. Ms. Bugyra opined, and Mr. Patel does not dispute, that Mr. Patel’s BAC between 10:10 and 10:40 p.m. (during which time the collision occurred) would have been between 92 and 122 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.
q. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Patel was at a rehabilitation centre for several months. He was subsequently arrested on November 6, 2022, at St. John’s Rehab at Sunnybrook Hospital and released on a Form 10. He was physically unable to sign the Form 10 but verbally agreed to the conditions.
[8] These are the facts upon which Mr. Patel is being sentenced.
Victim Impact Statements
[9] In considering the appropriate sentence, I must consider the impact on the victims and their community, particularly the families. No person affected by this incident wished to provide a Victim Impact Statement to the Court, although they were invited to do so. Despite that, it does not take much imagination to understand the impact of Mr. Patel’s conduct on the victims.
[10] Mr. Logeswaran was 41 years of age at the time of his death. He lived in Toronto. Not much else is known about Mr. Logeswaran. His sister, niece, and nephew communicated with the prosecution from time to time. They, of course, suffered the loss of a loved one at a very young age and in horrid circumstances: because of a drunk driver.
[11] The impact on the passenger, Mr. Thavendran, is also likely significant. He and Mr. Patel were friends. He suffered significant injuries that required hospitalization and rehabilitation.
[12] The impact on Mr. Mahendran, who pulled Mr. Thavendran out of the burning Mercedes and Mr. Ali, who pulled Mr. Patel out, does not require much imagination either. The impact must have been devastating, like those of first responders, but without the training to deal with such trauma.
[13] I will now consider Mr. Patel’s background.
Personal Background
Personal History
[14] Mr. Patel’s background may be summarized as follows:
a. Mr. Patel is currently 25 years of age. He was 22 years of age at the time of the offences.
b. Mr. Patel was raised by hardworking parents. They worked long hours to support their family.
c. Mr. Patel was born premature and struggled physically growing up. However, he showed strength and determination.
d. Mr. Patel is dyslexic and has experienced learning disabilities. He required additional support in school to succeed academically. This caused a lack of confidence. Despite that, he continued to make efforts to succeed in school. His family supported him through these difficult times. He graduated from high school.
e. Despite financial challenges, Mr. Patel was encouraged to participate in activities, sports, and community programs. Mr. Patel joined school clubs and sports teams. He volunteered at the local temple. He developed a passion for swimming and basketball. He was rewarded for his efforts by being recognized for his participation.
f. Mr. Patel has always been passionate about cars. He is hoping to turn that into something meaningful. He started a small mobile detailing business during Covid. He also secured part-time employment at Stouffville Toyota.
g. Mr. Patel wishes to pursue an education in IT. He had enrolled in Durham College to do so but has been unable to attend due to the injuries suffered from this incident.
Ministry of Transportation Driver Information
[15] Mr. Patel has no criminal record. However, he has incidents recorded with the Ministry of Transportation. His driver information includes entries under the heading “convictions, discharges and other actions” as follows:
January 6, 2020: Speeding (65 km/hr. in a 50 km/hr. zone).
January 7, 2020: Disobey legal sign.
December 12, 2020: Administrative suspension of his license for one week because of “racing contest or stunt”.
June 19, 2021: Administrative suspension of his license for three days for .05 BAC warn range.
April 8, 2022: Fail to produce driver’s license.
Mr. Patel’s Medical Condition
[16] Mr. Patel’s counsel seeks a conditional sentence order, in part, due to Mr. Patel’s medical condition. He submits that there are a variety of risk factors supporting a heightened risk of infection and re-infection if Mr. Patel is incarcerated. As such, I will spend some time addressing Mr. Patel’s health concerns.
[17] As a result of the collision:
a. Mr. Patel was in a coma.
b. He suffered shaft fractures in his left forearm
c. Mr. Patel sustained third-degree burns to 20% of his body and permanent injury to his hands, in particular, which are subject to a heightened risk of infection.
[18] A significant amount of documentation was provided to the Court in support of Mr. Patel’s medical condition. While I have reviewed the documentation in its entirety, I will refer to some of it here.
May 5, 2026: A letter was provided by Dr. Mohammed Rahman. He advises that Mr. Patel engaged in a surgical procedure to release multiple finger web spaces on the left hand and the repair of a boutonniere contracture of the right middle finger, which required stabilization with K-wire fixation. Mr. Patel is currently in the “early post-operative recovery phase”. In addition, Mr. Patel is experiencing significant pain, limited hand function, and reduced capacity to perform routine activities of daily life without assistance. Mr. Patel’s recovery was complicated by a bacterial infection which was identified in April 2026. Dr. Rahman advises that, “Mr. Patel remains at heightened risk for infection and delayed healing, as portions of vulnerable skin remain incompletely healed, with some areas still exposed post-operatively. Ongoing wound care, infection monitoring and activity restriction remain medically necessary.” He advised that Mr. Patel’s further recovery will “depend on complete wound healing” followed by “formal hand rehabilitation”. That will be required to restore movement, strength, and functional mobility. Dr. Rahman concluded his letter, advising, “It is medically necessary for Mr. Patel to have adequate time, support, and continuity of care to promote optimal healing and reduce the risk of post-surgical complications or setback.”
March 26, 2026: Dr. Mohammed Rahman advised that Mr. Patel has been under his care since 2009. He advises that because of the incident on August 1, 2022, Mr. Patel has experienced “complex, multi-system trauma”. On March 23, 2026, Mr. Patel underwent reconstructive surgery on both hands “to address functional impairments and deformities”. As a result, Mr. Patel is “experiencing substantial functional limitations, including pain, altered sensation, and severely restricted use of both hands for routine activities”. He is unable to address his personal hygiene (i.e., showering and toileting), eating, dressing, writing and other basic tasks. He also continues to experience pain. He has been prescribed hydromorphone and acetaminophen as needed for pain management. Post-surgical care is required, and ongoing, which Dr. Rahman submits is critical.
October 8, 2024: Dr. Rahman provided a letter confirming the injuries suffered by Mr. Patel. He provided more details about Mr. Patel’s care in the hospital, including the treatments that he received due to the extensive third-degree burns on various areas of his body, among others. Procedures performed on Mr. Patel included: escharotomy, open reduction and internal fixation of both forearms, and tracheostomy. Occiput to C3 vertebra instrumentation and fusion for atlanto-axial C1 subluxation and spinal cord injury required “lots of treatment”. Dr. Rahman observed that Mr. Patel’s “hands mobility has been impacted significantly”. He has limited neck mobility. Because of the “relentless aches and pains compounded by his limited ability to do many of his routine activities of daily living”, Mr. Patel has suffered “subclinical depression”. He requires occupational rehabilitation.
December 9, 2023: Dr. Rahman provided a letter regarding the injuries sustained by Mr. Patel in the incident. Based on a review of the clinical notes and medical records, he observed the following, among other things. After the incident, Mr. Patel was transported to hospital. His initial Glasgow Coma scan was 11 and deteriorated to 9 a little later. He needed a tracheostomy and intubation for breathing. Mr. Patel sustained injuries including, but not limited to, “complex multi-trauma with injury severity score more than 16”. His injuries included the following: fractures; third-degree burns to 20% of his body; and numerous contusions. He was hospitalized from August 2, 2022, to September 23, 2022, when he was transferred to St. John’s Rehab until his discharge in November 2022. He underwent several surgeries when hospitalized. He suffered vocal cord immobility requiring therapy from a Speech Language Pathologist. Dr. Rahman concluded this letter as follows:
In the span of over a year and more, his musculoskeletal and burn injuries resulted in extensive contracture deformities known as boutonniere deformity. It is causing him limited hand mobility and dexterity. His neck movements are also impaired. He has ongoing toes and fingers lesions due to severe burns injuries, fractures and persistent paronychia, and hence, he continues to suffer from pain and mobility difficulties.
Incessant agonies and impaired ability to do many of his routine daily activities have precipitated subclinical depression in him. Since the outset, he is experiencing ongoing excruciating disabling pain and discomfort. He requires supervision, assistance, support and close medical attention to go through his ongoing physical, emotional and psychological challenges.
September 13, 2023: A letter provided by St. John’s Rehab, Sunnybrook, reported on Mr. Patel’s medical status, subjective reports of pain, sleep and other symptoms. The summary of the report provides that Mr. Patel has made significant improvements in his upper and lower extremity strength, endurance and function. He “continues to be limited by bilateral hand contractures”. His neck ROM has been slow to progress because of a delay in the healing his wound. The report suggested that Mr. Patel had “generally plateaued” given his current medical intervention.
December 21, 2022: A letter provided by Karima Hassam, an occupational therapist, and Aly Kassam, a registered physiotherapist at St. John’s Rehab, Sunnybrook, to Aviva Insurance, confirmed the injuries suffered by Mr. Patel and the surgeries he underwent because of those injuries. The injuries were described as “extensive”: They include flame burns to 18% of his total body surface, including his right face, chest, bilateral upper extremities, right buttocks, right knee, and left shin. The letter advised that “Mr. Patel reported he is primarily concerned about the function of his bilateral hand”. The pain “appears to be well controlled by pain medications”. The letter also states that Mr. Patel experiences sharp pain in his neck intermittently; that he sleeps eight to 10 hours per night; and that he did not report any “significant concerns” affecting his sleep. It further states that Mr. Patel “reports psychosocial concerns post injury which include (not limited to): difficulty coping with injury, body image issues, and mood changes”. Mr. Patel advised that he lives with his family in a two-story home and “does not report any concern navigating stairs at home at this time”. He requires assistance with self-care, homemaking tasks, community activities, etc. He has not been able to participate in leisure activities, work, or attend school. His prognosis for return to pre-accident work and pre-accident level of function was described as “guarded”.
Community Support
[19] Several letters were filed on behalf of Mr. Patel. I have read them all in their entirety. However, I will summarize some of their content here.
Urmila Patel is Mr. Patel’s mother. She describes that her son and the family “fully understand the seriousness [of] and devastation” caused by her son’s actions which resulted in the loss of Mr. Logeswaran’s life and serious injuries being sustained by Mr. Thavendran. Everyone, including her son, is heartbroken. She advises that the family remains committed to supporting her son emotionally, physically and financially as he continues to rebuild his life. They have remained by his side throughout his medical treatments, surgeries, rehabilitation, and counseling.
Ramesh Patel is Mr. Patel’s father. He describes that the entire family shares the sorrow of the consequences of his son’s conduct. The family does not minimize the seriousness of the incident. He describes his son as kind and compassionate. He “cares deeply, listens intently, and carries an empathy that feels rare in today’s world”. He has witnessed genuine remorse from his son. He describes that his son’s “grief over the harm caused is sincere, and it weighs heavily on him every day. He understands the gravity of what happened. He thinks about it constantly”. He says that it is difficult for him to watch, but it reminds him of the depth of his son’s character. His son has taken responsibility and “wants to make amends in any way he can”. He does not wish to excuse what happened but wants the court to understand that his son is “compassionate, resilient, and fundamentally good”.
Sraiya Patel is Mr. Patel’s eldest sister. She describes that her commitment to her brother is unwavering. Although she recognizes that he will never fully recover the physical abilities he once had, she will support him. She describes that the third-degree burns have changed his life forever. She observes that the remorse that her brother carries for Mr. Logeswaran’s family and his friend “run deeper than anything I have ever seen in him. It is a weight he wakes up with and goes to sleep with”.
Rushita Patel is also a sister. She describes that since this tragedy; her brother’s life has changed permanently. He suffered severe and life-altering injuries. There is not a moment that passes when he does not think of what he did. The remorse is “bone deep, and it is real”.
Siddarth Patel is a brother-in-law. He was one of the first people to see Mr. Patel when he awoke from his coma. He will never forget the “confusion and fear in [Mr. Patel’s] eyes”. He says that Mr. Patel was broken when he learned of the consequences of his conduct. Mr. Patel has told him many times that he wishes it had been him that passed away that night. He adds, “He carries that guilt with him every single day.”
Neel Patel is also a brother-in-law. He describes the deep bond that Mr. Patel shares with his sister. She cares for him like a mother. He has personally witnessed Mr. Patel’s “kind heart, compassionate nature, and his consistent effort to put others before himself”. He has witnessed the “physical, emotional and mental struggles” that Mr. Patel has endured. He lives with pain and grief daily. The “toll of this experience” has affected “every aspect of his life”.
Amit Patel is an uncle. He describes that Mr. Patel has approached recovery with “focus and determination”. He attends appointments, follows treatment plans, and has maintained a positive attitude. He is curious and analytical, which bodes well for his interest in IT studies. He describes that Mr. Patel has “become a source of support for his family, even while he is still healing himself”.
Apexa Patel is a sister-in-law. She observed that Mr. Patel has had to relearn even basic skills such as eating on his own. He has maintained a positive attitude through his ups and downs.
Ashwin Patel is an uncle. He describes Mr. Patel as a “polite, kind and thoughtful young man”. Despite his injuries, Mr. Patel does not complain. He is determined and resilient. That is inspiring. Like other family members, he will be there to support Mr. Patel in the future.
Anita Patel is an aunt. She advises that Mr. Patel has been deeply changed by this incident. He is upset and sorry. He wishes he could change that day. She, too, will support him in the future.
Parth Patel is a family friend. He describes that Mr. Patel has been hardworking and wishes to build something stable for himself. Despite his obligations, he made time to “give back” and “stay grounded in the community”. He shows up for others. Mr. Patel has his support as he moves forward. The incident has been heartbreaking to watch.
Ruhi Momin is a family friend. He describes that he has watched Mr. Patel grow into a “lovely young man”. He is “respectful, kind and a caring person”. He shows consideration for others. This incident, he says, is completely out of character. It has had a significant impact on him both physically and emotionally.
Christa Duraisamy is a family friend. She describes that Mr. Patel has been the “heartbeat” of hospitality. At functions, he ensures that all are looked after, and it comes naturally. He has a nurturing instinct. Mr. Patel is deeply regretful for his actions and has “not shied away from the gravity of what has happened”. However, he is in a “vulnerable state of healing”. He will grow from this and she will be there for him.
Nisha Duraisamy is a family friend. She describes that Mr. Patel “never fails to make sure those around him feel his love and support”. The incident has had a significant effect on Mr. Patel both physically and emotionally. She states that Mr. Patel “genuinely has a heart of gold”. She will continue to support him.
Shishanth Jeyandran is a friend. He describes Mr. Patel as someone who “genuinely cares about the people around him and is always willing to help others, even when he is struggling himself”. He shows up for people. He knows that Mr. Patel wishes to move forward in a positive direction.
Rumesh Ratnewswaran is a friend. He describes Mr. Patel as a “constant and meaningful” presence in his life. He advises that Mr. Patel has expressed deep remorse and taken responsibility. He has acknowledged his mistakes. Mr. Patel wishes to give back to his community.
Meagen Black is a registered psychotherapist. She advised that Mr. Patel has reported “difficulty sleeping, increased anxiety, shame, disappointment and feelings of regret and worry”. He has engaged actively and consistently in counseling. She believes that he is capable of “continued growth and positive contribution to society”.
Aaliyah Hoo Kim-Baker is a nurse practitioner. She oversaw the home care for Mr. Patel during two periods of time. She observed that he was dedicated to recovery, as was his family. She describes that his life has been altered in every respect and that his “future independence remains unknown at this time”.
Karima Hassam is an occupational therapist (physiotherapist) who has worked with Mr. Patel. He advised, “Throughout his treatment, Mr. Patel demonstrated motivation, cooperation, and engagement in therapy.” He set appropriate goals and worked toward them. There were no behavioral concerns or issues observed. He maintained a positive rapport with all staff. He was kind and respectful.
Remorse
[20] Mr. Patel has expressed significant remorse in a letter he provided to the Court and which he read during the sentencing proceeding. He takes full responsibility for his offences. He understands the seriousness of them, and there is not a single day that he does not think about the incident. He states, “I deeply regret the passing of Mr. Logeswaran and the unimaginable grief, and suffering caused” to his “family and loved ones,” He also deeply regrets the injuries suffered by Mr. Thavendran, who was not only involved in “this tragedy” but was his childhood best friend. He states, “I will continue to carry the weight of this tragedy and the responsibility for my actions for the rest of my life. I take full responsibility for what happened and understand that my choices affected many lives.” His remorse is “immense”.
[21] Mr. Patel finished his address with the following:
There is not a single day when I don’t think about Mr. Logeswaran and the life that was lost because of my actions. His absence weighs on me constantly. I have carried a painful wish in my heart since that night, that it had been me instead. I would give anything to change places with him. That feeling has never left me, and I know it never will. His loss is something I will carry for the rest of my life.
Sentencing Principles and Objectives
General Principles
[22] In considering the imposition of the appropriate sentence, I must consider the purposes of sentencing set out in s. 718 and the principles contained in ss. 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. The principles of denunciation and deterrence are the primary purposes to be considered when sentencing a defendant for impaired driving. However, rehabilitation cannot be ignored.
[23] Denunciation addresses the principle that a sentence should condemn the defendant’s conduct.
[24] The principle of general deterrence is intended to discourage would-be offenders from committing similar crimes. Applied in the context of this case, the sentence I impose is meant to deter drunk drivers from getting into a motor vehicle with the potential of causing serious harm or death.[1] Unfortunately, these offences are often committed by otherwise law-abiding persons, with good employment records and families. Fortunately, this usually means that those persons are most likely to be deterred by the threat of severe penalties.[2]
[25] Rehabilitation is particularly important due to Mr. Patel’s young age and his prospects for being a pro-social member of our society.[3] As stated by our Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lacasse, “One of the main objectives of Canadian criminal law is the rehabilitation of offenders. Rehabilitation is one of the fundamental moral values that distinguish Canadian society from the societies of many other nations in the world, and it helps the courts impose sentences that are just and appropriate”.[4] Further, the “objective of rehabilitation is designed to reform offenders with a view to their reintegration into society so that they can become law-abiding citizens”[5]. By offenders improving themselves, society is better protected.
Proportionality
[26] A further consideration is that all sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender as set out in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code.
a. Gravity of the Offence
[27] Proportionality considers the seriousness of the crime and the gravity of the offences. There is no question that driving impaired is a serious crime that has been addressed as such for decades. The Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. Bernshaw (thirty years ago), as follows:
Every year, drunk driving leaves a terrible trail of death, injury, heartbreak and destruction. … In terms of the deaths and serious injuries resulting in hospitalization, drunk driving is clearly the crime which causes [a] significant social loss to the country.[6]
[28] Despite the observations of the Supreme Court of Canada, thirty years ago, and those made by other courts thereafter, drunk driving and the devastation it causes continues to be a drastic problem for our community.
[29] As Crosbie J. stated most recently in R. v. Lehouillier (a case where she imposed an eight-year sentence on a 19-year-old who drove impaired and killed three children), “Each year, drunk drivers cause tremendous suffering and loss of life on Canada’s roadways. Tragically, despite numerous measures meant to prevent this crime from happening, drinking and driving offences remain one of the most common crimes in Canada. The problem continues to demonstrate its intractability”.[7]
[30] There is no question that the gravity of these two offences is serious. Mr. Patel got behind the wheel of his father’s Mercedes. He was impaired when he did so. He was traveling on a roadway (Steeles Avenue) with other drivers on it and a passenger at his side. It is estimated that he was driving at a speed almost double the speed limit. He made a dangerous decision (impaired or not) to go into the left-hand lane to pass another vehicle at the crest of a hill. He put members of our community at risk when he did so. Most importantly, however, he killed a driver who was abiding by the rules of the road. He injured his passenger who had no control, at that point, over Mr. Patel’s dangerous conduct. He injured himself, impacting his own life. By committing these crimes, he devastated the communities of Mr. Logeswaran, Mr. Thavendran, witnesses to the offences and his own.
b. Degree of Responsibility of the Offender
[31] In addressing responsibility, it is only the defendant who is responsible when considering cases of drunk driving. It is the drunk driver that decides to get behind the wheel when impaired. It is a choice. It is only he or she who makes that choice and such defendants must be held accountable.
[32] Again, as Crosbie J. stated in Lehouillier, at para. 48:
The moral blameworthiness of drunk driving does not lie only in the consequences …. Even when there is no death or injury caused by a drunk driver it is only a matter of luck. Every drunk driver is a potential killer. While consequences matter, the conduct to be deterred – the action society condemns – is getting behind the wheel when one's ability to drive is impaired.
[33] It was Mr. Patel who decided to consume alcohol. It was Mr. Patel who decided to drive while impaired. It was Mr. Patel who drove over the posted speed limit. It was Mr. Patel who drove into the oncoming lane at the crest of a hill—which is dangerous, even when not impaired. The sole responsibility for his crimes and resulting devastation lies with Mr. Patel and only Mr. Patel.
Parity
[34] Sentencing judges must also consider the principle of parity: similar offenders who commit similar offences in similar circumstances should receive similar sentences, pursuant to s. 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code.[8] Because of the variability of these offences, the court has not established a rigid sentencing range. Prior decisions serve as “guides rather than hard constraints”. Precedents assist in assessing whether a sentence is proportionate in light of comparable cases.[9]
[35] I have been referred to cases by both counsel. I do not intend to refer to each case in detail, but I have considered them all. I will address some of the cases that I find useful in coming to my conclusion.
[36] In R. v. Lacasse, Mr. Lacasse lost control of the vehicle he was driving when entering a curve on a country road. He was speeding (130 km/hr. in a recommended 75 km/hr. zone). His ability to drive was impaired by alcohol. Two passengers sitting in his back seat died instantly. Mr. Lacasse pleaded guilty to two counts of impaired driving causing death. Mr. Lacasse was deeply distressed following the incident. He had become suicidal, wishing he had died rather than the victims. He was 20 years of age, living with his parents and working in his family’s business. He did not have a criminal record but had been convicted of offences committed contrary to the Highway Safety Code.[10] The Supreme Court of Canada restored the sentence imposed by the trial judge: six years and six months’ imprisonment, finding that it was not disproportionate.
[37] In Lacasse (decided in 2015), the Court observed, at para. 70:
Terms of imprisonment of six years or more have in fact been imposed on people without criminal records who were convicted of impaired driving causing death. For example, in Kummer, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld an eight-year prison sentence imposed on a driver with no criminal record who had caused the deaths of three people while driving under the influence of alcohol. … In Morneau, the Quebec Court of Appeal upheld a six-year term of imprisonment on a charge of impaired driving causing the death of one person.
[38] In the case of R. v. Altiman,[11] decided in 2019, Mr. Altiman was involved in a marriage that was under stress. He turned to alcohol to solve his problems. After a baseball game and socializing, he got into his van and drove while impaired at a high rate of speed. While traveling at 187 km/hr., he ran a red light and smashed into a vehicle. The vehicle he hit flipped, spun, and slammed into a hydro pole. Two of the passengers in that vehicle died. The driver and another passenger survived but were seriously injured. Mr. Altiman kept driving until he hit the porch of a home, crushing his vehicle and causing a fire. Mr. Altiman was an Aboriginal offender which required consideration of Gladue principles.[12] He had no criminal record and no history of Highway Traffic Act[13] offences. He wanted to enter a “guilty plea from day one”. He showed extreme remorse, and he was relatively young (31) at the time of the offences. He was of good character, a hard worker, and a father of three. The Court of Appeal reduced his sentence from 10 years’ imprisonment to seven years’ imprisonment.
[39] The Court, in Altiman, observed that in the decade prior to 2019, the “sentences for impaired driving causing death typically have fallen in the four to six-year range where the offender has no prior criminal or driving record”.[14]
[40] Most recently in July 2026, our Ontario Court of Appeal decided the case of R. v. Hayatibahar.[15] It upheld a sentence of nine years imposed on a first offender (age 19 at the time) who drove impaired. He had a significantly high BAC (170 mgs of alcohol in 100 mls of blood) and was driving at speeds reaching 170 km/hr. He lost control and swerved into oncoming traffic. His driving resulted in one death and bodily harm to three others.
[41] The reason for the increase in sentences for driving while impaired was aptly addressed by Boswell J., in R. v. Fracassi, where he stated as follows:
The reality is that the message about the dangers of impaired driving has been repeated, loudly and clearly, for decades now. For those who continue to ignore a message they have heard for most of their lives, moral blameworthiness has increased, just as societal tolerance is decreased.[16]
[42] Most of the cases provided by Counsel for Mr. Patel in support of his position of a conditional sentence predate Lacasse and Altiman and were decided before the range of sentences for these types of offences was increased. The cases provided supported a range of two years less a day up to five years’ imprisonment.[17]
[43] One of the cases relied upon, and which postdates 2015 — the year Lacasse was decided — is R. v. Eden,[18] decided in 2021. Ms. Eden appealed convictions for impaired operation causing death, impaired operation causing bodily harm, and failing to remain. She received a global sentence of five years. She was operating her mother’s vehicle when she collided with a vehicle ahead of her that was stopped at an intersection. Her vehicle careened into the opposite lane and struck a motorcycle traveling in the opposite direction. The driver of the motorcycle died, and his passenger was seriously injured. The Court of Appeal held that the “sentence imposed by the trial judge was entirely warranted by the facts of the case and [her] prior driving record.”[19]
[44] Situating an offender such as Mr. Patel in his proper place among the precedents is fact-specific and an inexact science. As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Lacasse, “Sentencing ranges are nothing more than summaries of the minimum and maximum sentences imposed in the past, which serve in any given case as guides for the application of all the relevant principles and objectives.”[20] However, my review of the case law would suggest that the range of sentence begins with a sentence in the penitentiary.
Analysis
[45] In considering the appropriate sentence for Mr. Patel, I find the following to be the aggravating factors:
i. Although no victim impact statements were provided, the impact must have been significant and traumatizing. One person died. Mr. Patel’s passenger was significantly injured. The civilians who were on scene were exceptionally brave in the circumstances. They witnessed a horrid tragedy.
ii. The driving conduct was exceptionally dangerous. There were multiple elements of dangerousness that cumulatively made the consequences foreseeable. Mr. Patel was speeding well over the limit (120 to 130 km/hr. in a 60 km/hr. zone) so that Mr. Patel was going twice the recommended speed limit, at least.
iii. Mr. Patel was totally responsible for the incident. There is no evidence that Mr. Logeswaran was driving over the speed limit or otherwise inappropriately (i.e., he was driving in his own lane).
iv. There were other vehicles in the area at the time. Others had to swerve to avoid the collision. Mr. Patel would have known there were other vehicles in the area at the time as he was passing other vehicles on the road.
v. There was one lane going westbound and another going eastbound. Mr. Patel was swerving in and out of his own lane prior to the collision. This was not a momentary lapse in judgement. It was a prolonged display of criminally negligent driving while impaired.
vi. Mr. Patel pulled into an oncoming lane at the crest of the hill and again, the dangers of doing so would have been obvious. Mr. Patel’s actions showed a total disregard for other users of the road.
vii. The fire that this collision caused was significant. Many first responders were required, including several responding units and other emergency personnel to put it out.
viii. Other civilians were required to remove Mr. Patel and Mr. Thavendran from the Mercedes. One cannot underestimate the trauma that this could and would likely have caused.
ix. Mr. Patel has entries on his driving record for speeding, disobeying a legal sign, and failure to produce his license. These infractions show a disregard for the rules that govern those who have the privilege of driving.
[46] Mr. Patel has received administrative suspensions for “racing contest or stunt” driving (2020) and a second one for “.05 BAC warn range” (2021). While I do not consider these to be aggravating factors (they are not convictions), I have considered them. These two incidents provided a warning to Mr. Patel that there are consequences for driving after having consumed alcohol and speeding. Neither administrative warning deterred him from consuming alcohol and then driving or speeding, both of which gave rise to the criminal conduct supporting these convictions.[21]
[47] In considering the appropriate sentence, the following are the mitigating factors:
i. Mr. Patel entered a guilty plea for the offences, although it was on the eve of trial. While a plea entered at the last minute does not deserve as much credit as one entered promptly, court time and resources were saved: a total of five to six weeks of trial time.[22]
ii. The witnesses did not have to testify about the incident. Many civilians testified at the preliminary hearing. They were not required to testify a second time, including Mr. Thavendran, Mr. Patel’s lifelong friend.
iii. Mr. Patel gave up his right to advance Charter applications regarding his right to counsel and privacy issues regarding possible violations of ss. 8, 9 and 10(b) of the Charter.
iv. There were triable issues with respect to the BAC sample. The evidence about the extent of Mr. Patel’s impairment was uncertain and was resolved because of the plea.
v. Mr. Patel is youthful. He was 22 years of age at the time of the offences and is now only 25 years of age.
vi. Mr. Patel is a first generation Canadian. His parents came to Canada from India. They have worked tirelessly to ensure that their children had the necessities of life. Despite their financial limitations, Mr. Patel was encouraged to participate in extracurricular activities, and he did so.
vii. Despite learning challenges, Mr. Patel graduated from high school and wishes to attend college.
viii. Mr. Patel has the support of his community, particularly his family.
ix. Mr. Patel has no prior criminal record.
x. Mr. Patel is a pro-social member of our community. He is always willing to lend a helping hand to family, at his Temple, and his community.
xi. Mr. Patel had researched how to start up a mobile and detailing business. This led him to work at the car dealership. However, because of his injuries, he may not be able to return to his passion.
xii. There is a realistic possibility that Mr. Patel will not be able to drive due to the injuries to his hands.
xiii. The impact of this incident has been significant, both physically and mentally. This is obvious from the medical documentation and the content of Mr. Patel’s letter, which he read into the Court’s record.
xiv. Mr. Patel has expressed remorse to the victims of his crimes, and to members of his and their communities. He regrets the incident every single day and the role he played in it. He is carrying the burden of his acts.
xv. Mr. Patel has suffered psychologically and has engaged in counseling with a view to working through his depression and the overwhelming sense of grief and remorse.
xvi. The medical records amply support the physical challenges Mr. Patel deals with daily. He has trouble with even the most basic tasks. He is completely dependent on his inner circle of caregivers for things such as dressing himself. It is medically demonstrated that there is a significant risk of re-infection.
[48] Counsel for Mr. Patel submits that a sentence of two years less one day to be served in the community is warranted due to the circumstances of these offences, including Mr. Patel’s medical conditions and rehabilitative potential. It is agreed that Mr. Patel’s injuries are significant and life altering. In addition to the physical impact, there has been a psychological one as well. He is taking steps to deal with both and will likely be a pro-social member of our society.
[49] Mr. Patel’s medical condition is properly considered a collateral consequence suffered by him. It is a consequence that has arisen from the commission of the offence that impacts Mr. Patel. Collateral consequences are not necessarily “aggravating” or “mitigating” factors as they do not relate to the gravity of the offence or level of responsibility of the offender. However, they do speak about Mr. Patel’s personal circumstances.[23]
[50] I am mindful of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Suter. The Court held that where “the consequence is so directly linked to the nature of an offence as to be almost inevitable, its role as a mitigating factor is greatly diminished”.[24]
[51] I have taken Mr. Patel’s medical condition into consideration and the difficulties he will face while incarcerated. There is no question that serving his sentence is rendered more difficult because of his medical condition. As such, any sentence imposed will have a “more significant impact” on Mr. Patel because of his circumstances.[25] As the medical records support, he is at risk of infection, among other things.
[52] There is nothing to suggest that Mr. Patel will not get the medical care he requires while incarcerated from the institutions themselves.[26] As stated by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Hanse, “[T]here are sufficient medical facilities within the penitentiary that can treat him. We are not persuaded that the level of care provided by these facilities are, by virtue of operating in a penitentiary setting, below that which would be provided in the community”.[27]
[53] I have also considered that Mr. Patel is a youthful offender with no criminal record. His prospects for rehabilitation are significant. This is Mr. Patel’s first sentence of incarceration. In coming to my conclusion about the appropriate sentence, I am cognizant of the principle of restraint where a custodial sentence is appropriate, as set out in R. v. Priest, at p. 545:[28]
[I]t is a well-established principle of sentencing laid down by this court that a first sentence of imprisonment should be as short as possible and tailored to the individual circumstances of the accused rather than solely for the purpose of general deterrence.
[54] In reaching my conclusion about a fit sentence, I am also mindful of the fact that this is Mr. Patel’s first visit to the penitentiary (or jail of any kind) and of the direction of Rosenberg J.A. in R. v. Borde,[29] that a “first penitentiary sentence should be as short as possible”.
[55] I have considered the imposition of a conditional sentence order of two years less one day, pursuant to s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code. I am satisfied that if such a sentence were imposed, the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community. However, I am not satisfied that such a sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. Such a sentence would not properly address the principles of denunciation and deterrence. A penetentiary sentence is required to reflect the gravity of the offences and Mr. Patel’s high degree of moral blameworthiness.[30]
[56] It is my view that when considering the circumstances and consequences of the crimes committed, together with the jurisprudence and the considerations set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code, a fit and proportional sentence is one of six years’ imprisonment. Such a sentence reflects the high degree of moral culpability of Mr. Patel and serves the sentencing purposes of deterrence and denunciation. It takes into acount Mr. Patel’s, youth, lack of criminal record, current medical condition and his prospects for rehabilitation.
The Driving Prohibition
[57] Mr. Patel has been convicted of offences committed contrary to ss. 320.14(2) and 320.14(3) of the Criminal Code and therefore is liable to imprisonment for life. As such, pursuant to ss. 320.24(4) and 320.24(5) of the Criminal Code, the court may make an order prohibiting him from driving for “a duration that the court considers appropriate, plus the entire period to which the offender is sentenced to imprisonment”.
[58] I have considered the dangerous nature of Mr. Patel’s driving, including the vehicle’s speed and Mr. Patel’s impairment. I am satisfied that a driving prohibition of five years is warranted following the completion of his term of imprisonment.
Conclusion
[59] Mr. Patel will be sentenced to six years’ imprisonment as follows:
a. Impaired driving cause death: Six years’ imprisonment and a driving prohibition of five years, commencing at the completion of his sentence of imprisonment.
b. Impaired driving cause bodily harm: four years concurrent.
[60] Mr. Patel will be required to provide a sample of his DNA.
___________________________
Kelly J.
Released: August 5, 2026
CITATION: R. v. Patel, 2026 ONSC 3521
COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-30000771-0000
DATE: 20260805
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and -
rahil patel
Reasons for sentence
Kelly J.
Released: August 5, 2026
1R. v. Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23, [2022] 1 S.C.R. 597, at para. 47, citing R. v. B.W.P., 2006 SCC 27, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 941, at para. 2.
2R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 73.
3R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830, 99 C.R. (7th) 110, at paras. 34-36; R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, [2021] 3 S.C.R. 366, at para. 45.
61995 CanLII 150 (SCC), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254, at para. 16.
7R. v. Lehouillier, 2026 ONCJ 280, at para. 46; see also R. v. Kummer, 2011 ONCA 39, 103 O.R. (3d) 641, at para. 15.
8R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, [2020] 1 S.C.R. 424, at paras. 30-33; R. v. Pearce, 2021 ONCA 239, 71 C.R. (7th) 328, at paras. 17-18; R. v. Courtney, 2012 ONCA 478, 294 O.A.C. 346, at para. 4.
9R. v. Robertson, 2023 ONCA 281, at para. 53
112019 ONCA 511, 56 C.R. (7th) 83.
12R. v. Gladue, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688.
142019 ONCA 511, at para. 107.
17R. v. Munro, [2005] O.J. No. 3431; R. v. Gibson, 2015 ABCA 41, 593 A.R. 380; R. v. McCormick, 2006 ABCA 410, 401 A.R. 119; R. v. Rabolt, 2009 CanLII 50213; R. v. Boxall, 2009 ABPC 275, 89 M.V.R. (5th) 238; R. v. Brisson, [2003] O.J. No. 6216, aff’d, 2006 CanLII 18352 (ON CA), 211 O.A.C. 198 (C.A.); R. v. LaChappelle, [2005] O.J. No. 4248, aff’d 2007 ONCA 655, 226 C.C.C. (3d) 518, leave to appeal refused, [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 584; R. v. Blakely (1998), 1998 CanLII 6218 (ON CA), 40 O.R. (3d) 541 (C.A.); R. v. Godfree, 2000 CanLII 16864 (ON CA), 136 O.A.C. 49 (C.A.); R. v. Morin-Leblanc, 2014 ONSC 2056; R. v. Thistle, 2015 NLTD(G) 44, 365 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 16; R. v. Junkert, 2010 ONCA 549, 103 O.R. (3d) 284; R. v. Ramage, 2010 ONCA 488, 257 C.C.C. (3d) 261.
182021 ONCA 733, 80 M.V.R. (7th) 185.
21R. v. Andrew-Somers, 2021 ONCJ 227, 81 M.V.R. (7th) 122, at paras. 27-28.
23R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, 2018 S.C.C. 34, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 496, at paras. 47-48.
26See: Commissioner’s Directive 800: Health Services from the Government of Canada, describing that offenders are to be provided with “efficient, effective health services”.
27R. v. Hanse, 2022 ONCA 843, at para. 52.
28(1996), 1996 CanLII 1381 (ON CA), 30 O.R. (3d) 538 (C.A.).
29(2003), 2003 CanLII 4187 (ON CA), 63 O.R. (3d) 417 (C.A.), at para. 3; see also R. v. Hoang, 2024 ONCA 361, 172 O.R. (3d) 97, at para. 78, leave to appeal refused, [2024] S.C.C.A. No. 221.