CITATION: R. v. Hamilton, 2026 ONSC 3880

COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-10000063-00AP

DATE: 20260706

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

JAYDE HAMILTON

C. Chapin, for the Crown

Ms. Hamilton, self-represented

HEARD: 31 March 2026

S.A.Q. AKHTAR J.

On appeal from the sentence imposed on 22 August 2025 by Justice Lori Montague of the Ontario Court of Justice.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

Introduction

1On 22 August 2025, the respondent in this case, Jayde Hamilton was sentenced for the offence of impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm. The Crown ultimately submitted that the sentence should comprise a $1500 fine and the mandatory minimum driving prohibition lasting 12 months pursuant to s. 320.24 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46. Defence counsel agreed with the amount of the fine but asked the court not to impose the mandatory minimum sentence.

2The judge agreed with the amount of the fine but declined to impose the mandatory 12 month driving prohibition.

3The Crown appeals the sentence.

4At the end of submissions, I allowed the appeal and imposed a 12 month driving prohibition as mandated by s. 320.24 of the Criminal Code. These are my reasons for doing so.

Background Facts

5On 18 December 2022 at around 7:00 a.m., the respondent was involved in a collision on Highway 401 where her car veered into another lane and struck another motor vehicle. The other vehicle partially blocked a lane of traffic and several minutes later a third motor vehicle crashed into that car. The third driver suffered injuries including a broken foot and collapsed lung.

6The respondent was transported to hospital and blood samples were taken for medical purposes. Police obtained a production order to obtain the test results. These showed that the respondent's blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving was between 52 and 92 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.

7She was accordingly charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.14(2) of the Criminal Code.

8At trial, the defence argued that the respondent's s. 10(b) rights had been violated due to the failure of the police to allow her to call a lawyer at the roadside and, in addition, failure to make sufficient efforts to ensure the respondent could call a lawyer at the hospital before she was released.

9The judge found a section 10(b) breach but also found that the breach did not warrant a remedy under section 24(2) of the Charter. The judge ultimately found the respondent not guilty of impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm but convicted the respondent on the included offence of operation of a motor vehicle whilst impaired. The judge’s reasons show that the Crown had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent was responsible for the third driver's bodily harm finding that the third driver’s poor driving contributed significantly to the accident.

10At the sentencing hearing, the Crown asked for the imposition of a $1,500 fine and a 15-month driving prohibition. In response the defence agreed with the amount of the fine but argued that a driving prohibition should not be imposed. Counsel pointed to the respondent’s mitigating circumstances and rehabilitative potential, the Charter breach, and the administrative suspension to be imposed by the Ministry of Transportation which would come into effect irrespective of any criminal sanction imposed by the judge. As a response, the Crown amended its position and asked for a 12-month driving prohibition to be imposed.

11The judge acceded to the Crown's request for a $1,500 fine but declined to impose the mandatory minimum 12-month driving prohibition.

ANALYSIS

12Section 320.24 of the Criminal Code imposes a mandatory driving prohibition for a minimum of 12 months on any offender convicted of an impaired driving offence.

13A sentencing judge, absent any constitutional application, must impose the mandatory minimum driving prohibition imposed by that section. Not doing so, is an error of law: R. v. Sideen, 2024 SKKB 79, at para. 12; R. v. LeClaire, 2025 ONSC 4203, at paras. 26-27.

14The judge may not, after the 2018 Criminal Code amendments, reduce the prohibition period as a result of any mitigating factors or any pre-sentence conditions imposed on an offender. This includes the preventive driving effect of a provincial administrative suspension: R. v. Reid, 2026 ONSC 1342, at paras. 30-32.

15There was no application under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to have the section declared unconstitutional. Here, as described, counsel simply relied upon the respondents' personal circumstances and the administrative suspension, which counsel said would already operate as a prohibition. The judge wrongly accepted this argument: it was not open to her to ignore the statutory sections of the Criminal Code.

16Having reviewed the judges' reasons, I agree with the appellant that they fail to disclose any meaningful basis for why the statutory section to which the judge was bound was ignored. She simply noted that she did not “feel it necessary”. I also note ironically that the judge's error in failing to follow the law had no real effect in any event because the administrative suspension would operate to preclude the respondent from driving.

17For these reasons the appeal is allowed and a 12-month driving prohibition is imposed upon the respondent.

S.A.Q. Akhtar J.

Released: 6 July 2026

CITATION: R. v. Hamilton, 2026 ONSC 3880