R v. Chan, Joanne, 2026 ONSC 581

CITATION: R v. Chan, Joanne, 2026 ONSC 581

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-91102819-0000

DATE: 2026-01-29

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

JOANNE CHAN

Defendant

Thompson Hamilton, Crown Counsel

Ravi Sahota, Counsel, for the Defendant

HEARD: December 18, 2025

J. Speyer, j.

reasons for sentence

A. Introduction

1On a clear, cold, and bright sunny day in January 2023, shortly before 2:30 p.m., Jason Malik was driving his 75 years old mother, Zarina Malik, home from the hospital. They did not make it home that day. In the blink of an eye, their routine drive became a tragedy. A vehicle driven by Ms. Chan ran a red light and collided with the Malik vehicle. Zarina Malik died because of injuries she sustained during the collision. Mr. Malik was also injured.

2The roads were bare and dry. The Maliks were driving westbound on Bur Oak Drive. As they approached the intersection of Bur Oak Drive and McCowan Road, the light controlling their entry into the intersection was green. A couple of cars had proceeded before them through the intersection. As the Malik vehicle crossed the southbound lanes of McCowan Road, it was struck on the passenger side by the vehicle driven by Joanne Chan. Ms. Chan had driven at 80 kilometres per hour though the red light that directed her to stop.

3Ms. Chan was convicted, following her trial before a jury, of dangerous operation of her motor vehicle causing death.

4The sentence that I impose today cannot undo the terrible consequences of Ms. Chan’s driving behaviour. But it can reiterate the message sent by Parliament years ago, and articulated repeatedly since then by courts across the country. Dangerous driving threatens the safety of all users of our roadways. It is a serious crime. It ordinarily warrants a significant term of imprisonment, particularly where death is caused,.

B. The facts

5Section 724(2) of the Criminal Code provides that where the court is composed of a judge and jury, the sentencing judge shall accept as proven all facts, express or implied, that are essential to the jury’s verdict of guilty and may find any other relevant fact that was disclosed by the evidence at the trial to be proven. Any aggravating facts must be proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The sentencing judge may not find as a fact anything rejected by the jury: R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, 2008 SCC 96, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 96, at paras. 17-18: R. v. Roncaiolo, 2011 ONCA 378, at para. 59; R. v. Moreira, 2021 ONCA 507, at paras. 45-47; R. v. Aragon, 2022 ONCA 244, at paras. 104-107.

6The facts essential to the jury’s verdict are: 1) that Ms. Chan operated a conveyance; 2) that Ms. Chan operated the conveyance in a manner that was dangerous to the public, 3) that Ms. Chan operated the conveyance in a manner that was a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances; and, 4) that Ms. Chan’s operation of her conveyance caused Zarina Malik’s death.

7In addition to those basic facts, I find the following facts to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

8Bur Oak Drive is four lanes wide, with two lanes proceeding in each direction, eastbound and westbound. McCowan Road is also four lanes wide, with two lanes proceeding in each direction, northbound and southbound. They intersect in a residential area of Markham that also includes some commercial premises. The intersection is controlled by traffic lights. Traffic that is southbound on McCowan Road is controlled by two traffic lights – one suspended over each of the southbound lanes.

9The traffic lights were operating properly on January 14, 2023. When it was time for the traffic on McCowan to stop, the lights for traffic on McCowan displayed amber for 4.5 seconds, then the lights for all directions displayed red for 2.5 seconds, and then the lights for traffic on Bur Oak turned green. While there was some snow on the lights for southbound McCowan traffic, the colour of the lights is visible in Ms. Chan’s dashcam recording and was visible to the many other drivers.

10The lights for southbound traffic on McCowan showed amber or red for at least 14 seconds before the Chan vehicle collided with the Malik vehicle. The dash cam recordings show that east/west traffic on Bur Oak was proceeding through the intersection on their green light as Ms. Chan approached the intersection. One vehicle crossed the intersection in each direction before the Malik vehicle entered the intersection. During that time, Ms. Chan did not apply her brakes, did not slow down, and did not apply any steering input to her vehicle.

11The roads were bare and dry. There was a little snow on the side of the road. Road markings were visible. The steering and braking functions of vehicles were not affected by environmental factors.

12The speed limit on McCowan Road in that area is 60 kilometres per hour. McCowan Road is a main thoroughfare to get to downtown Markham.

13There is no doubt about the way Ms. Chan drove her vehicle at the time of the collision and during the several minutes before the collision. She had a dash cam in her vehicle, and the recording was made an exhibit at the trial. Another vehicle’s dash cam recording was also made an exhibit at the trial. My findings of fact are based on those recordings, and on data obtained from the airbag control module of Ms. Chan’s vehicle.

14I find that Ms. Chan was driving aggressively during the three minutes before the collision that were recorded by her dash cam. Whether that was because she was in a rush, or whether that was how she typically drove, I do not know. She passed other vehicles, using both the left and right lanes to pass. Her vehicle was equipped with a proximity warning beeper that can be heard as she made lane changes, indicating that she was too close to other vehicles to safely change lanes. When she approached a light to make a left turn, she stopped her vehicle so close to another vehicle that stopped ahead of her waiting for the intersection to clear before making the left turn that her proximity warning beeper sounded. She made her left turn and proceeded directly into the right-hand lane to pass the van that was in the left lane in front of her. The sound of her engine accelerating was clearly audible during this manoeuvre. Had anything been blocking the lane into which she abruptly moved, such as a garbage truck, school bus, or construction worker, she would not have seen the obstruction in time to stop. She passed more vehicles as she drove southbound on McCowan Road. During the five seconds before the collision, as Ms. Chan approached the intersection, she was speeding, travelling between 79 and 82 kilometres per hour in the posted 60 kilometre per hour zone. It is not uncommon for drivers to travel at that speed in the area of the collision, but Ms. Chan was driving faster than the general flow of traffic and maintained her speed as she approached the busy intersection. There was no vehicle in front of Ms. Chan’s vehicle, and she had a clear view of the intersection. Ms. Chan did not apply her brakes until half a second before the collision. The red light and the cross traffic on Bur Oak were visible to Ms. Chan as she approached the intersection with a clear view of what was ahead of her. She did not see them or react to them in any way during a prolonged period of inattention.

15Zarina Malik died because of the injuries she sustained in the collision. Jason Malik testified that he suffered internal bleeding, renal trauma, and a bleeding kidney, and that he has recovered from those physical injuries after spending a couple of days in the hospital. I accept his evidence about the injuries he sustained.

16Ms. Chan had not consumed alcohol before the collision. She provided a sample of her breath into an approved screening device, which resulted in a “zero” reading.

C. The impact on the victims

17Ms. Malik’s family has been devastated by her death. She was the rock and foundation of her extended family – her husband, two sons, grand-daughter, sister, brother, nieces, nephews, and others. She was much loved. She has been described to me by her family as the unifying light of her family. She was caring, nurturing, loving, thoughtful and supportive. Her death did not take just one life – it changed the course of her extended family’s life in an enduring way.

18Jason Malik, who was driving the Malik vehicle, is not the same person he was before the collision. He has experienced a crushing sense of sadness, loss and guilt. He constantly experiences anxiety, anger, and depression. After the death of his mother, he became the sole caregiver for his elderly father, who was deeply impacted by the death of his wife. He died 19 months after the collision.

19Jonathan Malik’s existence was destroyed by the loss of his mother and his daughter’s grandmother. His emotional scars will never heal.

20Zarina Malik’s sister, Shamim Mahmood, lost her best friend, who supported her and consoled her when she underwent treatment for cancer, and who participated in bible study with her over the phone every night during the COVID pandemic. She describes the loss to her family as profound, permanent, and devastating. Zarina Malik’s brother was also deeply impacted.

D. Ms. Chan’s background

21Ms. Chan is 61 years old. She is a Canadian citizen. She is married. She has one child – a daughter who lives independently. Despite having achieved only a grade six education, that she completed in Hong Kong before being made to quit school and work to help support her family, she has worked since she came to Canada in 1989. Presently, she works part-time as a cleaner at her church.

22Ms. Chan has not been previously convicted of any criminal offence. Ms. Chan was found guilty of speeding four times, in 1995, 2010, 2012, and 2020. Her record for speeding is troubling, as it reflects an ongoing pattern and a failure to modify her driving behaviour.

23Ms. Chan has been a contributing member of the community, volunteering at senior citizens’ residences and at her church. She is heavily involved with volunteer work with her church as a choir singer, interpreter, registration assistant, fellowship leader and ministry planner. Members of the church congregation attended the trial and the sentencing hearing to support Ms. Chan.

24Ms. Chan is described by those who know her as kind, compassionate, caring, reliable, trustworthy, helpful, and committed to her community and her church. She has lived a life of service and integrity. I received, and have read, numerous letters of support for Ms. Chan.

25At the time of the collision, Ms. Chan was driving from a senior’s residence in Stouffville, where she looked after an elderly lady, to her church in Scarborough, where she was to participate in a singing group.

26Ms. Chan is remorseful. I accept her statement that she understands the grief and hardship caused by her actions. She has not driven since the collision and does not intend to drive again. She has experienced anxiety, depression, shame, guilt, insomnia, loss of appetite, and social withdrawal since the collision, and has been under the care of a psychologist.

E. The positions of the Crown and the defence

27On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Hamilton seeks a sentence of three years imprisonment. He also seeks a driving prohibition order for 15 years, a DNA order, and a s. 743.21 order of non-communication with the Malik family.

28Mr. Hamilton recognizes that there are mitigating factors, including that Ms. Chan has no criminal record and that she has been a contributing and pro-social member of the community for her entire adult life, but for her actions that bring her before the court. Denunciation and deterrence are the primary goals of sentencing in this case, although rehabilitation is important.

29On behalf of Ms. Chan, Mr. Sahota seeks a sentence of two years less a day, to be served conditionally, in the community, on terms of strict house arrest with few exceptions. Mr. Sahota does not oppose the imposition of the ancillary orders sought by the Crown. He submits that a conditional sentence would send a deterrent message to the community, would denounce Ms. Chan’s crime, and would allow Ms. Chan to continue to contribute to society.

F. The principles of sentencing

(a) General principles

30Sentencing is a highly discretionary, individualized exercise. There is no rigid formula applicable to the calculation of the appropriate sentence; rather judges must balance the unique factors particular to the offence and the offender in order to fix a sentence that best reflects the purpose, objectives, and principles of sentencing.

31The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society. To that end, sanctions for criminal behaviour can denounce criminal conduct, deter it both by deterring the particular offender before the court, and by generally deterring others who might choose to do the same thing, separate the offender from society where necessary, foster rehabilitation and promote a sense of responsibility in offenders: Criminal Code, s. 718.

32The paramount principle that governs sentencing is that sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender’s degree of responsibility in the unique circumstances of each case: Criminal Code, s. 718.1. In other words, the sentence must fit both the seriousness of the crime (including the harm it occasioned) and the offender's level of moral blameworthiness in its commission. “The goal in every case is a fair, fit and principled sanction”: R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at paras. 10, 12.

33The principles of parity and individualized sentencing also govern the imposition of a fit sentence, but they are secondary to the principle that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The parity principle, which is codified in s. 718.2 (b) of the Criminal Code requires that similar offenders who commit similar offences in similar circumstances should receive similar sentences. The parity principle helps courts to impose a proportionate sentence. Individualized sentencing also furthers the search for a proportionate sentence: Parranto, at paras. 11-12.

34Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code provides that a sentence should be increased or decreased to account for any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It sets out various aggravating factors. It also requires that a sentence be similar to those imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances, that the combination of consecutive sentences not be unduly long, that an offender not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances, and that all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or the community be considered.

35In every case, the determination of a fit sentence is a fact-specific exercise, not a purely mathematical calculation. The gravity of the offence, the offender’s degree of responsibility, the specific circumstances of the case, and the circumstances of the offender all must be taken into account by the sentencing judge. See R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at paras. 58 and 143.

(b) The offence of Dangerous Driving Causing Death

36The offence of which Ms. Chan has been convicted has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Before 2018, the maximum penalty was 14 years imprisonment. In 2018, Parliament amended the provisions of the Criminal Code that deal with driving offences, and raised the maximum penalty for the offence of which Ms. Chan was convicted, signalling that dangerous driving causing death is an offence of the utmost gravity. The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently confirmed that the increase to the maximum penalty signalled Parliament’s intention that sentences for dangerous driving causing death should increase: See R. v. Lojovic, 2025 ONCA 319, at paras. 63-5.

37In the preamble to the Bill, Parliament expressed its concern that dangerous driving and impaired driving injure or kill thousands of people in Canada every year; articulated that dangerous driving and impaired driving are always unacceptable and in all circumstances; and made clear its intention that the commission of offences relating to the operation of conveyances, particularly dangerous driving and impaired driving, be deterred. It is notable that the 2018 amendments equate the gravity of impaired driving, an offence the criminal nature of which has been fully appreciated by the public for many decades since penalties for such offences have increased, and dangerous driving, which must be treated as the criminal offence that it is, rather than as a mere driving violation: R. v. Georgopoulos, 2024 ONSC 5922, at paras. 24-31.

38A new statement of principles was added to the Code in s. 320.12, including that operating a conveyance is a privilege that is subject to limits in the interests of public safety, and that the protection of society is well-served by deterring persons from operating conveyances dangerously, because that conduct poses a threat to the life, health, and safety of Canadians.

G. Analysis

39Denunciation and deterrence are normally the primary goals in sentencing for dangerous driving cause death. See Lojovic, 2025 ONCA 319, at para. 65. The sentence I impose must condemn what Ms. Chan has done and send a warning message to others.

40In the present case, the sentence I impose must advance the need to denounce and generally deter dangerous operation of motor vehicles. I have no doubt that there is no need to impose a sentence that specifically deters Ms. Chan because she understands the enormity of the consequences of her actions and has voluntarily decided to never drive again. Similarly, I have no doubt that whatever sentence I impose will neither advance nor detract from Ms. Chan’s prospects of rehabilitation because the strong support provided by her faith community and her husband, together with her longstanding commitment to her faith and to her community, bode well for her rehabilitation.

41The circumstances of cases of dangerous driving cause death vary significantly. No two cases are alike. The sentence must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. While the Court of Appeal for Ontario has declined to identify a range of sentence for dangerous driving cause death, it has clarified that five years’ imprisonment is not the top of the range: Lojovic, at para. 64.

42Crown and defence counsel referred to numerous sentencing decisions in cases of dangerous driving cause death. I have reviewed all of them, and others, although I will not refer to each one of them. The sentences imposed for dangerous driving causing death range from conditional sentences, or mid-range reformatory sentences, at the low end, up to double-digit penitentiary terms at the high end. This is a very broad range. Where within the range a particular case lies depends on the circumstances of the particular offence, and those of the particular offender. In determining where within the range this case lies, I am guided by the Court of Appeal’s statement in R. v. Linden (2000), 2000 15854 (ON CA), 147 C.C.C. (3d) 299, [2000] O.J. No. 2789 (C.A.):

[T]he particular offence is very much driven by individual factors, especially the blameworthiness of the conduct. The more that the conduct tends toward demonstrating a deliberate endangerment of other users of the road and pedestrians, the more serious the offence and the more likely that a lengthy prison term will be required.

43In Lojovic, the Court of Appeal reduced a sentence for dangerous driving causing death to one of five years imprisonment, in addition to consecutive sentences for failing to remain causing death and breach of probation, for an offender who deliberately drove atrociously and dangerously for a sustained period of time, striking and causing the death of a pedestrian, while suffering from a mental health episode. Mr. Lojovic had two prior criminal convictions for serious driving offences. The gravity of Ms. Chan’s offence and her moral blameworthiness are much less than those that existed in Mr. Lojovic’s case.

44Very recently, in R. v. Hamilton, 2025 ONCA 887, the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of four years imprisonment imposed on a driver of an overweight commercial vehicle that was being driven above the speed limit on a residential street where he should not have been when he failed to stop at a stop sign and struck another car, killing the driver of that car. The Court of Appeal concluded, on an appeal by the accused, that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit. The gravity of Ms. Chan’s offence and her moral blameworthiness are less than those that existed in Mr. Hamilton’s case.

45In Georgopoulos, Molloy, J. imposed a sentence of two and a half years imprisonment for an offender convicted of dangerous driving cause bodily harm, in circumstances where the accused was showing off the power of his expensive new sports car by accelerating rapidly along the right side of a Toronto streetcar to pass it and ran out of room, crashing at a high rate of speed into a car parked in the curb lane. His passenger suffered permanent and catastrophic injuries. Mr. Georgopoulos had no criminal record, no relevant driving record, and a solid history of employment. He had a family and solid community support. Because Mr. Georgopoulos’s dangerous driving was deliberate conduct that he engaged in to show off his car, his moral blameworthiness was greater than Ms. Chan’s.

46However, the gravity of Ms. Chan’s offence cannot be understated. Her dangerous driving caused the death of a wonderful woman and devastated her many family members and others who have suffered a terrible loss. They will experience the effects of Ms. Chan’s criminal offence forever. The loss of Zarina Malek’s life is a loss to the community as a whole. Other aggravating features of this case include:

(i) the prolonged period of time during which Ms. Chan failed to recognize and react to the amber and then red light that was facing her, including her failure to see the cross-traffic proceeding east and westbound on Bur Oak;

(ii) Ms. Chan’s rushed and aggressive driving during the time preceding the collision;

(iii) Ms. Chan was speeding. Although her rate of speed was not unusual, it was faster than the flow of traffic, and she maintained her speed as she approached the intersection;

(iv) Ms. Chan has four prior findings of guilt for speeding infractions.

47Having regard to the gravity of Ms. Chan’s offence, a sentence of imprisonment in the penitentiary is necessary. However, having regard to Ms. Chan’s accumulated record of contributing to her community and genuine remorse, and taking into account the principle of restraint, I do not think that a sentence of three years imprisonment, as sought by the Crown, is required to denounce her offence or to generally deter others. The mitigating features of this case, that must be taken into account include:

(i) Ms. Chan’s otherwise prosocial life as a contributing member of the community, including her lifelong commitment to volunteering in her community;

(ii) Ms. Chan’s strong community support, and excellent rehabilitative prospects;

(iii) Ms. Chan’s remorse.

48An appropriate sentence, that balances the competing interests in this case, and takes into account the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, is a sentence of two years imprisonment.

49Had I determined that a sentence of less than two years was appropriate in this case, a conditional sentence, to be served in the community, would have been available. However, a conditional sentence would not be appropriate in this case. An actual custody sentence is necessary because of the nature and circumstances of this particular offence and the harm that was done, and to adequately address the need to denounce and deter dangerous driving.

50In addition to the custodial sentence, Ms. Chan is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle anywhere in Canada for a period of 15 years.

51I do not consider this to be an appropriate case for making a DNA order, notwithstanding that Ms. Chan does not oppose the making of such an Order.

52Finally, there will be an order pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code, prohibiting Ms. Chan from having contact with any member of the Malik family when she is serving her sentence.

The Honourable Justice J. Speyer

Released: January 29, 2026

CITATION: R v. Chan, Joanne, 2026 ONSC 581