R v Wang – 2019-Feb-01 – Unreported, Crewe J

Mr. Wang was driving westbound on Highway 401 sometime after 5:30 a.m. on September 9, 2016, and he attempted to exit the highway at Warden Avenue in east Toronto. Motorist John Tuset, having taken the same exit on his way to work, saw Mr. Wang’s vehicle speed past him at a pace that, in his view, looked dangerous, too fast to negotiate the off-ramp. He was correct.
Mr. Wang’s vehicle went straight over the curb into the median, coming to rest only after striking a piece of road repair machinery that was parked there, fortunately unoccupied. Within a very short time the construction workers were on-site beginning their day’s work when Police Officer McGilp arrived just before 6 a.m. Mr. Wang’s vehicle had extensive front-end damage and the airbags had deployed.
Mr. Tuset had called emergency personnel, including police, as, in his view, Mr. Wang was drunk. Subsequent breath tests revealed blood alcohol concentration levels of 174 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood at 8:15 a.m. and 180 milligrams at 8:40 a.m. A toxicology report filed as Exhibit 5 estimated that his blood alcohol content at the time of driving, which was roughly 5:45 a.m., would have been between 175 and 220 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

Having been charged previously with an offence in circumstances that involved the consumption of alcohol before driving has arguably not worked to deter him from drinking and driving. Likewise, having previously been found guilty and placed on probation for one year seemingly did not deter him from drinking and driving, so to that extent the prior discharge has some relevance.

I agree with Mr. Shumka that he has already received a second chance. To that extent, the conditional discharge is relevant. It would be disingenuous of the Court to treat it otherwise.
So, to be clear, the conditional discharge for dangerous driving does not, standing alone, warrant a jail sentence on this matter, but it is but one factor to be considered along with the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

The aggravating factors in this case are, in my view, too serious to ignore. Notwithstanding the able submissions of counsel, steps taken by Mr. Wang – and steps taken by Mr. Wang, pardon me, I am of the view that a deterrent sentence is required in this case. I have considered this case at great length and I have also considered whether a conditional sentence will provide the required specific deterrence as well as general deterrence. In my view, it would not.
So, in my view, the appropriate sentence in this case, having regard for all of the mitigating circumstances, including the fact that Mr. Wang has not been convicted of a prior offence of drinking and driving, the appropriate sentence is one of 21 days in custody. I am prepared to allow him to serve that sentence on an intermittent basis if that is his wish, Counsel. Is that the desire of your client?