A speeding teen driver has been sentenced to one year in an open custody youth facility followed by six months under community supervision after a crash in Vaughan last year that left two siblings, aged four and 10, dead.
The teen, who can only been identified by his initials C.Z. due to his age, was also handed a six-year driving ban and one-year probation after the May 16, 2021 collision on Athabasca Drive.
Jax Chaudhari, 4, and Anaya Chaudhari, 10, were both killed after a speeding 2017 Mercedes Benz sedan mounted the curb and hit the two children and a neighbour who was helping fix a chain on Anaya’s bike. The children were taken to hospital where they later died.
The neighbour, 60-year-old John Chiarelli, survived but suffered serious injuries.
C.Z. was driving the vehicle — his dad’s Mercedes — more than 100 km/h where the posted limit is 40 km/h.
He remained at the scene after the crash.
He pleaded guilty to two counts of dangerous driving causing death and one count of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.
The parents of the two children, who have one other child, spoke outside of the courthouse after the sentence was delivered.
“A beautiful warm spring day last year on May 16 began with so much joy for our family. Our kids were overjoyed with their brand new puppy and we were looking forward to celebrating Anaya’s 11th birthday in two days,” Binta Patel, mother of the two children, said.
“The five of us were in our comfort zone in our front yard of our home. We were at ease, we felt safe and unexpecting of the horror that was about to unfold in front of our eyes. We saw a speeding car and immediately saw it flying into our two children and neighbour. A few seconds, just a few seconds, transformed this day, shattered our family and changed our entire existence…
“Every day, every moment, we miss Anaya and Jax, the family we had and the people we once were.”
The parents also called for more to be done to combat dangerous driving, with Ketan Chaudhari, father of Jax and Anaya, noting “we are victims of a much bigger problem.”
“We would like to send a message to all young drivers out there: cars are not toys,” he said.
“Cars can be deadly weapons. Speed limits and laws are there to be followed and not being able to abide by them is a sign you are not ready to drive.”
They also expressed frustration with the justice system, which limits sentencing for youth offenders.
The Crown sought a 16-month open custody order while the defence sought a probation term and if not, then a six-month open custody order.
In the sentencing decision, Justice David S. Rose noted that the Youth Criminal Justice Act highlights the purposes of youth sentences, which include holding a person accountable though just sanctions that have meaningful consequences, while also promoting their rehabilitation into the public.
Rose said that the YCJA “is explicit that young persons have a diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability because their cognitive abilities are not fully developed.”
Rose wrote that the Crown and defence provided numerous case law examples, with sentences ranging from non-custodial to two-years in custody, with aggravating factors including other illegal acts during driving like impairment or extreme speed.
“Notably, there are a plethora of cases which impose a deferred custody order,” Rose wrote.
“Those are no longer relevant because the YCJA now precludes such an order if the offence is one involving the commission of serious bodily harm.”
The judge also discussed the fact that in 2020, C.Z. was charged with a Highway Traffic Act offence. The charge was withdrawn and Rose said as a result, it played no part in sentencing.
However, as part of that process of resolving that case, C.Z. discussed the dangers associated with driving without a licence in a letter he wrote.
Only one year before the fatal crash, C.Z. wrote in part, “If you take someone’s life in a traffic accident you can’t solve that problem, it happened and now you will have to live with that for the rest of your life.”
Rose said while the letter has “no effect on this sentencing” it has “some weight” because “in it he clearly articulates the danger which happened on May 16, 2021, some 15 months later.”
“In this case the circumstances of the offence are aggravating circumstances. Two young children died and another person seriously injured. Mr. Z. also has significant responsibility not only because he was the driver but because he had turned his mind to the possibility of this happening previously,” Rose said.
“There are numerous mitigating factors, including his excellent prospects, his remorse and his guilty plea.”
Rose said he has “no difficulty” in finding that there are alternatives to a custodial sentence, adding that C.Z. would likely comply with a probation order. C.Z. was otherwise a successful teen and good student.
But, Rose said, a non-custodial order in this case would not meet the purposes of youth sentencing.
“I would give serious weight to Mr. Z.’s level of responsibility, the foreseeability of the collision going back many months through his initial licencing process shortly before the accident and accompanying requirement that a just sanction include meaningful consequences, which must be connected to the grave harm done to the community in this tragedy,” the judge wrote.
Rose added that there is a need to denounce this conduct but not a need for specific deterrence.
“Balancing all the factors under s. 38 (of the YCJA) against the need to rehabilitate Mr. Z, I therefore find that a custodial sentence is required.”
— With files from Catherine McDonald