Law360 Canada (June 18, 2026, 1:27 PM EDT) --

John L. Hill

It could have been a scene out of the 2002 film The Hire: Beat the Devil. Clive Owen was the driver piloting a BMW in an intense drag race down the Las Vegas Strip, and Gary Oldman was playing the devil in his customized Cadillac Eldorado. In reality, it was two Ontario teens in their fathers’ luxury vehicles.

Adnan Refaeh appealed a conviction and sentence stemming from a dangerous street-racing incident in downtown Guelph at 8 p.m. on May 15, 2021. The accident left a 13-year-old girl seriously injured. Refaeh, then 19, challenged both his convictions and his 15-month jail sentence. The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal.

Refaeh was driving his father’s BMW when another driver, Mitchell Nodwell, revved his engine at an intersection. Refaeh accelerated and engaged in a high-speed street race. The two vehicles raced through downtown Guelph, weaving through traffic and crossing 22 intersections.

The race ended when Nodwell’s Cadillac collided head-on with another vehicle, seriously injuring a 13-year-old passenger and causing extensive damage to the vehicle.

Although Refaeh was not directly involved in the collision, he drove away from the scene. Evidence showed that he briefly stopped, looked toward the crash, ignored his passenger’s pleas to help the victims and left.

In the days that followed, he attempted to conceal his involvement by altering the BMW’s identifying features, having the vehicle repaired, deleting social media photographs of the car, driving a different vehicle and lying to police about his involvement. He carried out this cover-up with the encouragement of family members, one of whom was a police officer.

On March 19, 2024, a jury convicted Refaeh of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failing to remain at the scene of an accident causing bodily harm (R. v. Refaeh, 2024 ONSC 1604).

Refaeh appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. As the appellant, Refaeh advanced numerous arguments. The Appeal Court’s decision was released on June 16, 2026 (R. v. Refaeh, 2026 ONCA 438).

The first was a trial delay, which breached his Charter s. 11(b) right. He argued that his right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated because his trial occurred slightly more than 30 months after the charges were laid. The court held that the application judge properly found the case unusually complex and that the additional delay was justified. No error was found.

He next argued that the police improperly induced him to give a statement by suggesting that speaking sooner rather than later would benefit him. The court found that any implied inducement was weak and ambiguous. The trial judge correctly concluded that Refaeh’s statement was voluntary and admissible.

He then challenged several aspects of the trial judge’s jury instructions. The first of these was that the judge failed to instruct on abandonment. Even if he might have wanted to withdraw from the street race, he did not take any reasonable steps to disengage. He continued driving dangerously until the crash (R. v. Copeland, 2025 ONCA 278; R. v. Gauthier, 2013 SCC 32; R. v. Laverdiere, 2020 ABCA 121).

He argued that the judge made errors regarding intent (mens rea). Refaeh claimed he was not racing — just trying to get away. The Appeal Court found that a jury would have taken his claim into account and that no objection had been raised to that portion of the charge.

Further, there were no errors concerning causation. The judge relied on Copeland, Gauthier and Laverdiere in stating that when two motorists engage in street racing, both are responsible for any resulting injury.

Refaeh also claimed the judge improperly treated after-the-fact conduct. No objection was raised at trial on this issue. A detailed instruction on the inferences available might well have worked against him, suggesting that his evidence was incredible.

Regarding the judge’s failure to instruct on self-defence, the Appeal Court looked to R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37, where it was held that self-defence is a subset of the necessity defence. Refaeh was arguing necessity, so there was no harm in not instructing the jury on self-defence.

Finally, there were no errors regarding witness evidence about statements he allegedly made. The judge correctly instructed the jury on how to use a witness who overheard Refaeh’s conversation with his father.

In his appeal, Refaeh argued that he should have received a conditional sentence (house arrest) rather than jail.

The court disagreed. The sentencing judge had carefully considered both mitigating and aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included his young age (19 at the time), lack of a criminal record, remorse and an otherwise positive and productive lifestyle.

Aggravating factors included participation in an extended street race; extremely dangerous driving; serious injuries suffered by the victim; efforts to conceal involvement; multiple lies to police; breaches of release conditions prohibiting driving; and a prior driving record that included six speeding convictions.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were particularly important in a case involving street racing and concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary. Indeed, the court noted that, given the seriousness of the conduct, the 15-month sentence was “extremely lenient.”

The court dismissed both the appeals from the conviction and the sentence.

The decision reinforces several important principles:

 
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute), was shortlisted as one of five nominees for the Crime Writers of Canada’s Brass Knuckles Award for Best Nonfiction Crime Book. Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.