If you have any doubts at all, BEFORE making a citizenship application pay for a CONSULTATION with a competent, reputable IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP lawyer and bring ALL your paperwork.
Sorting out the intersection of criminal cases and immigration and citizenship law is too complicated to rely on comments in a forum like this.
That said . . .
What you describe still appears to be very much consistent with the outcome for an offence prosecuted summarily. And thus looks like the outcome of an offence prosecuted summarily.
BUT criminal cases are more complicated and have more wrinkles than many appreciate, so you should NOT take my word, or probably anyone else's word here, for what this means.
Unfortunately lawyers are rather skilled in the art of telling the truth with key omissions. In minor offence cases it is more about glossing over or minimizing some of the wrinkles than it is about overtly misleading the defendant/client.
One also has to wonder to what extent a lawyer doing this kind of work is acquainted with the particulars of immigration and citizenship. And as my previous posts illustrate, there can be significant differences in immigration related consequences. As I noted, even though prosecuted summarily, for someone in Canada on a work or study permit, the conviction could lead to deportation and inadmissibility for a number of years. I cannot begin to guess what your lawyer knows versus what the lawyer might be comfortable assuring a client based on what the lawyer expects rather than knows.
But still, nothing in what you report suggests that this is a problem for you. Wish I could offer a more confident answer but that really depends on the specifics of your case, and I tend to avoid making definitive assertions even though there may be a rather high probability. Especially for something like this, which it appears can vary from court to court, province to province, even city to city within the same province. Note for example my surprise at there being no probation.
Moreover, there is always a danger of misinterpreting the meaning and interpretation and application of particular statutory provisions, and this is especially the case when there are provisions in separate Acts involved, like interpreting and applying provisions related to the same or similar matters that are in the Criminal Code and IRPA and the Citizenship Act.
Note that in my earlier posts I glossed over an important distinction in regards to IF there is a conviction for an indictable offence arising from one of the driving while impaired provisions: that is an offence punishable by up to ten years imprisonment and that does meet the definition of serious criminality which renders a PR inadmissible (subject to deportation).
This illustrates how many tangled threads are involved. And it also illustrates how complicated it can get sorting through the various threads and where they lead. If, for example, subsection 36(3)(a) IRPA applied directly to criminal code definitions (it does not), it might be argued that even though the conviction was for a summary offence, with maximum imprisonment for two years less a day, the IRPA provision means it should be treated as a conviction for an indictable offence under the Criminal Code (as prescribed in 320.19(1) in the Code), which as I just noted is, in turn, punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment for TEN years, meeting the definition of serious criminality in IRPA. That is not how it works (IRPA does not control what the punishment is for Criminal Code offences), fortunately for many in circumstances similar to yours (but it does illustrate what you were risking).
Which is to emphasize that unraveling all this can get complicated if not convoluted. And this is stuff even decent lawyers can get wrong. Actual experience with how these matters are in fact handled is crucial . . . thus it is important to have a criminal defense lawyer for the criminal case . . . and to consult with an immigration lawyer about the ramifications for immigration and citizenship purposes.
