WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:
486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. — (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
(a) any of the following offences:
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 162.1, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or
(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).
(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
(Toronto Region)
Information No.: 4810 998 22 50004643
10 Armoury St., OCJ-Toronto
NOTE: A SECTION 486.4 PUBLICATION BAN IS IN PLACE
THE NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT HAS BEEN INITIALIZED
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
ADNAN AHMED
Before Justice Joseph Callaghan
Found Guilty on September 12, 2024
Sentencing submissions heard on December 9, 2025
Reasons for Sentence released on February 26, 2026
A. ROURKE Counsel for the Crown
H. BAJWA Counsel for A. AHMED
1On September 12, 2024, I found Adnan Ahmed guilty of assaulting and sexually assaulting K.B. I also found Mr. Ahmed guilty of assault, assault with a weapon and mischief under in relation to his attack on Sean MacNeill. Upon finding Mr. Ahmed guilty, I cancelled his release order and ordered him detained pending sentencing.
2Counsel for Mr. Ahmed (not Mr. Bajwa) sought an NCR assessment which I ordered on November 5, 2024. In their April 6, 2025 report, Doctors Au and Wilkie found, from a psychiatric perspective, that a defence of not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder would not be available to Mr. Ahmed. Subsequently, counsel for Mr. Ahmed did not pursue a s. 16 defence.
3On June 9, 2025, Mr. Ahmed fired his lawyer and indicated that he wished to retain new counsel. After multiple defence adjournments spanning several months, a sentencing hearing was finally held on December 9, 2025, during which the following exhibits were filed:
a. Exhibit 1A: Victim Impact Statement of B.D.M.
b. Exhibit 1B: Victim Impact Statement of E.G.
c. Exhibit 1C: Victim Impact Statement of K.M.
d. Exhibit 1D: Victim Impact Statement of L.R.
e. Exhibit 1E: Victim Impact Statement of N.F.
f. Exhibit 2: NCR Report of Dr. T. Wilkie and resident Dr. V. Au dated April 6, 2025
g. Exhibit 3: Psychology Report of Dr. E. Pynoo and Dr. P. Wright dated April 1, 2025
I should note that these protected reports that were produced as part of the s. 672.11(b) assessment were filed as exhibits on sentence and relied upon with the consent of both parties. Indeed, Counsel for Mr. Ahmed referenced the NCR report and relied on its findings in his sentencing submissions.
h. Exhibit 4A: Medical Reports (91-page PDF)
i. Exhibit 4B: Index to Exhibit 4A
j. Exhibit 5: Toronto East Detention Centre lockdown summary
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCES
4On October 20, 2022, after 11 PM, K.B. was brutally attacked and sexually assaulted in the alley behind the businesses at John St. and Weston Rd. in Toronto.
5After initially meeting K.B. on the street and discussing paying her to perform a sex act, Mr. Ahmed travelled to a back alley with her. Once there, Mr. Ahmed dragged K.B. on the ground, stripped her naked from the waist down, and repeatedly kicked and stomped on her, including on her head. After approximately 3 minutes of violently physically attacking her, Mr. Ahmed got on top of K.B. while she was still on the filthy asphalt ground and attempted to penetrate her vagina. When he could not achieve an erection, he forcefully pinned her against a parked van and attempted to penetrate K.B. from behind.
6After struggling again with K.B., and forcefully pushing her around, Mr. Ahmed again attempted to penetrate K.B. from behind while pinned to the parked van. When he still could not achieve an erection, Mr. Ahmed forced K.B. to bend over behind the van and continued in his efforts to penetrate her from behind.
7After about 7 minutes of repeatedly sexually assaulting and violently assaulting K.B., Mr. Ahmed stopped his attack when good Samaritan Sean MacNeill showed up in the back alley, allowing Ms. B. to escape. Mr. MacNeill had heard K.B. screaming “stop” and then as he approached, he heard her explain that this male was raping her. Both Mr. Ahmed and K.B. were nude from the waist down when Mr. MacNeill arrived on scene.
8After putting his underwear and pants back on, Mr. Ahmed went after Mr. MacNeill, who held his cell phone to his ear waiting to get through to 911. Mr. Ahmed struck Mr. MacNeill, knocking his glasses off his face as well as the cell phone out of his hand.
9After briefly chasing Mr. MacNeill in the alley, Mr. Ahmed picked up a nearby traffic safety cone and menacingly approached Mr. MacNeill.
10Mr. Ahmed then chased Mr. MacNeill, who had retrieved his cell phone from the ground. Mr. MacNeill never recovered his glasses.
11Mr. Ahmed caught up to Mr. MacNeill and grabbed him by the scruff of his sweater and threw him to the ground in the middle of the active roadway. This resulted in Mr. MacNeill’s sweater tearing in the middle.
12After breaking loose from Mr. Ahmed’s grip, Mr. MacNeill made his way to the Pizza Pizza at the corner of Weston Rd. and John St., seeking help. On his way, he noticed that K.B. had found refuge in the nearby Church’s Chicken.
13Mr. Ahmed followed Mr. MacNeill inside the restaurant. After being told to leave by the manager, Mr. Ahmed picked up a metal stool-height chair and threw it at Mr. MacNeill before leaving the restaurant. The chair ricocheted off the counter and struck Mr. MacNeill in the head, leaving a cut that required three stitches.
14The entire attack in the brightly lit back alley was captured on high quality surveillance video. Further, the attack on Mr. McNeill in the Pizza Pizza restaurant was also recorded on good quality video. [See trial Exhibits 2 and 4]
VICTIM IMPACT
15Our Court of Appeal has recognized the devastating impacts of sexual assault on victims:
All sexual assaults are serious acts of violence. They reflect the wrongful exploitation of the victim whose personal autonomy, sexual integrity, and dignity is harmfully impacted while being treated as nothing more than an object. Whether intimate partners or strangers, victims of sexual violence suffer profound emotional and physical harm, and their lives can be forever altered. So too can the lives of their loved ones. [See R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487 at par. 74]
16Ms. B. is unable to provide a victim impact statement as she passed away prior to the trial in this matter. [The high-quality video that captured Mr. Ahmed’s offences allowed the case to be prosecuted in her absence.]
17K.B. was an extremely vulnerable woman who struggled with poverty, health challenges and housing instability. Mr. Ahmed engaged Ms. B., a stranger to him, on the street seeking to purchase a sex act from her. It was this context that allowed Mr. Ahmed to take advantage of Ms. B. to brutalize her.
18Before I go through the victim impact statements, I wanted to thank the five authors who took time to share with the court, and with the community, beautiful stories of K.B.’s kindness, creativity and humanity. I am grateful that they spoke for K.B. when she could not.
19Even without her input, I have no difficulty concluding that Mr. Ahmed’s violent attack on Ms. B. would have had an enduring traumatic impact on her. Indeed, the victim impact statements of Ms. B’s friends, who bore witness to that impact, demonstrate the damage Mr. Ahmed caused.
20One friend, B.D.M., noted the visual sight of the horrendous bruising, cuts and sadness in Ms. B.’s eyes following Mr. Ahmed’s attack. She further noted: “I feel wronged to have lost such a beautiful, kind, intelligent and loving soul in my life. A true friend.” [See Exhibit 1A]
21To be clear, while it is the reasonable belief of B.D.M. that Mr. Ahmed’s attack on K.B. contributed to her premature death, I have not concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that this in fact happened. While such a brutal attack undoubtedly weakened an already struggling K.B., I do no have sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ahmed’s actions were a contributing cause of her death. I therefore cannot treat this as an aggravating factor on sentence.
22Another friend E.G. noted: “Learning about her recent traumas was devastating. I cannot fathom the hardships she endured, especially the horrible events she faced a few months before her passing.” [See Exhibit 1B]
23K.M. shared the following in her victim impact statement: “K.B. was a beautiful soul and was loved by many including myself. She was also a fighter of injustice. Whatever happened to her on that horrible day in October of 2022, I shall always wonder if the incident hadn’t occurred between her and the defendant that she would still be here today living her life.” [See Exhibit 1C]
24L.R. eloquently explained the devastation she experienced upon learning what Mr. Ahmed had done to K.B.:
Friendship is a burden. Not one that I carry around lightly and that burden was dragged in muck recently and I don’t know if it will be released during my lifetime.
I learned that a dear friend suffered greatly in the weeks prior to her death and she chose not to impart details of her suffering to her friends from her old neighbourhood and support system.
To get through that day of discovery… I just had to breathe – big breaths, as her suffering absorbed into my body, paralysed my thinking in that moment of full impact. I thought then that now I must pass this – what is this? … horror?? on to others who loved her too. It could not have just stopped with me, endured in isolation, encircled by high walls.
No such luck – I now had the responsibility to pass knowledge of this predatory sexual and physical assault – this muck that clings to my now deceased friend and endeavours to taint her memory forever. Now this knowledge will cause further trauma to others, including her mother, as a decision must be made whether to share this grief with her. On and on it will go, this memory I hold.
This burden of muck sticks and will always leave a trace, fading, but hardened, pointed, jarring. Ten years hence, twenty years hence, if I am still alive, it will remain. It will be taken out of its muck bag to examined from time to time and I will think about this man – this stranger, perpetrator, who committed calculated, deliberate actions to terrorize, brutalize, subjugate, and victimize, my friend. She was also an only child, a daughter – a defenceless woman with a disability who struggled for years to overcome her biological medical afflictions.
[See Exhibit 1D]
25Another friend, N.F., provided insight into the vulnerability of K.B.:
“But behind her bright spirit was a woman who had endured significant trauma. It was evident in her many visits to WNC that she carried this trauma with her. At WNC, we support community members facing a wide range of challenges—mental health struggles, housing instability, and more. K.B. was one of those individuals who needed extra care and attention, and we were committed to helping her heal and become the person she was truly meant to be.
The last time I saw K.B. was in December 2022, during our Winter Warm-Up Holiday Dinner—an event we host for individuals who are homeless, houseless or in transition. K.B. arrived near the end of the evening, visibly distraught. She was crying, overwhelmed, and yet still grateful to be among us. Even in her pain, she found comfort in being at WNC, which she often called her second home. We were her family and that’s exactly what she was to us.
When we learned of K.B.’s passing in February 2023, I along with the community were devastated. But when I later learned of the horrific crime committed against her, it felt like losing her all over again. I was deeply shaken. I couldn’t stop thinking about her cries—cries I had heard before when she was at her lowest. I imagined her in those final moments, scared and helpless, and it just breaks me.
As a mother, I was especially disturbed. We send our children out into the world hoping they’ll be safe, that they’ll come home and share stories of their day. No parent should have to imagine their child experiencing what K.B. went through. She wasn’t just a community member—she was someone’s daughter, someone’s friend. She was family to us.
K.B.’s death has stayed with me. I miss her laugh, her smile, her spontaneous songs, and the light she brought into our centre. Now, I’m haunted by the thought of what her final months must have been like—how she might have tried to cope, to numb the pain of what she endured.
[See Exhibit 1E]
26While Mr. MacNeill has chosen not to submit a victim impact statement, I have no difficulty finding that he would have been profoundly impacted by his experience with Mr. Ahmed. In addition to dealing with the physical and emotional ramifications of being chased, assaulted and receiving a head wound, Mr. MacNeill was a witness to the inhumanity inflicted on Ms. B., likely leaving a lasting psychological impact on him.
27Finally, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to convey my deepest gratitude to Mr. MacNeill for demonstrating such commendable bravery in coming to the rescue of Ms. B. His heroism in such a frightening situation is a testament to his good character and fundamental kindness.
BACKGROUND OF ADNAN AHMED
28Adnan Ahmed is a 32-year-old first time offender. He was 29 at the time he committed these offences.
29Mr. Ahmed was living with his mother at the time he committed the offences. While he lived with his father at one point in his youth, it is clear that he did not have the full support and presence of a full-time father figure.
30Mr. Ahmed has been receiving ODSP since 2016 due to chronic mental health issues. Based on a review of all information available to me, it appears that Mr. Ahmed has experienced suicidal ideation, anxiety, depression and at times has been diagnosed with schizophrenia or psychosis. [See Exhibit 4B]
31While Exhibits 2 and 3 provide information on Mr. Ahmed’s background and history of mental illness, it is important to understand those reports in light of the clear and unambiguous warnings they contain regarding the accuracy of information provided by Mr. Ahmed. [See Exhibit 2 at pages 17-18; Exhibit 3 at pages 5-6, 12-13]
32That being said, based on their review of collateral sources and their overall assessment of Mr. Ahmed, Dr. Wilkie and Dr. Au noted the following:
Mr. Ahmed evidences a primary psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, and an alcohol use disorder, severe, in sustained remission in a controlled environment.
Mr. Ahmed’s mother had recently immigrated to Canada at the time of his birth and shortly thereafter ended the relationship with Mr. Ahmed’s father. Mr. Ahmed evidenced delayed developmental milestones. He was reportedly diagnosed with a learning disorder and provided an individualized educational program. When he moved to the US to live with his father at age 12, these resources were not provided to him and he had failing grades. He reported having attended an adult education school later in his life and received services for what was described as an intellectual disability. The cognitive testing for this assessment suggested that, when providing adequate effort, he evidenced a reading level in the low average range. Collateral information regarding school performance and further cognitive testing would be necessary to consider whether Mr. Ahmed has evidenced learning or cognitive difficulties since childhood, and to further explore potential related diagnoses. [I note that Mr. Ahmed reported that he completed high school and took some online courses afterwards but did not attend a postsecondary institution.]
Mr. Ahmed has engaged in problematic sexual behavior. He denied paraphilic interests. Relational problems and poor behavioral controls in the context of psychosis, facilitated by substance use, appear to be primary contributing factors to his problematic sexual behavior, although a coercive sexual preference should be ruled out.
Mr. Ahmed’s self-report was significant for experiencing both auditory and visual hallucinations, as well as paranoid and religious delusions regarding the presence of satanic forces and ghosts. He reported hearing the voices of the deceased speaking to him, though his description of the identity of the voices varied. Available medical documentation indicates that Mr. Ahmed has sought medical attention for these issues beginning in 2011, when he was brought to hospital by his family due to auditory hallucinations of God and paranoid delusions. The available collateral information from his mother similarly corroborates his self-report. Finally, his thought processes, as observed over the course of the current assessment, is congruent with an individual who has experienced some degree of cognitive impairment due to a major mental illness
Mr. Ahmed evidences mental disorders, including schizophrenia and alcohol use disorder.
In October 2022, Mr. Ahmed was using alcohol daily and he was reportedly intoxicated with alcohol at the time of the index offense. Mr. Ahmed’s self-report of his alcohol use and associated consequences is congruent with both collateral information and the victim’s report during the index offence. Mr. Ahmed reported awareness, prior to the material time, that his alcohol use led to an exacerbation of psychotic symptoms, as well as his propensity to engage in aggression and other behavior that led to contact with law enforcement.
Mr. Ahmed has a well-documented history of auditory hallucinations and delusions, with multiple presentations to hospital initiated by family members concerned about his mental well-being. Such symptoms were corroborated by Mr. Ahmed during the assessment, with his report of both auditory and visual hallucinations as well as delusions. In October 2022, he was not taking medication and did not have ongoing contact with mental health services. Given the variability in his self-report, the specific nature and intensity of psychotic symptoms he was experiencing at the material time remains unclear.
Mr. Ahmed described that he has no memory of the events during the index offence, which complicates the determination of the nexus of the criminal behaviour during the index offence with the symptoms of schizophrenia he was experiencing, as well as the impacts of alcohol intoxication. It is possible that he experienced a blackout from alcohol use regarding the material time, however the timing, duration, and specificity of his reported amnesia is implausible from a psychiatric perspective.
Despite Mr. Ahmed’s report of amnesia for the events of the index offence, available file information through witness statements provided insight into his mental state during the index offence. As noted by the victim, he had the cognitive capacity to negotiate an appropriate monetary amount for sexual services and subsequently attempted to retrieve the paid monies. His ability to engage in goal-directed negotiation around money is inconsistent with the disorganization and impaired reality testing characteristic to a psychotic state that would render him incapable of appreciating his actions or knowing their wrongfulness. In addition, he expressed a non-psychotic motivation behind his actions multiple times, which was to have sexual intercourse with the victim. When interrupted during the index offence by a bystander, he immediately began to explain that he was the victim’s friend, which indicated that he understood the moral wrongfulness of his actions and was attempting to provide a plausible and non-psychotic justification for his actions. Moreover, he requested, and when denied, physically pursued the bystander to impede his ability to alert law enforcement, which indicated his understanding that his actions would not be morally acceptable to others.
In summary, Mr. Ahmed evidences a mental disorder and was likely experiencing psychotic symptoms, including auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions at the time of the index offence. Additionally, he was likely intoxicated with alcohol, of which he was aware had an impact on his mental state. The determination of his mental state during the index offence was complicated by his report of amnesia. However, from available file information, there was a clear non-psychotic motivation behind his actions, which was to have sexual intercourse with the victim. Regarding the index offence, it is our opinion that Mr. Ahmed, on a balance of probabilities, was capable of appreciating the nature and quality of his actions. Furthermore, his level of intoxication and the burden of cognitive impairment from his psychotic illness likely did not render him incapable of knowing what he was doing was wrong according to the ordinary moral standards of reasonable members of the community. From a psychiatric perspective, Mr. Ahmed is criminally responsible.
[See Exhibit 2 at pages 18-21]
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
33Ms. Rourke, on behalf of the Crown, sought a global penitentiary sentence of eight years less pre-sentence custody on a 1.5:1 basis, plus the following ancillary orders:
An order requiring that Mr. Ahmed provide a sample of his DNA for the national DNA databank.
A mandatory weapons prohibition order pursuant to s. 109(2) for 10 years.
An order under section 490.012(3) of the Criminal Code that requires Mr. Ahmed to comply with the Sexual Offender Information Registration Act for a period of 20 years;
34While reasonably acknowledging the mitigating factors in this case, the Crown highlighted the egregious nature of the sexual assault on Ms. B. and the subsequent attack on the good Samaritan who came to Ms. B.’s assistance.
35Mr. Bajwa argued that a penitentiary sentence of three years less pre-sentence custody was appropriate. As of February 26, 2026, Mr. Ahmed has already served 533 days or the equivalent of 800 days on a 1.5:1 basis.
36Mr. Bajwa took no issue with the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.
37While fairly acknowledging the very aggravating nature of the offences in this case, Mr. Bajwa pointed to the mitigating factors including Mr. Ahmed’s lack of a criminal record and the significant mental health challenges Mr. Ahmed faces, reducing his moral blameworthiness.
PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING
38The fundamental purpose of any criminal sentence is to protect society, contribute to respect for the law and help maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society.
39Sentencing judges attempt to achieve this goal by imposing just sanctions that address one or more of the sentencing objectives enumerated in the Criminal Code, including denunciation, general and specific deterrence, separation from society where necessary, rehabilitation and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgment of the harm they have caused.
40The fundamental principle of sentencing is to impose a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed, and the degree of responsibility of the person who committed them.
41The totality principle is a particular application of the general principle of proportionality. It requires a sentencing judge who orders an offender to serve consecutive sentences for multiple offences to ensure that the cumulative sentence rendered does not exceed the overall culpability of the offender. [See R. v. Ahmed, 2017 ONCA 76 at para. 79]
Denunciation and Deterrence
42The primary sentencing objectives when sentencing an individual for sexual assault must be denunciation and deterrence. [See R. v. R.S., 2023 ONCA 608 at para. 39; A.J.K., at para. 83] There are few greater violations of one’s personal dignity and bodily integrity than sexual assault. The level of violation was significantly exacerbated in this case by Mr. Ahmed’s use of brutal violence.
43The sentence required in this case must send a strong message of denunciation to deter others and to express society’s abhorrence of Mr. Ahmed’s predatory conduct on such a vulnerable victim. It must communicate to Mr. Ahmed and others who choose to sexually force themselves on others that they will face severe consequences.
Applicable sentencing range
44The offence of sexual assault captures a wide spectrum of offending behaviour. Accordingly, the sentences vary greatly depending on the facts and circumstances of the offences and the offender. This is reflected in the cases provided by counsel, which show a wide range of sentences.
45As a sentencing judge attempting to apply the principle of parity, I have reviewed the relevant caselaw and have done my best to identify the cases with similar facts and circumstances that help establish an appropriate range of sentences.
46The leading sentencing case dealing with invasive sexual assault is A.J.K. In that case, our Court of Appeal made it clear that, absent some highly mitigating circumstances, sexual assaults involving forced penetration generally require a sentence of 3 to 5 years. The Court also recognized that there will be circumstances where a departure from the range, either above or below the range, is entirely appropriate. [See in A.J.K., at para. 77; R.S., at para. 22-29; R. v. S.W., 2024 ONCA 173 at paras. 34-51.]
47The absence or presence of penetration should not be the cornerstone of the sentencing range. The Supreme Court has made it clear that sexual violence that does not involve penetration is still extremely serious and can have devastating effects. Courts should not downgrade the wrongfulness of sexual abuse simply because there is no penetration. Touching that is both extensive and intrusive can be equally or even more physically intrusive than an act of fellatio, cunnilingus, or penetration. [See R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at paras. 141-146]
48In the case before me, Mr. Ahmed preyed upon an extremely vulnerable woman involved in the sex trade and his highly intrusive conduct included a brutal and gratuitous level of violence. Mr. Ahmed made repeated efforts to violently penetrate K.B. I do not find his apparent lack of success in doing so to be any less egregious than had he actually penetrated K.B.
49A review of the cases provided by both counsel suggests a relatively wide sentencing range of 5 to 10 years for committing sexual assault that includes additional violence above the inherent violence of sexual assault. This wide range makes sense given the enormous variability in the circumstances of the offences and the offenders. [At the higher end, see for example, R. v. Sousa, 2023 ONCA 100; R. v. Myers, [2000] O.J. No. 1787, upheld at [2002] O.J. No. 965 (ONCA); R. v. O’Kane, 2021 ONSC 3946; R. v. Simas-Mamani, 2018 ONSC 4558, upheld at 2021 ONCA 711; R. v. Asfaw, 2025 ONCJ unreported (Weinper J); and R. v. Wyatt, 2017 ONCJ 390. At the lower end, see for example, R. v. R. G., 2024 ONCA 917; and A.J.K.]
50I am mindful that any sentencing range established through the case law is merely a guideline for the application of the relevant sentencing principles and objectives. Sentencing is always a highly individualized process with the goal of achieving a fit sentence in a particular case.
51The Supreme Court recognized the challenge facing sentencing judges when determining where a case should fall within a range:
There will always be situations that call for a sentence outside a particular range: although ensuring parity in sentencing is in itself a desirable objective, the fact that each crime is committed in unique circumstances by an offender with a unique profile cannot be disregarded. The determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a purely mathematical calculation. It involves a variety of factors that are difficult to define with precision. This is why it may happen that a sentence that, on its face, falls outside a particular range, and that may never have been imposed in the past for a similar crime, is not demonstrably unfit. Once again, everything depends on the gravity of the offence, the offender's degree of responsibility and the specific circumstances of each case. [See R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at para. 58]
Rehabilitation
52Prioritizing denunciation and deterrence does not mean that rehabilitation can be ignored, nor does it mean that proportionality in sentencing is no longer an applicable principle. Sentencing is a highly individualized process and particular circumstances relating to blameworthiness, prospects for rehabilitation and the like must always be taken into account. This is particularly true where an accused, like Mr. Ahmed, is a first-time offender.
Restraint Principle
53Sections 718.2(d) and (e) of the Criminal Code require me to consider the principle of restraint when sentencing Mr. Ahmed.
54The Court of Appeal has repeatedly emphasized the critical role that the restraint principle plays when sentencing a youthful, first-time offender. In applying the restraint principle, sentencing judges “should seek the least intrusive sentence and the least quantum which will achieve the overall purpose of being an appropriate and just sanction”. While the objectives of denunciation and deterrence must be given adequate weight, they should rarely be the sole determinants of the length of a first jail sentence. [See R. v. Francis, 2022 ONCA 729 at para. 80; R. v. D.W., 2024 ONCA 516 at para. 19]
55Further, Mr. Ahmed is a 32-year-old black male. In considering the restraint principle, I must consider the well-established over-incarceration of black offenders, particularly young male offenders. [See R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 at par. 123]
AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS
56In determining an appropriate sentence, it is necessary to consider any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Aggravating Factors
57I will start with the aggravating factors:
(1) The fact that Mr. Ahmed violently attacked an extremely vulnerable woman is highly aggravating. [See s. 718.04 of the Criminal Code]
(2) The fact that Ms. B. was engaged in the sex trade, heightening her vulnerability, is aggravating. [See R. v. Richards, 2016 ONSC 2940 at para. 29]
(3) The fact that Mr. Ahmed did not use a condom is aggravating.
(4) The level of callousness and violence displayed by Mr. Ahmed, which included stomping on her head, is highly aggravating. He ignored her screams for him to stop and continued trying to penetrate her in multiple positions.
(5) The duration of Mr. Ahmed’s physical and sexual attack on Ms. B. is aggravating.
(6) The fact that Mr. Ahmed brutalized Ms. B. in a public place, a dirty back alley, is aggravating.
Mitigating Factors
58I now turn to the mitigating factors:
(1) Having no prior criminal record, Mr. Ahmed is a first-time offender.
(2) Mr. Ahmed has the strong support of his mother and other family members. His mother has attended court on several occasions to support her son and was present today for Mr. Ahmed’s sentencing, along with other family members. I am grateful for their attendance and participation in the court process.
(3) Despite my concerns with Mr. Ahmed’s malingering and with his efforts to exaggerate his condition on the night of the attack, I accept that his major mental illness and alcohol addiction likely played a role in his offending behaviour. I must take this into account as a mitigating factor that lowers somewhat his moral blameworthiness. [See R. v. Perry, 2025 ONCA 241, at para. 27; R. v. Fabbro, 2021 ONCA 494, at para. 25]
(4) I take into account his life circumstances including the absence of a father figure for much of his childhood.
(5) I take into account the conditions of his pre-sentence custody, including the number of lockdowns Mr. Ahmed has endured. [See R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344; R. v. Smith, 2023 ONCA 500]
(6) I have considered the almost 22 months that Mr. Ahmed spent on a very restrictive release order prior to the date I cancelled his bail. A copy of this now cancelled release order is attached to the electronic information. [See R. v. Prindle, 2025 ONCA 386 at para. 12; R. v. Joseph, 2020 ONCA 733 at para. 108]
Other Factors
59While not an aggravating factor, I take into account Mr. Ahmed’s complete lack of insight into his offending behaviour and the harm he has caused. This does not bode well for his rehabilitation.
Consecutive versus concurrent
60Unlike in many of the cases provided, Mr. Ahmed attacked two people. When Mr. MacNeill came to help Ms. B., Mr. Ahmed turned his violence against him.
61I convicted Mr. Ahmed of assault, assault with a weapon and mischief under for the attack on Mr. MacNeill that started in the back alley, continued onto an active roadway and ended in the Pizza Pizza restaurant where Mr. MacNeill received a significant injury to his head.
62In my view, the attack on Mr. MacNeill is a separate criminal adventure and a consecutive sentence should be imposed. [See Friesen, at para. 155] That being said, the three offences involving Mr. MacNeill are closely linked to each other and should be dealt with concurrently to each other to reflect the totality principle.
63Further, given how closely linked the sexual assault and assault offences against Ms. B. are, I intend to impose a global punishment with concurrent sentences for those two offences, ensuring that the sentence I impose reflects the principle of totality. [See Friesen, at para 157; R. v. Polemidiotis, 2024 ONCA 905 at paras. 80-83]
APPROPRIATE SENTENCE
64The attack on K.B. was brutal and inhumane. Mr. Ahmed treated Ms. B. as an object for his own sexual gratification and demonstrated a remarkable level of callousness.
65In my view, a substantial penitentiary sentence is required to reflect society’s abhorrence for Mr. Ahmed’s criminal conduct; to send a strong and unambiguous message that such brutality will be met with many years of imprisonment; and to protect the public.
66Having considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, the helpful submissions of counsel and the caselaw provided, I find that a global sentence of eight years is necessary to reflect the relevant sentencing principles. A strong message must be sent to Mr. Ahmed and the community that this type of criminal conduct that inflicts profound physical and psychological harm on victims will not be tolerated in our society.
67Further, I find that a sentence in the range proposed by counsel for Mr. Ahmed would be woefully inadequate as it would not be proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed, and the degree of responsibility of Mr. Ahmed.
68Mr. Ahmed, please stand.
69For the assault and sexual assault on Ms. B. (counts 1 and 2), I sentence you to 7 years in the penitentiary. That is 7 years or 2,555 days for the sexual assault and 4 years or 1,460 days concurrent for the assault.
70From this total, I deduct 533 days of pre-sentence custody or the equivalent of 800 days on a 1.5:1 basis. This leaves a remnant of 1,755 days left to serve on these two offences.
71In addition, for the assault, mischief under and assault with a weapon offences against Mr. MacNeill (counts 3 to 5), I sentence you to an additional 1 year, to be served consecutively to the 7-year sentence. This is broken down as follows:
(1) On Count 5 (assault with a weapon), 1 year or 365 days custody, consecutive to the lead count of sexual assault
(2) On Count 3 (assault), 6 months custody, concurrent to all other counts
(3) On Count 4 (mischief under), 2 months custody, concurrent to all other counts
72The total remaining sentence left to serve is 2,120 days or approximately 69.7 months or 5.8 years.
ANCILLARY ORDERS
73In addition, I make the following ancillary orders:
DNA Order
(1) Sexual assault and assault with a weapon are primary designated offences for which I must make an order pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code. Assault is a secondary designated offence. I order that you provide samples of your DNA for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis to be used in accordance with the DNA Identification Act.
SOIRA Order
(2) Pursuant to sections 490.012(3) of the Criminal Code, I order that you comply with the Sexual Offender Information Registration Act for a period of 20 years.
Weapons Prohibition Order
(3) In addition, pursuant to s. 109(2) of the Criminal Code, I am prohibiting you from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance for a period of 10 years.
VSF
(4) Finally, considering that I am sentencing you to a lengthy period of custody, I am waiving the VFS due to economic hardship.
74Mr. Ahmed, I hope that you will take advantage of the programming made available to you in the penitentiary so that you can gain insight into the profound harm you have caused. It is important that you participate in all psychiatric care, including any assessments for possible paraphilias or other major mental disorders so you are better equipped with strategies and treatment to reduce your future risk.
Released: February 26, 2026
Justice Joseph Callaghan