R. v. Khalifa, 2026 ONCJ 15

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. Khalifa, 2026 ONCJ 15 DATE: 2026 01 08 COURT FILE No.: Brampton 24-31105154

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

AHMED KHALIFA

Before Justice F. A. McCracken Heard on January 7, 2026 Reasons for Judgment released on January 8, 2026

D. D’Iorio............................................................................................... counsel for the Crown A. Shah............................................................ counsel for the defendant Ahmed Khalifa

McCRACKEN J.:

1Ahmed Khalifa was found guilty of one count of assault and one count of assault with a weapon after trial. The assaults were committed by him against his then 12- and 13-year-old daughter, A.K. He is now before the Court for sentencing. These are my reasons for sentence.

Circumstances of the Offence

2The first assault occurred in June 2017, shortly before Eid. After returning from a shopping trip to Erin Mills Town Centre, an argument erupted in the foyer of the family home over clothing A.K. wished to purchase. Mr. Khalifa accused his daughter of “imitating Western culture” and, in Arabic, accused her of “acting like a slut.” When A.K. challenged him, he punched her in the left eye with a closed fist. She described the force as “10 out of 10,” causing immediate pain and bruising. A.K. ran upstairs, contacted a friend, and later used makeup to conceal the injury. Her younger sister, Leian, witnessed the punch and recalled the bruise under A.K.’s eye.

3The second assault occurred in October or November 2017. After A.K. attempted to reset the password to her personal email account, Mr. Khalifa confronted her in her bedroom. He retrieved a metal clothes hanger from the closet, folded it, and struck her on the back four to five times while she lay under the covers. A.K. described the pain as “10 out of 10” and recalled bruising that lasted about two weeks. She cried and screamed during the assault but did not disclose it at the time, fearing her father’s threats that he would send her and her siblings to Egypt or place them in adoption if they revealed any abuse. Both incidents occurred in the family home.

4The Crown filed and read-in a victim impact statement prepared by A.K. That statement describes the deep and lasting impact that these assaults by her father had on her. She describes their effect on her motivation and energy, her relationships with friends and family, feelings of sadness, anger, and fear. She describes feeling anxious and a loss of self-esteem. This in addition to the physical impact that these assaults no doubt had on her.

Circumstances of the Offender

5Mr. Khalifa is 49 years old, born in Egypt, and moved between Egypt and Saudi Arabia before settling in Ontario in 2016. He was 41 at the time of the offences.

6I have the benefit of a detailed and positive pre-sentence report that was prepared in this matter. Mr. Khalifa described his upbringing to the report writer as “healthy,” with no exposure to abuse or substance use. His father, an electrical technician, died in 2014; his mother, now retired, lives in Egypt. He maintains close ties with his mother and sisters, speaking to them daily and visiting annually.

7Mr. Khalifa was previously married for over 20 years and has four children. He separated from his wife – A.K.’s mother – in December 2022 and reports that his relationship with his children is now estranged, though he hopes for reconciliation. He is currently in a religious marriage with Dalia Ahmed, with whom he has lived since May 2025. Ms. Ahmed and her daughter described him as supportive, caring, and a positive father figure.

8Mr. Khalifa holds a bachelor’s degree and a master’s in accounting and aspires to pursue a PhD. He previously worked as a senior project manager in Saudi Arabia and has been employed with the same Canadian bank since 2016, where he is now a senior project manager. He expressed satisfaction with his job to the report-writer and hopes for further career advancement. The report-writer confirmed his strong work ethic and career stability with other sources.

9He reports no history of substance use, confirmed by his partner and friends. He described himself as peaceful, nonargumentative, and hardworking, with a tendency to trust people too quickly. Other sources echoed these traits, noting his positivity and resilience.

10Mr. Khalifa has several physical health issues: diabetes, high blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and asthma, managed with medication. Defence counsel also advised me that he experiences anxiety. He has also experienced mild depression during his marital separation.

11I also have the benefit of extensive material filed by defence counsel. That material includes 12 character reference letters – from Mr. Khalifa’s mother, sisters, partner, step-children, friends, and co-workers. Those letters describe him as a kind, and compassionate person. They describe him as respectful, responsible, and hardworking. He is well-liked and respected amongst family and friends. His step-children in particular speak of the love and patience he exhibits, along with his strong work-ethic and general good-character. His friends and co-workers confirm this, and express concern about the impact of a criminal record on his career, and the prospect of him losing his employment.

12The materials filed by defence confirm that Mr. Khalifa regularly pays child support and maintain health benefits that support his family. He also supports his spouse, stepchildren, and his mother back home in Egypt. The relative amount of that support – both the child support and the support to his mother – was the subject of some dispute during submissions. In my view, that dispute is of no moment on this sentencing. It is clear that Mr. Khalifa supports numerous members of his family, both financially and in other ways.

13Since he was found guilty, Mr. Khalifa has also completed four courses, all through the Salvation Army. Those courses are:

-Restorative Parenting Program

-Victim Impact Program

-Anger & Relationships Program

-Anger Management Program

14Defence has also filed materials and advised me that a criminal conviction would put Mr. Khalifa’s stable full-time employment as a Senior IT Project Manager at a major Canadian bank in jeopardy.

Position of the Parties

15The Crown, relying primarily on the nature of the offences – two assaults by a parent against their child – seeks 3 to 6 months of jail, in addition to probation and ancillary orders.

16On behalf of Mr. Khalifa, defence counsel seeks a conditional discharge. In support of that discharge defence relies primarily on the impact of a conviction on Mr. Khalifa’s employment and career. They seek a discharge in an attempt to stave off the loss of his job and the cascading effect that would have on the financial support he provides to his family.

Sentencing Objectives

17The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions.

18A sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

19The sanction imposed should have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) To denounce unlawful conduct

(b) To deter the offender and other persons from committing offences

(c) To separate offences from society, where necessary

(d) To assist in rehabilitating offenders

(e) To provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community

(f) To promote a sentence of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

20How much emphasis a court places on each of these objectives will vary according to the nature of the offences and the circumstances of the accused.

Aggravating Factors

21In Section 718.01 of the Criminal Code, Parliament directs courts to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence in sentencing those who abuse a person under the age of 18.

22Similarly, Parliament has provided the same direction in cases involving the abuse of a person who is vulnerable because of personal circumstances. Those persons include, but are not limited to, those who are Aboriginal and female. I find that A.K. was a vulnerable person because of her personal circumstances. She was a child, new to Canada, entirely dependent on her father – the offender, and in the circumstances of this case, her abuser.

23Parliament has also by statute set out of several aggravating factors that apply to this case:

24These assaults involve the abuse of a member of Mr. Khalifa’s family (s. 718.2(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code).

25Mr. Khalifa’s daughter, A.K., was 12 or 13 at the time of these assaults. That she was under 18 is an aggravating factor (s. 718.2(a)(ii.2) of the Criminal Code).

26Mr. Khalifa, being A.K.’s father, was in a position of trust or authority, and by committing the assaults abused that position (s. 718.2(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code).

27The assaults, considering A.K.’s age and personal circumstances, had a significant impact on her. This is confirmed by her evidence at trial, her victim impact statement, as well as by the very nature of a father assaulting his daughter (s. 718.2(a)(iii.1) of the Criminal Code).

28I also find that because this offence took place in A.K.’s family home – which should have been a place of safety for her – is an aggravating factor.

Mitigating Factors

29Parliament directs Courts that an individual should not be deprived of their liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances (s. 718.2(d) of the Criminal Code). All available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders (s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code). That is particularly so for Mr. Khalifa, who is a first-time offender.

30As the Court of Appeal in R. v. Romano, 2021 ONCA 211, indicated "a sentencing judge is required to consider all sanctions apart from incarceration and impose imprisonment only when there is no other reasonable punishment.” The Court went on to say that “...[i]t follows that where imprisonment is required, the term should be as short as is reasonable given the circumstances":

31On the evidence before me, these offences are out of character for Mr. Khalifa. This is confirmed by numerous letters of support from his mother, sisters, partner, stepchildren, friends, and co-workers and by the content of the pre-sentence report.

32A criminal conviction will imperil Mr. Khalifa’s employment and the financial support he provides to his family. The impact of a criminal record on Mr. Khalifa and those around him is not lost on me. I can and do consider the impact of this loss of employment on Mr. Khalifa and those around him – see R v Neundorf 2011 ONCA 732. However, this factor cannot take disproportionate prominence in the balancing exercise. In other words, it should not overwhelm the other aggravating and mitigating factors, or sentencing objectives. This collateral consequence is nonetheless an important consideration on this sentencing.

33In addition to financial support, Mr. Khalifa provides emotional support to others in his life. As the Court of Appeal recognized in Habib 2024 ONCA 830 and more recently in D.B. 2025 ONCA 577, the Court should consider the impact of any family separation and loss of support on both Mr. Khalifa and his family.

Analysis

34On behalf of Mr. Khalifa, defence counsel seeks a conditional discharge. To grant a discharge, the Court must be satisfied that it is in Mr. Khalifa’s interest and not contrary to the public interest. In general, discharges are not reserved for rare or exceptional matters.

35A conditional discharge is a real sentencing disposition whereby an offender is subject to probation conditions to earn a full discharge (R. v. Menezes, 1974 1659 (ON CA), [1974] O.J. No. 736 (C.A.) at para. 12). Discharges are not restricted to trivial matters (R. v. Vincente (1975), 18 Crim. L.Q. 292 (Ont. C.A.)). In general, they are not reserved for ‘rare’ or ‘exceptional’ matters.

36It is important not to overemphasize the nature of the offence as categorically excluding a discharge (R. v. D'Souza 2015 ONCA 805 at paras. 3-5). However, in my view, it will be a rare or exceptional case where a parent or caregiver receives a discharge for physically abusing a child in their care.

37Some of those cases were provided to me by defence counsel.

38In V.P. 2014 ONCJ 430, the Court granted a discharge to a mother who pled guilty to hitting her 10 year-old son in the nose, causing it to bleed. She had a prior finding of guilt for assaulting her mother. Importantly, both the Crown and defence were seeking a discharge. They differed only on whether it should be conditional or absolute.

39In Arruda 2018 ONCJ 680, the Court imposed a discharge in a case involving a caregiver who pled guilty to assaulting a 2 ½ year-old child. The assault was captured on video. The offender grabs the child’s hair, pulls the child by her hair onto her lap, brushes her hair, and then pushes her onto the floor. The Court recognized that “[i]n many cases, it would be inappropriate to grant a discharge for an assault on a child in the offender’s care” (para. 52). But, in granting a discharge, the Court recognized a number of mitigating factors, including that the offender “acted out of character as a result of the extreme stress she was under from the abuse by her husband”.

40In YJC 2012 ONCJ 25 Justice Harris imposed a conditional discharge on an offender who pleaded guilty to assaulting his 10 year-old son with a hockey stick. Defence counsel in that case argued that the Court should take into account the 36 days spent in pre-trial custody by the accused in granting a discharge. There was also a significant risk that the victim of the assault – the offender’s son – would be compelled to return to Korea on the offender’s deportation, as his mother would likely follow the offender. As the Court held “no order I make here would provide them with any protection in Korea.”

41I was also provided with S.D. 2024 ONSC 3138, a summary conviction appeal decision that upheld a conditional discharge granted to an offender who pled guilty to an assault causing bodily harm involving her 12 year-old daughter, and an assault on her 4 year-old son. Frustrated with the family dog chewing her footwear, the offender repeatedly hit her daughter on her face, head, and body with high-heels. The assault on her son happened after he accidentally burned himself with a clothes iron. She dragged him upstairs and slapped his face and arms.

42Importantly, both the trial judge and the summary conviction appeal judge found that numerous mitigating factors were present. The summary conviction appeal judge recognized that a conditional discharge was an exceptionally lenient sentence. But in upholding the discharge, the Court wrote:

Had S.D. simply pleaded guilty, been remorseful and participated in counselling before sentencing – a combination of events that is not particularly unusual – I would not have hesitated in overturning this result. What makes S.D.’s case truly unique are the many extenuating and exceptional stressors she experienced leading up to December 2021 which by all accounts caused an otherwise prosocial and good mother to snap. The pressure she was under manifested itself in diagnosed mental health struggles that ultimately played a live role in the offences. The sentencing judge found there was a strong nexus between S.D.’s mental health struggles and the offences themselves which lessened her moral blameworthiness significantly. This finding was entirely open to her, and the Crown does not argue that the sentencing judge misapprehended the psychiatric evidence. [emphasis added]

43The common thread in many of these cases is a guilty plea, and some other exceptional circumstance that justifies a discharge. The absence of a guilty plea does not preclude a discharge. In my view, to hold otherwise would have the effect of punishing Mr. Khalifa and others like him for exercising their absolute right to trial. However, a guilty plea is a mitigating factor that nonetheless featured prominently in many of these sentencing decisions.

44I have the benefit of my colleague Justice Tomovski’s decision in Ahmad 2025 ONCJ 620. The similarities between the circumstances of that case and Mr. Khalifa’s are striking. Both involve an assault by a father on their 12- to 13-year-old child. Both are historic. In Ahmad, the offence took place 8 to 9 years prior. Both involve an offender with no prior record, who is of otherwise good character. A conviction for both offenders risk their employment.

45In Ahmad, the offender slapped his daughter’s face and back and grabbed her by the arm, dragging her upstairs. He then threw her into the bedroom. The assault caused redness to her face, fingerprint marks on her left forearm, and redness and soreness to the middle of her back.

46Like Mr. Khalifa, the offender in Ahmad financially supported his family. He worked as a senior sales manager at a car dealership, which required a license. The regulatory authority for that license requires disclosure of convictions, which would imperil his license and thus his employment.

47In Ahmad, the Court declined to grant a discharge and instead sentenced the offender to 30 days of jail.

Sentence

48I find that the test for a conditional discharge is not met. To grant a discharge in these circumstances would not adequately address the principles of denunciation and deterrence that are called for in sentencing an offender for the abuse of a child in their care. See for example, R. v. H.L., [2009] O.J. No. 3572 (S.C.J.).

49A.K. – a child – was entitled to be safe in her home, amongst her family. She should not have been assaulted by her father – not just once, but twice. Her evidence on trial and victim impact statement confirms what Canadian courts have become more and more familiar with over time: the abuse of a child echoes long into the future, with devastating impact on that child and the community as a whole. That is why, as Parliament instructs us, deterrence and denunciation are to feature prominently.

50In reaching this conclusion, I have not lost sight of the need to ensure Mr. Khalifa’s rehabilitation and his continued contributions to society. Nor have I forgotten the impact that a criminal record or custodial sentence will have on his employment, his family, and him personally. Instead, I find that granting a discharge would give disproportionate weight to those considerations, over the more pressing need to denounce his assaults of a child – his child.

51I also decline to grant a discharge despite Mr. Khalifa’s otherwise good character, his expressions of remorse, and the steps he has taken towards rehabilitation.

52I find that granting a discharge would be contrary to the public interest and decline to do so.

53Similarly, I find that anything less than a custodial sentence would not meet the sentencing principles that I have outlined in this case. I have considered alternatives to incarceration – a suspended sentence, and a conditional sentence – and conclude that nothing short of a period in jail can adequately send the message both to Mr. Khalifa and others in the community that assaults of this nature against a child in an offender’s care will not be tolerated.

54Nevertheless, I am required to temper the sentence and the amount of jail to the least required. Here, I am especially mindful of the hope of Mr. Khalifa maintaining employment – either at his current employer, or elsewhere.

55Mr. Khalifa, I sentence you as follows:

On Count 1 – Assault – 30 days of jail, to be served intermittently

On Count 2 – Assault with a Weapon – 30 days jail, consecutive to Count 1, to be served intermittently

56Pursuant to s. 732(2) I order that the sentence not collapse, despite its imposition across multiple counts.

57I am also placing you on probation for 18 months. During the term of that probation you are to:

(1) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour

(2) Attend before the Court when required to do so

(3) Notify the Court or probation officer of any change of name or address and promptly notify the Court or probation officer of any change in employment or occupation

(4) Report in person to a probation officer within 2 working days of your release from custody and after that, at all times and place as directed by the probation officer or any person authorized by a probation officer to assist in your supervision.

(5) Do not contact or communicate in any way, directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means with A.K., except with her written revocable consent. Such consent may be revoked by in any manner at any time.

(6) Do not be within 100 metres of any place where you know A.K. to live, work, go to school, frequent, or any place you know her to be, except with her written revocable consent. Such consent may be revoked by in any manner at any time.

(7) Attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer and complete them to the satisfaction of the probation officer.

(8) You shall sign any release of information forms as will enable your probation officer to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed.

(9) Do not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.

(10) While serving your intermittent sentence, you are to surrender yourself to the institution on time, in a sober condition, not being under the influence of any drugs or alcohol.

58I am also imposing a 5-year s.110 weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a s. 743.21 non-communication order with respect to A.K.