ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
NEWMARKET
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
SHAMSHUL HOQUE
SENTENCING
Heard and Delivered:
Mr. David Levy counsel for the Crown
Mr. Alamgir Hussein counsel for the defendant
KENKEL J.:
1Mr. Hoque pleaded guilty to Assault with a Weapon.
2Mr. Hoque was a support worker at a group home for persons with severe autism. A security video showed him assaulting a resident who is non-verbal. He admitted to pushing a broom into the victim’s face and shoulder area, then hitting the victim in the face with underwear from his closet, then hitting the victim in the face with shorts.
3The Crown requests a sentence of 30 days jail, followed by probation for 1 year, a DNA order and a s 110 order for 5 years. They note that the victim is especially vulnerable and has no way to complain about mistreatment. Offences in this context are hard to detect. General deterrence and denunciation must be paramount.
4The defence submits that a conditional discharge would be appropriate. Mr. Hoque worked at the facility for 16 years without incident. Since then, it’s alleged he’s committed only one further offence in failing to appear in court. His remorse is reflected in his plea. He was under stress at the time as he was alone working a shift that typically required two people. A discharge would be in his interest and would be appropriate in the circumstances.
5A discharge is not a fit sentence. It does not meet the strong need for deterrence and denunciation in this case. It would not be proportionate to the gravity of the offence or Mr. Hoque’s degree of responsibility.
6When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involves the abuse of a vulnerable person, the court must give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of that conduct – s 718.04.
7Mr. Hoque was in a position of trust to a very vulnerable person and he abused that trust. The offence has an impact not just on the person assaulted, but on the community at large. Society expects that vulnerable residents in group homes are protected from abuse.
8I agree with the Crown that a custodial sentence is necessary. Considering the circumstances of the offender, I find that service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would not be inconsistent with the principles of sentencing. I am satisfied that this is the minimum sentence capable of meeting the sentencing goals in this case.
Sentence
9Mr. Hoque is sentenced to a period of custody of 90 days to be served in the community by way of a conditional sentence. That sentence will be followed by one year of probation.
10This is a primary designated offence. Mr. Hoque will provide a sample of his DNA for registration on the national databank.
11There will be an order under s 110 of the Criminal Code prohibiting Mr. Hoque from possessing any firearms or related items set out under that section for 5 years.
12Mr. Hoque will have 9 months to pay the victim surcharge.
Delivered: June 16, 2026.
Justice Joseph F. Kenkel