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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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 any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE No.: 4810 998 24-48131693 41810 998 25-31113275
Toronto Region
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
N.B.
Before Justice C. Faria
Submissions Heard June 3, and 16, 2026
Oral Sentence on July 7, 2026
Reasons for Sentence released on July 14, 2026
Ysolt Brar counsel for the Crown
David Zbarsky counsel for the defendant N.B.
I. Introduction
1NB was found guilty after trial for assaulting and sexually assaulting his intimate partner MP, he conceded during his evidence that he was guilty of failing to comply with an undertaking and twice failing to comply with his releases by contacting her repeatedly and then he pled guilty to disobeying a court order by calling MP repeatedly from the jail during the trial.
2These are my reasons for sentence on all 6 offences.
II. Facts
3NB and MP met online and then started seeing each other in early 2020.
4They arranged to meet for the first time on January 12, 2020, at a parking lot in London, Ontario where MP lived at the time. NB drove to a beach close by and while the two sat in his car, NB forcibly kissed MP’s mouth, face, cheeks, forehead, and shoulders. She became upset with him. They talked and eventually NB drove MP back to her car in the parking lot and then to Toronto where he lived at the time. The two continued to communicate and see each other.
5MP subsequently moved to Toronto and on November 23, 2021, she met with a lawyer to discuss sponsoring her family to Canada. NB did not believe her and thought she was seeing another man. He sent her numerous angry, insulting and degrading messages throughout the day. NB waited for MP at her building till she returned. When she arrived, he opened her car door, slapped her face repeatedly and took her phone. He told to park her car and come to his car. She did as she was told to get her phone back.
6Once MP was in NB car, he drove her to the front of the building. She tried to get out of the car but was unable to. He then drove her to the Eglinton and Don Mills area. They continued to argue. MP tried a second time to get out of the car but was equally unsuccessful. NB punched MP in the face hard while she sat in the passenger seat. Her nose started to bleed. She sustained bruising, discolouration, and swelling around her left eyebrow by the temple and just below her left eyelid which became a black eye. She also sustained a small cut to her upper lip and another cut to her lower lip.
7NB was first arrested on November 24, 2021 after MP reported the assault and the sexual assault. He was released on an undertaking to have no contact with MP. He proceeded to contact her via social media messages, phone calls, video calls and in person between December 1, 2021, and March 28, 2022, in breach of his undertaking.
8NB was arrested on charges again involving MP on March 29, 2022. He was released with conditions not to contact her, but continued to contact her via social media messages, phone calls, video calls, and in person between November 7, 2022, and May 19, 2023, in breach of his release.
9NB was arrested a third time on charges involving MP on September 8, 2022, and was released with conditions not to contact MP. He continued to contact her in the same way between January 1, 2023, and February 28, 2023, in breach of his release.
10NB was arrested a fourth time on May 22, 2023, and a fifth time on September 19, 2024, and put on the same conditions.
11On April 15, 2025, NB appeared before a Justice of the Peace in Brampton for a show cause hearing after his arrest that day. He was remanded in custody and made subject to a s. 516(2) order to have no contact with MP while he remained in custody.
12On September 15, 2025, NB signed a Peace Bond for 12 months with a condition that he have no contact with MP.
13While incarcerated at the Maplehurst Correctional Centre, and while subject to the s. 516(2) order and the Peace Bond, during the trial NB acknowledged he called MP from the jail approximately 43 times between August 19, 2025 and September 17, 2025. He spoke to her for as long as 21 minutes almost every time, did so multiple times a day over on at least 14 of those days. He was disobeying the court order.
III. NB
14NB is now a 39-year-old man. He was only about 32 when he first met MP and became involved with her. He is a Canadian citizen with no criminal record.
15Counsel filed two undisputed affidavits regarding NB’s history. One is affidavit from his cousin, and the other from his uncle. Both depose that NB is single, never married and has no children. He was born in Afghanistan. He is the second eldest in a family of 5 or 6. His family continues to live in there and he maintains regular contact with them. He had a good childhood. He completed grade 12 in Afghanistan and then worked with his father who is self-employed. NB immigrated to Canada in 2012 and has worked steadily in construction, factories, driving for Uber and for Uber Eats.
16Both his cousin and his uncle depose NB has no mental health concerns, does not use drugs, and has no addiction issues. He is partly religious and prays. He is described as a happy, respectful, friendly and hard-working person.
IV. Victim Impact
17MP provided no victim impact statement. She conveyed through the Crown the same position she has had for some time: she forgives NB.
18It was clear during MP’s extensive testimony that NB’s assault upset her, as did the sexual assault. His persistent breaches of court orders and constant contact bothered her many times. His communications were routinely rude, degrading and negatively impacted her psychologically. She testified she sometimes had no option but to call the police for help.
V. Position of the Parties
19The Crown submits the overriding applicable principle in this case is denunciation and deterrence warranting 5 years jail minus pre-sentence custody enhanced by Summers1 credit. She submits that sentence reflects the principle of totality as well. She also submits the court should make the following ancillary orders: a DNA order; a s.110 weapons prohibition 10 years; a non-communication order with MP while NB is in custody; and a SOIRA order for 10 years.
20She breaks down the sentence as follows:
Count 1 - s. 271 sexual assault: 15 months;
Count 4 - s. 266 assault: 9 months consecutive to sexual assault;
Count 7- s. 145 (4)(a) FTC-U: 2 years less a day concurrent to count 8, and consecutive to all counts;
Count 8 - s. 145(5)(a) FTC-R: 2 years less a day concurrent to count 7, consecutive to all other counts;
Count 9 - s. 145(5)(a) FTC-R: 3 months concurrent;
Count 1 - s. 127 Disobey court order: 12 months consecutive to all counts.
21In support of her position the Crown relies on R. v. Soriano, 2020 ONCA 276, R. v. Foreman, 2019 ONSC 7557, R. v. T.T., 2026 ONSC 2732, and R. v. Bhullar, 2025 Ont. C.J.
22The Defence submits the appropriate global sentence is one in the range of 10 to 12 months apportioned as follows:
90 days on the sexual assault charge;
30 to 60 days on the assault charge concurrent to the sexual assault;
90 days on the first, and second fail to comply charges concurrent to the fail to comply and consecutive to the sexual assault;
60 days on the first fail to comply charge concurrent to the other breaches;
4 to 6 months on the disobey court order charge consecutive to the sexual assault.
23The Defence submits the appropriate sentence is therefore one of time-served, and not actually all the time served to be noted. Mr. Zbarsky agrees with the calculations that NB has been in custody intermittently for 672 days2 between March 9, 2022 July 7, 2026. He emphasizes enhanced credit for this pre-sentence custody per Duncan3 for the harsh conditions NB has experienced. He relies on R. v. Kerridge-Lall, 2026 ONSC 616, R. v. Patel, 2025 ONSC 6780, R. v. Imanuel, 2025 ONCJ 521, and R. v. Jakupaj, 2018 NLSC 93 for his position.
24He takes no issue with the DNA, s. 110 and s. 743.21 order, but opposes the SOIRA order on the basis that it is grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society through the effective prevention or investigation of crimes of a sexual nature.
25Both parties agree that the sentences should be consecutive.
VI. Legal Principles
26Every sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
27Section 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code guides the sentencing judge in the determination of a fit sentence.
28The sanction that the court imposes should have one or more of the following objectives:
- denounce unlawful conduct
- deter the offender and other persons from committing offences
- separate offenders from society, when necessary
- assist in rehabilitating offenders
- provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community
- promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
29I must consider all aggravating and mitigating factors.
VII. Analysis
30The primary principles in this case are clearly denunciation and deterrence, particularly specific deterrence.
A. Aggravating Factors
31There are numerous and significant aggravating factors, some which apply to the individual offences committed, and others that apply to the totality and context of NB’s offending conduct.
32On the assault:
i. NB injured MP. She sustained bruising, discolouration, and swelling on her face, including a black eye. She also suffered two cuts to her lips.
ii. He struck her repeatedly, by both slapping her several times and then punching her.
iii. He lured her into his car by taking her phone.
iv. NB confined MP in his car twice when she tried to get out of his car and he would not let her out.
v. NB assaulted MP after he sent her numerous insulting, demeaning, and humiliating messages.
33On the sexual assault:
i. MP was isolated when NB sexually assaulted her. Her car was 18 minutes away in the parking lot where they first met up.
ii. He used sufficient force to damage her necklace.
iii. He sexually assaulted in several ways by kissing various parts of her body without her consent.
34On the failing to comply with releases:
i. He breached his first release, an undertaking, almost immediately after his arrest.
ii. He breached numerous times over the course of the first 3 months.
iii. He breached his second release and third releases numerous times.
iv. Each breach of each of 3 court orders consisted of all the forms of contact with MP that he was prohibited from, including telephone calls, social media messaging, video calls and seeing MP in person.
v. He was breaching multiple releases at numerous points when he was contacting MP.
35On the disobey court order:
i. NB was in custody at the time he disobeyed the court order.
ii. He was also on a peace bond prohibiting him from contacting MP.
iii. NB breached the court order and the peace bond 43 times between August 19, 2025 and September 17, 2025.
iv. NB was on the phone with MP for significant periods of time, each time he spoke to her, 17- 22 minutes on each of the 43 times.
v. On the days he reached MP, he called and spoke to her numerous times on each of those days.
vi. He called “practically every day during this period” including with calls that did not connect.
vii. NB was calling MP during this trial which included allegations of breaching the condition to have no contact with MP.
viii. Some of the conversations NB had with MP from jail were about how MP could assist him to “end” the trial, or the “court case.”
36It is statutorily aggravating that every offence was committed in the context of an intimate partner relationship.
37The sexual assault committed the very first time MP met NB was the foundation for the entirety of relationship.
38From a wholistic point of view, the assault was perpetrated in the context of controlling and coercive behaviour. NB was enraged with MP’s independence. Jealousy and control were key features in his messages to her, his anger at her outing, and his luring her into his car by taking her phone.
39The breaches are a demonstration of NB’s continuous, persistent, and relentless pursuit of MP regardless of every court order, and every court process since his first arrest.
40The disobeyed court order is an egregious violation that attacks the integrity of the court process and goes to the heart of the court’s attempt to protect MP.
41Each offence individually and cumulatively was perpetuated in the context of a volatile, tumultuous relationship that left the victim with no options but to contact police for help, which did not abate NB’s pursuit of her in any event.
B. Mitigating Factors
42There are principally four mitigating factors.
43NB pled guilty to disobeying a court order which demonstrated accountability, saved court resources and obviated the need for witnesses to come to court to testify. Although this was a strong Crown case, nonetheless, NB gets the benefit of a plea on this charge.
44NB admitted he breached his releases when he testified and conceded the Crown had proven the 3 fail to comply counts beyond a reasonable doubt. Although this does not give him the benefit of a guilty plea, nonetheless, his testimony demonstrates his acceptance of responsibility for the breaches.
45During his elocution, NB expressed his remorse for having “made mistakes.”
46The central mitigating factor is the harsh conditions NB experienced during his intermittent pre-sentence custody at Maplehurst Correctional Complex.
47NB filed a Lockdown Summary Report regarding 582 of the 672 days he spent in pre-sentence custody. He was in full lockdown for 68 days and 18 days in partial lockdown. During these lockdowns, NB had no access to his counsel, programs, visits, the yard or the dayroom.
48No specific explanations for each lockdown were provided, and only general reasons listed such as staff shortages, searches, contraband, and maintenance/repairs.
49Disturbingly, the Report notes that cells designed to house 2 men, regularly houses 3 men called “triple bunking”. “This means that one inmate in each of the two bunks, and one inmate on the floor on a mattress while secured in their cell.”4
50Originally the Report notes NB was triple-bunked a total of 228 days of 582 days which is an astounding 39% of the time he was in custody. It is more alarming that in an email to counsel attached to the Report, the Staff Sergeant of the facility apologizes, and states NB was triple-bunked for 419 of the 582 days documented. NB was shockingly triple-bunked 71.9% of the time he was in custody.
51NB testified that:
i. He was the one who slept on the mattress on the floor.
ii. He was told by his cellmates not to flush the toilet “too much” as it bothered them.
iii. His cellmates did not permit him to use the toilet from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
iv. During lockdowns, his cellmates would take his breakfast and dinner.
v. When he ordered from the canteen, his cellmates would take his food.
vi. During lockdowns he was in his cell with these cellmates and their rules.
52This court has consistently denounced the unacceptable conditions imposed on incarcerated people. Overcrowding, as in locking 3 adult men in cells made for 2, with one of them sleeping on the floor for the regular 17.25 hours they must be secured is intolerable, doing so during a lockdown, when they are unable to leave their cell for the 6.50 hours they are entitled be out of their cell, is inhumane.
53Numerous courts in numerous cases have repeatedly condemned these situations. To no avail it appears.
54Whether while presumed innocent, or while on remand to be sentenced, the harsh conditions NB’s experienced warrant, and in my view, require a significant reduction in his sentence. There appears to be no other manner courts can condemn these appalling conditions.
C. Discussion
55The offences NB originally committed are, sadly, frequently seen and adjudicated in these courts – a sexual assault committed during a first date, and then, an assault that results in injury during a jealous and controlling argument about the victim’s behaviour.
56His first breach, the immediate contact he made with MP after his arrest, is also, unfortunately, a frequent occurrence in such cases of intimate partner violence.
57However, NB’s continued breaches, and the pervasive, wide-ranging manner he did so over the period of years, is disturbing and exceptionally aggravating. Moreover, his violating the s. 516 order prohibiting him from contacting MP while in jail was a demonstration, that the most blunt and severe order a court can impose, the deprivation of liberty while awaiting trial, was insufficient to deter NB from contacting MP.
58It is for these reasons that NB’s sentence must be a significant one. Each sentence for each violation must be consecutive, as the parties acknowledge. Each one must reflect the gravity of the offence he committed in its context, and his high blameworthiness for each one.
59Denunciation and specific deterrence are paramount. Comparing similar offenders is challenging given the repetitive nature of NB’s offences. NB has no criminal record, but his offending conduct went on for years. There is no evidence of any rehabilitative efforts. Parity, restraint, and rehabilitative potential must be considered, but their attenuation of denunciation and deterrence, both general and specific, is very limited.
60The Crown’s recommendation of 5 years minus pre-sentence custody is a reasonable one. But for the principle of totality, and the very harsh conditions at Maplehurst, it would be a fit sentence.
D. SOIRA
61Section s. 490.012(3) reads:
(3) Subject to subsection (5), when a court imposes a sentence on a person for a designated offence in circumstances in which neither subsection (1) nor (2) applies, or when the court renders a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for a designated offence, it shall make an order in Form 52 requiring the person to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act unless the court is satisfied the person has established that:
(a) there would be no connection between making the order and the purpose of helping police services prevent or investigate crimes of a sexual nature by requiring the registration of information relating to sex offenders under that Act; or
(b) the impact of the order on the person, including on their privacy or liberty, would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society through the effective prevention or investigation of crimes of a sexual nature, to be achieved by the registration of information relating to sex offenders under that Act.
62The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. Eldon, 2025 ONCA 348 at paras. 44 and 74 emphasized that SOIRA orders are presumptive, and the threshold for refusing one is high. The analysis must be approached from this presumptive lens.
63The starting point is that the order shall be imposed unless it can be established that the criteria under s. 490.012(3) (a) or (b) are met.
64My review of the relevant factors pursuant to s. 490.012(4) is as follows:
i. The sexual assault is a serious one. It was committed on MP the first time she met NB in person, she was isolated in his car and had no access to her own car at the time. NB kissed her numerous times in numerous places with some force used.
ii. MP’s age did not make her vulnerable, but her personal circumstances did. She is a single immigrant working mother experiencing some linguistic barriers and a background compromised by a very early marriage.
iii. The sexual assault was committed in the context of an intimate partner relationship where MP trusted NB and was at times, was financially dependant on him. He betrayed that trust.
iv. NB has no insight into his sexually offending behaviour. He maintains his innocence which he is entitled to do, therefore there is no evidence filed to address any rehabilitative efforts regarding his offending.
v. NB has no criminal record.
vi. There is no expert evidence addressing NB’s risk to re-offend. Given his presenting evidence of taking photos of MP while she slept on a video call without her consent, there is some concern about his behaviour and risk to re-offend.
vii. I also take into consideration NB’s brazen, persistent and flagrant disregard for court orders, and the court process. His pursuit of MP has been at times relentless. He can be described as incorrigible.
65I turn to whether there is any connection between the making of the order and the purpose of helping police service prevent or investigate crimes of a sexual nature by requiring the registration of information relating to sex offenders.
66No submissions were made on this point. I find that there is an obvious connection between the making of the order and the purpose of assisting police services to prevent or investigate crimes of a sexual nature such as the one NB committed by requiring he register his information.
67NB must also satisfy me that it would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society through registration. Again, Eldon is of assistance.
68“Grossly disproportionate” in the DNA context has been interpreted to mean “clearly and substantially”. Applying it in this context, NB must establish that the public interest is clearly and substantially inferior to the impact of the order on him, including on his privacy and liberty (Eldon at para. 64).
69The public interest in protecting society from crimes of a sexual nature is very high. The submission that the order would be grossly disproportionate was a general and vague one. Although he has no criminal record, NB’s sexual violation of MP, and his persistent pursuit of her is very concerning. I see no reason why having his information registered would be grossly disproportionate in this case,
70As a result, I find that a SOIRA order is an appropriate ancillary order.
VIII. Sentence:
71After a careful review of each offence, in the context of the total sentence, all the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicable principles, I conclude the appropriate global sentence is 3.5 years. To account for the harsh conditions at Maplehurst, particularly for the triple-bunking for almost 72% of NB’s incarceration, I will reduce the sentences for the third fail to comply and the disobey court order by 3 months each, for a total sentence of 3 years minus pre-sentence custody enhanced by 1.5.5
72It will be apportioned as follows:
Sex Assault: 3 months (90 days)
Assault: 3 months (90 days)
Fail To Comply -Undertaking: 2 months (60 days)
Fail To Comply - Release: 4 months (120 days)
Fail To Comply - Release: 9 months (270 days, reduced from 12 months)
Disobey Court Order - 15 months (450 days reduced from 15 months)
73NB has 78 days left to serve.
74NB will also be on probation for 3 years during which time he must report within 24 hours of his release from custody, he must have no contact with MP, he must not be within 200 metres of where MP lives, works, goes to school or he knows her to be, take counselling as directed, particularly for anger, and the Partner Abuse Response program, and sign releases for his probation officer to monitor his attendance and completion of such programs.
75I will also make a DNA order for NB to provide a sample today in this courthouse, he is prohibited from possessing weapons for 10 years pursuant to s. 110, he must have no contact with MP while in custody pursuant to s. 743.21 and he will be subject to a SOIRA order for 10 years.
76This has been a long trial, and I thank both counsel for their professionalism, courtesy, and helpful submissions.
Released: July 14, 2026
Signed: Justice Cidalia C.G. Faria
Footnotes
- R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26.
- March 29 to 31, 2022, September 8 to 9, 2022, May 22 to June 13, 2023, September 19, 2024 to April 11, 2025, and from April 25, 2025 to July 7, 2026, for a total 672 days.
- R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754
- Exhibit 1: Maplehurst Correctional Complex, NB, Lockdown Summary, page 2.
- Parties agreed to 672 real days: March 29 to March 31, 2022, September 8 to September 9, 2022, May 22 to June 3, 2022, September 19, 2024 to April 11, 2025, April 25, 2025 to July 7, 2026.