ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
FARSHID MOHENSI
Before Justice Berg
Released July 29, 2026
RULING ON SENTENCE
T. Radcliffe........................................................................................... counsel for the Crown
N. Weinstein..................................................................................... counsel for the accused
1Mr. Mohseni has entered pleas of guilt to the following offences: dangerous driving causing bodily harm x 2 and impaired operation causing bodily harm x 2 pursuant to Criminal Code sections 320.13(2) and 320.14(2) respectively. The Crown submits that the appropriate global sentence is one of four years incarceration as well as certain ancillary orders. The four years would consist of three years on one of the dangerous driving counts and three years concurrent on the count of impaired driving causing bodily harm with the same victim. The other two counts name a second victim. Mr. Radcliffe submits that the penalty for these should be one year of jail concurrent to each other but consecutive to the penalty for the other two counts. The defence takes the position that I should sentence Mr. Mohseni to a period of incarceration of two years less one day and that he be allowed to serve that sentence in the community as a conditional sentence of imprisonment. The defence takes no position regarding the ancillary orders sought by the Crown. The Crown has elected to proceed by way of indictment.
2These offences occurred on December 22, 2023. There has been a convoluted procedural history. There were numerous appearances from the time of Mr. Mohseni’s arrest until he entered pleas of guilt on December 1, 2025 before my colleague Justice Hoffman who then ordered a pre-sentence report. Counsel was Mr. Weinstein who began to appear on the file in June of 2025; prior to his going on record, at least two other lawyers were involved. On April 27, 2026, the plea was struck and then re-entered before me. I note that one of the previous counsel had set an eight-day trial. That trial was vacated once Mr. Weinstein had taken over carriage of the file. He has advised me that there has been no intention to take this matter to trial since he has been on the file.
The Facts
3This is a summary of the facts that Mr. Mohseni accepted when he entered his plea of guilt. On December 22, 2023, he was driving his motor vehicle just before 11:00 p.m. in the City of Ottawa. The road he was travelling on has a posted speed limit of 50 kph. It is well lit by artificial lighting. He came up to an intersection where three vehicles were in a left turn lane at a red light. His vehicle slammed into them. Approximately five seconds before impact, his vehicle was travelling at 166 kph. Two seconds later, its speed had increased to 172 kph with the accelerator pedal held down at 100% of its capacity. Three seconds later, at the moment of collision, Mr. Mohseni was applying the brakes but was still traveling at 143 kph. The impact demolished the rear-end of the vehicle being driven by Prince Kassa Kouassi with his 7-year-old nephew, Jayden, as passenger.
4Mr. Kouassi suffered broken ribs and a concussion. Jayden was initially trapped in the car and had to be extricated by firefighters. He was in a coma for nine days. The bodily harm that he sustained as a result of the collision is a litany of pain: pelvis fractured in four places, severed left femoral vein, acute compartment syndrome in the left leg requiring a fasciotomy from hip to ankle, external fixators had to be drilled through the skin and into the pelvic bone and then attached to rods outside of his body in order to stabilize the pelvic fractures, sacral plexus palsy (i.e., damage to the sciatic nerve), chipped vertebrae, massive internal and external bruising and swelling, pulmonary contusions that led to him initially not being able to breathe unaided. As well, he contracted C. difficile infection while at the hospital. Both Jayden and his uncle, in their victim impact statements, told of the psychological damage they sustained as well. Jayden has undergone fourteen surgeries and continues with physical therapy even to this day. He still requires a wheelchair.
5It is agreed that at the time of the collision, Mr. Mohseni had blood alcohol readings of 110 and 104 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. I note that while illegal, these are not particularly high readings. However, the agreed statement of facts suggests that Mr. Mohseni was also under the influence of cocaine at the material time and possibly marijuana.
6Mr. Mohseni has no criminal antecedents. However, his driving record contains certain entries relevant to this sentencing in that they demonstrate his very poor adherence to the rules of the road: February 2018 – speeding 60 kph in a 40 zone; July 2018 - speeding 69 kph in a 50 zone; September 2020 – careless driving; May 2021, disobey legal sign; May 2021 - speeding 149 kph in a 100 zone; January 2022 – disobey legal sign; February 2022 – stop/approach vehicle prohibited. There are other non-‘moving’ violations that are not relevant here. The careless driving conviction is especially relevant to this sentencing as when he pleaded guilty to that Provincial Offence, a criminal charge of dangerous driving was withdrawn.
7A pre-sentence report was prepared in this matter. Mr. Mohseni is 26 years old. He was born in Ottawa. He grew up in a dysfunctional home where there was domestic violence. His father was a severe alcoholic and a gambler. His mother suffered from poor mental health. The CAS became involved with the family. When the accused was roughly 14 years old, he became suicidal but his parents were indifferent. He no longer has a relationship with his them, however, it seems that he is close with his siblings. He has been in a relationship for six years. There are no children. His partner told the Probation Officer that she has noticed significant improvement in his behaviour since he was charged with these offences. A sister expressed a similar view to the officer.
8Mr. Mohseni completed Grade 12 in 2018. He is now considering attending college to study mental health and addictions. He is currently employed full-time as a mechanic. It is unclear to me when exactly he obtained this employment but it would seem to postdate his being charged. There are indications in the materials that he previously had difficulty maintaining employment.
9He started consuming alcohol in his mid-teens, opiates in his late teens, and cocaine by the age of 22. He became fully addicted to this latter substance. By December of 2025, in other words, two years after being charged, he reported to the Probation Officer that he had been completely sober for three months and that he had attended a 30-day rehabilitation program that ended on October 30, 2025. He reported that he attends 12-step meetings and also private psychotherapy sessions. These are positive first steps. I have not been told that he has not maintained his sobriety since then.
10The defence provided a book of sentencing materials. Most of the contents were letters of support from friends and family members. There is also a letter from his employer. I note that each time he has been before me, Mr. Mohseni has been accompanied by a group of supporters. I assume that at least some of the authors of the letters are amongst them.
11Two other letters in the materials should be mentioned here. One is a confirmation that he attended the 30-day program to which I just made reference. The other is a clinical progress report from a registered psychotherapist who concludes that the accused “currently presents with a low risk of engaging in similar behaviours in the future.” With all due respect, I am unaware of the existence of a discipline of forensic psychotherapy. Moreover, the methodology used by the author of the report to come to the above conclusion is not explained in any detail. As well, while the author states that Mr. Mohseni initially attended weekly sessions, then later transitioned to bi-weekly sessions, and now attends monthly maintenance session, it is nowhere stated how many sessions he has actually participated in or their individual duration. Finally, it is unclear to me whether any of the sessions were in person or whether they were on-line given that the psychotherapist in question appears to be based in California as per her letterhead.
12Mr. Mohseni addressed the Court at the end of the submissions by counsel. He did briefly apologize for his actions of December 22, 2023. However, he then basically talked about himself and how those events have affected him. I wish to make one thing clear: Mr. Mohseni, you are not the victim here. It is one thing to dull the pain of past trauma through use of alcohol and drugs. It is quite another thing to use those substances and then get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.
13I have reviewed the victim impact statements prepared by Jayden, his mother, his grandmother, and his uncle. I have also reread a community impact statement prepared by the president of the Ottawa chapter of MADD. I will not here go over these documents in any detail but I wish to assure everyone that their contents have been taken into account in my decision. The impact of Mr. Mohseni’s criminal actions has been significant and is ongoing; in the case of Jayden, it has been life changing. His uncle’s injuries, while less serious than those of Jayden, were nonetheless major and have caused him ongoing problems. I will here quote Jayden’s mother, who wrote that the accused’s actions “completely changed the trajectory of our lives. Since then, our world has been shattered and rebuilt around trauma, fear, and survival. Nothing has been the same since.” I have no sense that she was exaggerating when she typed those words. The information that I have received also outlines the financial challenges faced by the family as a result of Mr. Mohseni’s actions.
The Law
14I will begin here by noting elements of s. 320.12 Criminal Code. That section is not often referred to explicitly, however, it provides a clear focal point for the sections in the Code dealing with driving and sobriety. The word ‘conveyance’ in the present case merely means a motor vehicle.
It is recognized and declared that
(a) operating a conveyance is a privilege that is subject to certain limits in the interests of public safety that include licensing, the observation of rules and sobriety;
(b) the protection of society is well served by deterring persons from operating conveyances dangerously or while their ability to operate them is impaired by alcohol or a drug, because their conduct poses a threat to the life, health and safety of Canadians; …
15Mr. Mohseni faces two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm. The relevant section (s. 320.13(2)) reads “Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public and, as a result, causes bodily harm to another person.” With respect to the counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm, the relevant subsections (s. 320.14(1) and (2)) read together as “Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance while the person’s ability to operate it is impaired to any degree by alcohol or a drug or a combination of alcohol and a drug and causes bodily harm to another person.”
16The penalties for offences committed under these sections is governed by s. 320.2 which reads:
Every person who commits an offence under subsection 320.13(2), 320.14(2) … is guilty of
(a) an indicatable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of,
(i) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, …
17In the case R. v. Puyenbroek, 2007 ONCA 824 at paragraph 59, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated that in cases similar to the one they were dealing with where, I note, the facts were comparable to the present case, the sentencing range ran from conditional sentences to two years less a day in jail. However, the sentencing regime in place at that time (s. 255(2)) set the maximum sentence at but 10 years. That the maximum has now been set at 14 years is a clear indication from Parliament that the Puyenbroek range is no longer valid. As was held by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Boily, 2022 ONCA 611 at paragraph 51, those changes were “designed to create a stronger approach to punishing driving offences” (see, too, the discussion in R. v. Wolfe, 2024 SCC 34).
18The Ontario Court of appeal has stressed this very recently. In R. v. Hayatibahar, 2026 ONCA 57, it was stated at paragraphs 96-97
In recent years, sentences for dangerous and impaired driving offences have increased: ... This is a response to amendments to the Criminal Code and a reflection of a growing recognition of the seriousness of these offences – both their high moral blameworthiness and the devastating impact that they have on our communities: ... The Criminal Code amendments in relation to these offences affirm the primacy of denunciation and deterrence in sentencing dangerous and impaired driving offenders: ... [citations omitted]
19The granting of a conditional sentences of imprisonment is governed by s. 742.1. The following are the relevant portions of that section.
If a person is convicted of an offence and the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years, the court may, for the purpose of supervising the offender’s behaviour in the community, order that the offender serve the sentence in the community, subject to the conditions imposed under section 742.3, if
(a) the court is satisfied that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2;
(b) the offence is not an offence punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment;
20I turn now to the purpose and principles of sentencing. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.
21The fundamental principle of sentencing is that “a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.”
22Section 718.2 Criminal Code requires that a court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender;
(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation,
shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances.
(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;
(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;
(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and
(e) 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 ….
23Given the position of the Crown, I will here review s. 718.3(4).
The court that sentences an accused shall consider directing
(b) that the term of imprisonment that it imposes at the same time for more than one offence be served consecutively, including when
(i) the offences do not arise out of the same event or series of events,
24During submissions, Mr. Weinstein relied to a significant extent on the issue of the effect of collateral consequences should I sentence Mr. Mohseni to real jail as opposed to a conditional sentence of imprisonment.
Analysis
25The Crown’s global number of four yours is predicated on the sentence for the counts relating to Mr. Kouassi being served consecutively to those where Jayden was the victim. It is obvious that there was but one event resulting in injuries to two persons. The Supreme Court of Canada has expressed the general rule governing this issue in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at paragraph 155.
The decision whether to impose a sentence concurrent with another sentence or consecutive to it is guided by principles. While the issue warrants further discussion in another case, the general rule is that offences that are so closely linked to each other as to constitute a single criminal adventure may, but are not required to, receive concurrent sentences, while all other offences are to receive consecutive sentences …
The Manitoba Court of Appeal in R. v. Taylor, 2010 MBCA 103 referred to this test at paragraphs 11-12 as
if the offences are sufficiently interrelated or have a reasonably close nexus, the judge will impose a sentence with concurrent dispositions. If the offences are separate and distinct, then consecutive sentences are to be imposed. … When a judge decides to impose concurrent sentences for all offences, it will be because they were found to be sufficiently interrelated to merit concurrent dispositions.
See, too, R. v. Wilson, 2022 ONCA 857 at paragraph 57.
26The four counts for which I am sentencing Mr. Mohseni are clearly closely interrelated and are the result of a single criminal act. I am of the view that to sentence him consecutively on some of these counts would be to artificially inflate the outcome. The sentences will be concurrent.
27Given the respective positions of the parties, I must examine whether a conditional sentence can be considered in this case. As the Crown has conceded, such a sentence is technically available. However, it must be determined whether 1) a jail sentence of less than two years would be appropriate, 2) that I would be satisfied that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community, and 3) such a sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2.
28Denunciation and deterrence, both general and specific, are the most significant sentencing factors in this case. While rehabilitation must also be considered, its effect is clearly outweighed in this case by these other two factors.
29I will now list the aggravating circumstances relevant to this sentencing. First of all, Mr. Mohseni’s actions had a significant impact on the health and financial circumstances of his victims. Highly aggravating here is Jayden’s age, the life changing injuries that he has sustained, and his continued need for ongoing medical treatments. It is fair to say that the consequences have been catastrophic. I will note here as well the impact that this event had on other members of Jayden’s family.
30Mr. Mohseni’s non-criminal driving record demonstrates an indifference on his part to the rules of the road. As those rules are in place for the safety of the public, it is evident that even absent impairment, Mr. Mohseni did not feel constrained by the Highway Traffic Act. Once again, I feel obliged to stress that his resolution in 2020 of a Criminal Code driving charge for a non-criminal sanction should have served as a wakeup call to him about the manner in which he drove. It did not.
31Related to this last circumstance is the outrageous speed at which Mr. Mohseni was traveling but seconds before the impact: 172 kph in a 50 kph zone. I have no doubt that the substances ingested by Mr. Mohseni played a role his driving on December 22, 2023. But that driving can be placed at the extreme end of the range of behaviour that he had previously demonstrated while not impaired. In other words, it was not out of character and this is highly aggravating.
32In mitigation, I find the following. First of all, there is his lack of a criminal record. I must say that the effect of this circumstance is somewhat dissipated by the circumstances that led to the conviction for careless driving. However, I am sentencing a man without any criminal antecedents.
33A second circumstance that stands in mitigation is Mr. Mohseni’s plea of guilt. No trial was held, judicial resources were thus saved, and, importantly, Jayden and his uncle were not required to testify. It is true that this was an overwhelming Crown case. However, a guilty plea, be it the result of remorse, an acceptance of the inevitable or a mixture of both must be taken as mitigating. I do not accept the Crown’s submission that a late plea is necessarily worthy of limited effect in mitigation.
34Mr. Mohseni is presently 26 years of age. The offences occurred in 2023. Therefore, he is being sentenced as a youthful adult (i.e., under the age of 25 years) first time offender.
35Finally, it is clear to me from the materials and continued presence of people in court that Mr. Mohseni is fortunate to have the support of family and friends. He is not socially isolated. This is a mitigating circumstance to be considered.
36I fail to see, in a case where there has been a history of bad driving including an earlier but abortive entry into the criminal justice system and then total indifference to the safety of others on the road as demonstrated by Mr. Mohseni’s action on December 22, 2023, how a conditional sentence of any length would be sufficiently denunciatory to be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. I say this being well aware of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5.
37Moreover, I am not convinced by the record before me that such a sentence would provide sufficient specific deterrence so that it could be said that Mr. Mohseni would no longer be a danger to the community. I base this latter conclusion on the fact that the evidence before me is that as recently as the fall of 2025, he was still drinking or using drugs or both. The offence date was in December of 2023. He could not maintain sobriety during 2024 and well into 2025. That he now seems to have begun the rehabilitative process is to his credit. However, the existence of mental health issues due to untreated childhood/adolescent trauma and the resulting long-term addictions require the success that would only come after a significant course of intensive therapy before I could find that Mr. Mohseni would no longer pose a danger to the community. A 30-day stay at a rehabilitation facility, while a commendable start, is not sufficient. It will hardly be a surprise to anyone at this point that I will assign little weight to the report prepared by the psychotherapist for reasons already stated.
Conclusion
38I have reviewed the various cases provided to me by both counsel. They provide but general guidance. I am sentencing Mr. Mohseni on the facts that I have just reviewed.
39I agree with Mr. Radcliffe that the appropriate sentence for the offences against Jayden is one of three years. Therefore, I will register a sentence of three years jail on that dangerous driving and the same sentence for the related impaired to be served concurrently. I also agree with the Crown that one year on each count is the appropriate sentence for the two counts where Mr. Kouassi was the victim. However, for the reasons stated earlier, those sentences will be concurrent to each other and concurrent to the three years to be served on the other two counts.
40I have considered the impact of collateral issues that might arise from this sentence. Obviously, the removal of an individual from society and placing them in jail will have an impact not directly related to the sentence. This will include negative effects upon their financial situation, and their relationships with friends and family. However, I do not view this impact as displacing the overwhelming need here for a sentence stressing a level of deterrence and denunciation that can only be provided by actual incarceration.
41There will be the following ancillary orders: a secondary DNA order and a non-communication order pursuant to s. 743.21, the named persons will be Jayden Hunter, Prince Kassa Kouassi and any members of their families. There will also be a prohibition order pursuant to s. 320.24(5)(b) which will be in effect for the duration of his jail sentence plus 10 years for a total of 13 years. Driving is a privilege that Mr. Mohseni will have to forego for that period due to his actions. Given that he is about to step into custody, I will exercise my discretion and not order that he pay the victim fine surcharge.
42Mr. Mohseni, during your stay in custody, Correctional Services Canada will offer you the opportunity to undergo various therapies and courses of counselling for psychological issues and addictions. I hope that you accept their offer.
Released: July 29, 2026
Signed: Justice Berg