ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025 11 26
COURT FILE No.: Central West (Peel) region 998-24-31110576-00
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
-- AND --
SHAHZAD AHMAD
Before Justice R. Tomovski
Heard on November 5, 2025
Reasons for Sentence released on November 26, 2025
Andres De Avila .................................................................................. counsel for the Crown
David Holmes ........................................................................................ counsel for the accused Shahzad Ahmad
Tomovski J.:
Introduction
[1] Mr. Ahmad, now 47 years old, has lived a law-abiding life except for the single day on which he assaulted his daughter, who was between 12 and 13 years old at the time. The assault was approximately eight to nine years ago.
[2] I have considered the submissions of the Crown and the Defence, the applicable sentencing principles, and the circumstances of the offence and the offender including the aggravating and mitigating factors. After having done so, I find that any sentence short of a jail sentence would not be a reasonable and fit one in the circumstances. My reasons below explain my finding.
Position of the Parties
[3] The Crown and Defence have markedly different sentencing positions. The former is suggesting a jail sentence; the latter asks the Court to impose a conditional discharge. Each party has identified factors supporting their respective recommendations.
[4] The Crown is seeking a jail sentence of 30 days, followed by a period of probation. He submits that a jail sentence is necessary to address the primary sentencing principles in this case of denunciation and deterrence and to address several applicable statutory aggravating factors including that the victim was under 18 years at the time of the offence and that Mr. Ahmad abused a position of trust as the victim's father.
[5] Conversely, the Defence is seeking a conditional discharge along with a period of probation. He submits that a discharge would not be contrary to the public interest due to there being several mitigating factors including that Mr. Ahmad does not have a criminal record and has been law-abiding since the assault especially as it relates to his daughter including compliance with his release terms relating to her. The Defence emphasizes that a period of probation could ensure ongoing monitoring with court-imposed terms. The Defence also identifies collateral consequences arising from any conviction including potential loss of employment and family separation.
Applicable Sentencing Principles
[6] Section 718 of the Criminal Code provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute 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: denunciation; deterrence; rehabilitation; to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders; separating offenders from society; reparations for harm done to victims or the community; and acknowledging the harm done to others.
[7] Section 718.1 requires as the fundamental principle of sentencing that a sentence is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
[8] Sections 718.2(d) states that "an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances". Section 718.2(e) states that "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[.]"
[9] Section 718.01 identifies denunciation and deterrence as the primary sentencing objectives when imposing a sentence for an offence involving the abuse of a person under 18 years old.
Circumstances of the Offence
[10] The Crown proceeded summarily. Mr. Ahmad's trial took place over the course of 4 days, on September 22 to 25, 2025, after which, on October 1, 2025, I found him guilty of one count of assaulting his daughter.
[11] The assault occurred in the family home between 2016 and 2017 when Mr. Ahmad's daughter tried to intervene in an argument between her father and her mother, while coming to the aid of the latter. Mr. Ahmad's daughter was between 12 and 13 years old. I found Mr. Ahmad slapped his daughter's face and back and grabbed her by the arm and dragged her upstairs. He then threw her into her bedroom. The assault caused redness to the left side of the victim's face, fingerprint marks to her left forearm, and redness and soreness to the middle of her back.
Circumstances of the Offender
[12] Mr. Ahmad is 47 years old. He was born in Pakistan where he finished high school and college. In 1999, he and the victim's mother married. The following year, Mr. Ahmad was sponsored by his wife and arrived in Canada. He has since become a Canadian citizen.
[13] Mr. Ahmad and his wife met while studying medicine at university. Due to the cost of qualifying in Canada, Mr. Ahmad abandoned his pursuit of becoming a doctor and sought employment to support his family. He has remained gainfully employed ever since then, working various jobs including as a labourer, salesperson and manager. Mr. Ahmad currently works as a senior sales manager at a car dealership and is required to be licenced by the industry regulator. I am advised by the Defence that a requirement of the regulator is that Mr. Ahmad must disclose any findings of guilt, which may result in revocation of his licence.
[14] Around the time Mr. Ahmad was charged, the victim and her mother had already moved out of the family residence. Mr. Ahmad and his two sons remained and have lived together ever since. His sons are 18 and 15 years old and are dependent on their father including financially.
[15] At the time of the offence, Mr. Ahmad and his wife were experiencing marital difficulties which, I am advised, put a lot of stress on Mr. Ahmad. Further, he was working very long hours over six days a week.
[16] I was provided several letters of support from Mr. Ahmad's friends. They all speak to Mr. Ahmad's strong work ethic and integrity and positive contributions to his community. They also speak about Mr. Ahmad's love and support for his sons.
[17] To summarize, both prior to and after the assault, Mr. Ahmad has, otherwise, been a completely law-abiding member of the community. He is educated, hardworking, gainfully employed and has always financially supported his family including, now, his two dependent sons, with whom he resides.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
[18] There are several aggravating factors in this case including statutory aggravating ones.
[19] Section 718.2(a)(ii) treats as aggravating an offence that is committed against a member of the offender's family. In this case, Mr. Ahmad assaulted his daughter.
[20] As referenced above, s. 718.2(a)(ii.1) treats as aggravating an offence committed against a victim who is under 18 years old. Mr. Ahmad's daughter was between 12 and 13 years old at the time of the assault.
[21] Section 718.2(a)(iii) treats as aggravating an offence committed while the offender is in a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim. The father-daughter relationship in this case is one such relationship.
[22] The assault committed by Mr. Ahmad was a deliberate and serious act of violence, involving multiple applications of force, committed in the family home, which resulted in multiples injuries to his daughter. A family home is a setting where a child is entitled to feel safe and protected and free from violence, especially from one's parent: see R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at para. 178 (although Friesen involved a sexual offence committed in the home, the principle, in my view, has similar application to a non-sexual offence committed in the home).
[23] Section 718.2(a)(iii.1) treats as aggravating an offence that has had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances. The victim was a child at the time, between 12 and 13 years old. The assault had a profound and enduring impact on her, as evidenced by her victim impact statement, which was made Exhibit 1 on sentence. The victim pointedly explains the trauma the assault caused her. She describes being "robbed [by her father of her] self esteem, happiness, comfort and safety as a child". Her words show a great level of maturity and insight reflecting on what was undoubtedly a terrifying and life-changing experience.
[24] There are several mitigating factors in this case.
[25] The offence appears to be entirely out of character and was not pre-meditated.
[26] Mr. Ahmad has no prior criminal record.
[27] He has been gainfully employed for nearly his entire adult life. He currently works six days a week. He is the sole financial provider for his two sons.
[28] Mr. Ahmad's two sons are dependent on their father. They live together with their father and rely on him financially and for housing. Caring and providing for his sons shows good character and increases Mr. Ahmad's prospects for rehabilitation. Incarceration, no matter how brief, would directly impact Mr. Ahmad's sons. Family separation is a mitigating factor and a meaningful collateral consequence that may impact the sentence imposed even when denunciation and deterrence are required: see R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830 at paras. 45-47.
[29] Mr. Ahmad has strong support in the community as referenced in the letters of support from his friends.
[30] Mr. Ahmad has strictly adhered to the terms of his release order for a period of 14 months, including abstaining from having any contact with his daughter. This also suggests Mr. Ahmad has good prospects for rehabilitation and is a low risk to reoffend.
Range of Sentence & Recommended Cases
[31] No sentence is legally precluded for a summary conviction for assault.
[32] The Defence seeks a conditional discharge and a period of probation. A discharge may be imposed if it is in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest: s. 730(1) of the Criminal Code.
[33] The Crown seeks a 30-day jail sentence and a period of probation. Incarceration for a period of 90 days or less permits an offender to serve the sentence intermittently: s. 732(1). In its submissions, the Crown indicated he was not opposed to Mr. Ahmad serving his sentence intermittently to allow Mr. Ahmad a greater chance at keeping his current employment.
[34] Pursuant to s. 742.1, a conditional sentence is available if the statutory prerequisites are met: The sentence of imprisonment is less than two years; there is no minimum term of imprisonment; and serving 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 s. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code. No class of offence is excluded from consideration for a conditional sentence: see R v Walker, 2025 ABCA 29 at para. 16.
[35] The Crown has provided me with several cases which he submits are similar and, therefore, useful in arriving at the appropriate sentence for Mr. Ahmad. I summarize the cases below.
[36] In R. v. Ciobanu, 2025 ONCJ 92, Mr. Ciobanu was convicted after trial of slapping his child in the face and kicking him in the testicles after the child tried to intervene on behalf of his mother on two separate occasions. Mr. Ciobanu struck his son without any justification while the latter was simply trying to protect his mother. He was sentenced to 30 days jail on each assault. Jones J. at para. 45 found that a conditional sentence was not appropriate as "it would not adequately reflect Mr. Ciobanu's degree of personal responsibility, the harm done to his wife and child, and the values represented in the Criminal Code regarding violence against woman and children more generally". Further, Jones J. at para. 41 noted that "[j]ail sentences are typical, even for single acts of abuse. Conditional sentences have been imposed only in cases where significant mitigating factors were present". Finally, at paras. 46 and 47, Jones J. found that a potential collateral consequence that may see Mr. Ciobanu lose his employment did not justify the reduction of an otherwise fit jail sentence especially when the offence involved personal violence.
[37] In R. v. R.M, 2022 ONSC 6662, R.M. was convicted by a jury of several offences including assaulting his son and a young boy for which he was sentenced to 30 days jail for each assault. The assaults consisted of grabbing their arms while trying to abduct his son: at paras. 1, 5-6. Although R.M. had a prior unrelated conviction, the trial judge sentenced him as a first-time offender: at para. 14. A discharge was held to be contrary to the public interest based on R.M.'s actions and callous disregard for the rule of law: at para. 39. The 30-day jail sentences were not appealed: R. v. R.M., 2023 ONCA 853 at paras. 14-15, 37.
[38] In Justice Speyer's decision of R. v. Ossetchkine, an unreported decision of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 18, 2019, Mr. Ossetchkine was convicted by a jury of assaulting his wife and three children in the family home over multiple years and sentenced to 30 days jail for each (simple) assault: at pp. 4-7, 10, 17. Some of the assaults consisted of Mr. Ossetchkine hitting his children with his hand on their buttock, back and thighs, in what was described as a "corrective" approach to discipline. The trial judge held that a conditional sentence was inappropriate in the circumstances to address the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, especially based on the absence of several mitigating factors and the presence of several aggravating factors: at pp. 13-14. Mr. Ossetchkine's sentence appeal was dismissed: R. v. Ossetchkine, 2021 ONCA 698 at paras. 3, 10.
[39] The Defence has asked me to consider two cases, and the cases cited therein. They are summarized below.
[40] In R. v. M.M., 2020 ONCJ 635, M.M. was convicted of assaulting her 3-year-old child by hitting the child multiple times on the buttock out of frustration, tiredness and anger, causing bruising, and grabbing the child's face and screaming at him for not going to sleep. The judge granted M.M. a conditional discharge on the basis that there were several mitigating factors that made the imposition of a discharge appropriate. Those factors are a guilty plea; a youthful first-offender, an expression of genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility; and the completion of upfront counselling and programming to address underlying mental health concerns and anger management issues.
[41] In R. v. Espina, 2020 ONSC 6342, Mr. Espina was convicted of assaulting his child by hitting the child multiple times on his shins with a belt and on his buttock and palms with a broomstick. The summary conviction appeal judge found that the sentencing judge had erred in rejecting a joint submission for an absolute discharge, which was ultimately imposed on appeal. Several mitigating factors made the imposition of a discharge appropriate. Those factors are an early guilty plea; a joint submission; an expression of remorse; and significant post-charge rehabilitative efforts including the completion of counselling.
[42] The mitigating factors present in cases like M.M. and Espina -- a guilty plea, remorse, acceptance of responsibility and rehabilitative efforts -- that justified the imposition of a discharge are absent here. Further, both M.M. and Espina, and all the cases cited therein, involved parents who were misguided in disciplining their children. Mr. Ahmad's assault of his daughter, however, was not inflicted from a genuine attempt to discipline. Rather, it was a deliberate act of violence to prevent his daughter from intervening in a spousal dispute and to punish her for having tried.
Application to Mr. Ahmad's Case
[43] As referenced, there are several mitigating factors in this case. Mr. Ahmad has no prior criminal record. He is gainfully employed. He has strong support in the community.
[44] A criminal conviction and record may result in Mr. Ahmad losing his licencing and therefore his current employment. It is a relevant collateral consequence. Family separation is also a relevant collateral consequence. Any period of incarceration, even a brief one, would result in a separation between Mr. Ahmad and his two dependent sons. The latter rely on Mr. Ahmad for shelter and financially.
[45] However, as also referenced, there are several aggravating factors. The victim was under 18 years old. The assault was a breach of trust. The assault occurred in the family home and resulted in multiple injuries. The offence has continued to negatively impact the victim.
[46] Generally, a discharge is not common in cases of assault by a parent against their child in which remorse and acceptance of responsibility are not present, which usually, but not always, accompany a guilty plea. Two reasons are that genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility lead to an inference that specific deterrence has been addressed, or is at least less of a concern, and that prospects for rehabilitation are good, which cannot be assumed simply by the passage of time from the offending conduct.
[47] Mr. Ahmad has not shown any remorse or acceptance of responsibility. I do not treat the lack of remorse as an aggravating factor. Instead, it is simply the absence of a mitigating factor: see R. v. Shah, 2017 ONCA 872 at para. 8. The absence of remorse impacts specific deterrence and rehabilitation as it may suggest a lack of insight into the offending conduct and a failure to accept responsibility. I, similarly, treat the absence of a guilty plea as the absence of a mitigating factor, not as an aggravating factor.
[48] The letters of support filed on Mr. Ahmad's behalf, which speak to his good character generally, are relevant to specific deterrence and rehabilitation. Although the letters of support offer insight into Mr. Ahmad's character generally, they do not specifically address his relationship with his daughter. It is unclear whether some or all the authors were aware of the findings made against Mr. Ahmad. Further, I am required to put the friends' views of Mr. Ahmad's general character into context since offences like the one Mr. Ahmad was convicted occur in private and out of public view and knowledge: see R v. Sheppard, at para. (although Sheppard involved a sexual offence, the principle, in my view, has similar application to a non-sexual offence). As such, I give the letters less weight.
[49] I find a discharge is not appropriate in this case and would be contrary to the public interest. The offence is a serious assault committed in the family home by a father against his child which resulted in multiple injuries. Further, the assault was committed to prevent a child from intervening in a spousal dispute and to punish the child for having tried. The offence has had a significant, ongoing impact on the victim. Denunciation and deterrence are paramount principles in this case which would not be adequately addressed by a discharge. There is an absence of significant mitigating factors including remorse and acceptance of responsibility.
[50] Instead, I find a jail sentence is necessary to address the primary sentencing principles in this case of denunciation and deterrence. It would also address Mr. Ahmad's high degree of responsibility and the seriousness of the assault, committed against his child in the family home, and the physical, psychological and emotional harm the assault caused his daughter.
[51] I am not persuaded that the mitigating factors in this case and the potential collateral consequences of Mr. Ahmad losing his licencing and employment and being briefly separated from his adult sons justify the reduction of an otherwise fit jail sentence especially when the assault involved his child and a deliberate infliction of violence against her. Whereas, the absence of several important mitigating factors, like remorse, acceptance of responsibility and insight, and the presence of several aggravating factors, including statutory ones, make a conditional sentence inappropriate in this case. A conditional sentence would not adequately reflect Mr. Ahmad's degree of responsibility and the harm done to his daughter. Put differently, serving the sentence in the community would be inconsistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in s. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.
Sentence Imposed
[52] I impose a sentence of 30 days jail.
[53] The sentence will be served intermittently. I am satisfied that allowing Mr. Ahmad to serve his sentence on weekends will result in a shorter period of separation from his sons each week and the ability to maintain his current work schedule until a final decision is made about his licencing.
[54] Mr. Ahmad will be taken into custody today for processing and then released. He will then surrender himself into custody at the jail this Saturday, November 29, 2025, at 10:00 p.m. and be released on Monday, December 1, 2025, at 6:00 a.m. Mr. Ahmad will serve his sentence on consecutive weekends in this manner going forward until his sentence is completed.
[55] Mr. Ahmad must appear at the jail to serve his intermittent sentence on time, in a sober condition, with a blood alcohol concentration of zero, and not under the influence of or in possession of any controlled substance unless he is taking that controlled substance pursuant to a lawfully obtained prescription.
[56] Mr. Ahmad will comply with the terms of a probation order while not in custody during the period the sentence is being served. The terms are:
i. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour
ii. Not to contact or communicate, in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means with Liba Ahmad or Bazga Abdullah
iii. Not to attend within 50 metres of the place where you know Liba Ahmad or Bazga Abdullah to live, work, go to school, frequent or any other place you know them to be
[57] Pursuant to s. 743.21(1), an order will issue prohibiting Mr. Ahmad from communicating, directly or indirectly, with Liba Ahmad and Bazga Abdullah during the custodial period of the sentence.
[58] Following the completion of his custodial sentence, Mr. Ahmad will be subject to a probation order for a period of 12 months on the following terms:
i. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour
ii. To report in person to a probation officer within 48 hours of the completion of the custodial portion of your sentence and thereafter as required
iii. Not to contact or communicate, in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means with Liba Ahmad or Bazga Abdullah
iv. Not to attend within 50 metres of the place where you know Liba Ahmad or Bazga Abdullah to live, work, go to school, frequent or any other place you know them to be
v. To participate in any counselling as recommended to you by your probation officer and to sign any releases to enable your probation officer to monitor your attendance of completion of such counselling
[59] I will impose a DNA order. Assault is a secondary designated offence pursuant to s. 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code. As such, the imposition of a DNA order is discretionary. After weighing and balancing all the relevant considerations, I find that making the order is in the best interests of the administration of justice. Mr. Ahmad has a lesser expectation of privacy post-conviction and there is minimal intrusion and impact on his privacy and security interest. Whereas the offending conduct involved a serious act of violence against a child for which Mr. Ahmad lacks any insight.
[60] The victim fine surcharge applies. Mr. Ahmad has 120 days to pay.
Released: November 26, 2025
Signed: Justice Tomovski