Reasons for Sentence

Court File No.: CR-21-00001533-0000
Date of Release: June 20, 2025
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
His Majesty the King
– and –
Samantha Arezo Faryadpoor, Defendant

Appearances:
Mr. S. Pearl, for the Crown
Ms. M. Bavaro, for the Defendant

Heard: February 12 and March 24, 2025

Justice Michelle Fuerst

Introduction

[1] Samantha Faryadpoor participated in a brazen mid-day home invasion and robbery. It left the female victim shaken to her core, her sense of safety, her trust, and her family’s ability to live without fear all decimated.

[2] Even though Ms. Faryadpoor pleaded guilty to robbery, there is no question that the seriousness of her offence requires the imposition of a penitentiary sentence. Crown and defence counsel do not agree, however, as to its length.

The Circumstances of the Offence

[3] Ms. Faryadpoor and a male companion went to a Vaughan home, around 1:15 p.m. on December 11, 2019. Ms. Faryadpoor rang the doorbell, while her companion remained hidden from view.

[4] A 60 year old woman, K. G., answered the door. She was at home alone. Upon the door opening, the male immediately appeared from the side. He was armed with a handgun. He pushed Ms. G. in an attempt to force entry into the home. Then he punched her in the face, and threw her to the ground. He demanded money and the location of a safe.

[5] Ms. Faryadpoor did not see the assault happen, as she was walking though the house looking for money.

[6] The male placed the gun to Ms. G.’s forehead. When she consistently denied the existence of a safe, he punched her in the face, repeatedly, with a closed fist.

[7] Ms. Faryadpoor continued to search the residence. She was seen and heard talking on the phone with someone who said to “Get the money”. She responded, “We are doing that”. Ms. G. later reported that Ms. Faryadpoor was on the phone throughout the robbery.

[8] The male dragged Ms. G. into the main floor bathroom. He continued to punch her, and struck her with the gun multiple times. The assault continued to escalate. Ms. Faryadpoor intervened and stopped the attack, telling the man, “It will kill her”. Ms. Faryadpoor and the man fled the house soon after.

[9] Ms. G. reported that mixed currency totalling something less than $1,000 was stolen.

[10] Ms. G. was hospitalized for one week with a broken jaw, a broken nose, two fractured orbital bones, a broken finger, a broken ankle, and lacerations.

The Victim Impact Information

[11] In her Victim Impact Statement, Ms. G. described transforming from an independent and active person, to someone who is filled with fear, anxiety, and an overwhelming sense of vulnerability. She no longer feels safe in her own home. She suffers from severe PTSD, and has frequent flashbacks. She was unable to continue working as a supply teacher because she no longer felt safe being in different schools. She now works from home as an optician doing only administrative work, because she is too afraid to go into stores to deal with new clients. Her husband became extremely paranoid. He also developed PTSD. The couple could not stay in their home because of the events, and had to move.

[12] Ms. G. suffered physical injuries that she described as severe and permanent. She was in a wheelchair for months. She had to relearn how to walk. She still cannot walk properly. She has nerve damage in her hands and face. She continues to experience physical pain, frequent headaches, and dizziness.

[13] Ms. G. wrote that, “The crime did not just take away my physical health—it took away my sense of safety, my trust, and my family’s ability to live without fear.”

The Circumstances of Ms. Faryadpoor

[14] Ms. Faryadpoor is 27 years old. She was 21 years old when she committed the offence. She has a prior criminal record for fail to comply with recognizance in 2016, for which she received a suspended sentence with probation. Subsequent to her arrest for the robbery, she was convicted of other offences. I note that they do not constitute previous convictions.

[15] Following her arrest for the robbery on February 20, 2021, Ms. Faryadpoor spent approximately two and a half months in custody at the Central East Correctional Centre (“CECC”) before being released on a house arrest bail on April 29, 2021. The house arrest clause permitted her to leave her home only with her parents. After about two years, the bail was loosened from house arrest to a daily curfew.

[16] On March 4, 2024, Ms. Faryadpoor was re-arrested for another offence. She has been held in custody since, at CECC, Quinte Detention Centre, and Vanier Centre for Women.

[17] Ms. Faryadpoor was adopted when she was a year old and raised as an only child. She described her mother as verbally abusive and very strict, but reports that she had a family-oriented upbringing and spent time with cousins. Ms. Faryadpoor was unaware of her adoption until, at the age of 14 years, she found out about it through a cousin. Her mother confirmed this fact soon after. Ms. Faryadpoor recalls feeling isolated and overwhelmed at learning she was adopted. After she threatened to commit suicide, she was apprehended under the Mental Health Act. She was placed in foster care. She reports that there were instances of attempted abuse within the foster home. After about six months, she was able to return to her parents’ home. However, her relationship with her parents was never the same as it had been.

[18] Ms. Faryadpoor told the author of the pre-sentence report that she was diagnosed with depression at the age of nine years, and at some point with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

[19] Ms. Faryadpoor began getting into trouble while she was in high school. She had absences from school, and she was subject to school suspensions. Her attitude toward her parents was one of defiance and a lack of listening. She associated with negative peers, and became involved in the criminal justice system as a youth. However, she completed high school at an alternative school.

[20] Ms. Faryadpoor’s employment history is limited. It includes doing door to door sales, and working as a hostess at a restaurant.

[21] When she was 19 years old, she began a multi-year relationship with a man by whom she had a daughter. The child is now six years old. Her former partner went to jail when their daughter was seven months old. Ms. Faryadpoor’s mother-in-law had temporary custody for a period of time, because Ms. Faryadpoor could not take care of the child. Full custody was later returned to Ms. Faryadpoor. Her former partner has not provided financial or other support for the child or for Ms. Faryadpoor.

[22] When Ms. Faryadpoor went into custody upon her arrest for the robbery, her daughter was temporarily placed with the paternal grandmother. Following her release on bail in April 2021, Ms. Faryadpoor was unable to see her daughter regularly because the child remained in the care of the paternal grandmother. Eventually her daughter was returned to Ms. Faryadpoor’s care.

[23] While on bail, Ms. Faryadpoor participated in parenting workshops run by the HOPE program at Yonge Street Mission. She also was in the Nursery Program there. She was described by managerial staff as consistent and responsible as a mother toward her daughter, and open to the professional support offered to her.

[24] When Ms. Faryadpoor was re-arrested in March 2024 and detained in custody, her daughter remained with the maternal grandparents. It has been difficult for them to bring the child to visit Ms. Faryadpoor at the various institutions. Her telephone contact with her family has not been regular. All of this has been difficult for Ms. Faryadpoor. She expressed to HOPE managers that she feels despondent about her separation from her daughter.

[25] Institutional records indicate that Ms. Faryadpoor was locked down for all or part of a day because of staffing shortages on about three dozen occasions in total. In her affidavit, she noted that she is one of very few racialized inmates at Quinte Detention Centre, and that there are no Muslim spiritual leaders available.

[26] While in custody, Ms. Faryadpoor completed three Women’s Skills for Better Living programs. At Quinte Detention Centre, she has worked in both the laundry and food service departments. A manager described her as a dependable, cooperative, and conscientious worker.

[27] Ms. Faryadpoor’s parents continue to care for her daughter. This is not easy for them because of their age. The paternal grandmother takes care of the child every second weekend.

[28] Ms. Faryadpoor’s parents believe that she made poor choices in the past, but that she now wants to become a contributing member of society. They remain supportive of her. Ms. Faryadpoor is welcome to return to their home on her release from jail.

[29] The pre-sentence report suggested, however, that Ms. Faryadpoor’s parents may lack awareness of her past association with individuals who have histories of involvement in the criminal justice system.

[30] The pre-sentence report attributed comments to Ms. Faryadpoor that she committed the robbery “under threat, believing her life was in jeopardy if she refused”. When I raised the import of these comments with defence counsel at the sentencing hearing, Ms. Faryadpoor confirmed through her lawyer that she was not suggesting that a defence of duress was available to her. She was trying to convey that she acted under the influence of someone else, although she acknowledged that she had made her own decisions.

[31] Ms. Faryadpoor expressed remorse for her actions to the author of the pre-sentence report, and again in court at the sentencing hearing. She prepared a letter apologizing for the pain that the victim and her family endured.

[32] Ms. Faryadpoor wants to live at home with her parents and daughter on her release from jail, and to “be there” for them. If placed on probation, she would be willing to participate in counselling. She plans to attend college or university, and to pursue a career in nursing or cooking.

[33] The author of the pre-sentence report assessed Ms. Faryadpoor as having complex needs, including rehabilitative programming focused on anger management, substance abuse, parenting, trauma, and prosocial skill development.

The Positions of the Parties

[34] On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Pearl seeks a sentence of six years in jail, less pre-sentence custody credited at one and a half to one. He emphasizes that the Court of Appeal for Ontario made it very clear some time ago that a significant penitentiary sentence is warranted for an offence involving home invasion. While Ms. Faryadpoor did not physically assault the victim, she was a participant in the violation of the sanctity of the victim’s home, which resulted in horrific physical and emotional injuries. Mr. Pearl also seeks a s. 109 weapons prohibition order, a DNA order, and a s. 743.21 non-communication order.

[35] On behalf of Ms. Faryadpoor, Ms. Bavaro seeks a sentence of two and half years in jail less pre-sentence custody credited at one and a half to one and less additional credit for time under restrictive bail conditions. She advised that Ms. Faryadpoor used 66 days of her pre-trial custody credit towards her sentence on another matter. Ms. Bavaro does not oppose the ancillary orders requested by Crown counsel. She acknowledges that the offence was horrific, but emphasizes that Ms. Faryadpoor did not physically assault the victim in any way, and intervened to stop the attack. In addition to the mitigating factors of Ms. Faryadpoor’s guilty plea, her relative youth at the time of the offence, and her minimal prior record, her pre-sentencing custody has been particularly difficult because of her separation from her daughter, as will be true of any sentence of incarceration.

[36] There was a gap in time from entry of the plea to the imposition of sentence, largely because of my assignment to another matter.

The Principles of Sentencing

[37] The Criminal Code (“the Code”) sets out a number of principles of sentencing that govern a judge’s determination of the appropriate sentence in any given case.

[38] Section 718 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. This is achieved by the imposition of just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: the denunciation of unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or the community, deterrence both general and specific, the separation of the offender from society where necessary, rehabilitation, reparation for harm done to victims or the community, and promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or the community.

[39] Section718.1 of the Code provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that proportionality is the chief organizing principle in determining a fit sentence. See, R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, para 10.

[40] Section 718.2 provides that a sentence should be increased or decreased to account for any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It sets out various aggravating factors. It also requires that a sentence be similar to those imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances, that where consecutive sentences are imposed the combined sentence not be unduly long or harsh, that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances, and that all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or the community be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

[41] In every case, the determination of a fit sentence is a fact-specific exercise, not a purely mathematical calculation. As the Supreme Court of Canada put it in R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, para 15, “The appropriateness of a sentence is a function of the purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code as applied to the facts that led to the conviction”. The gravity of the offence, the offender’s degree of responsibility, the specific circumstances of the case, and the circumstances of the offender all must be taken into account by the sentencing judge. See, R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, paras 58 and 143.

Offences Involving Home Invasion

[42] “Home invasion” is not a term defined in the Criminal Code. The Court of Appeal for Ontario pointed out in R. v. J.S., 2006 ONCA 22101, para 32, that courts generally apply it where the main features of a case include breaking into a home for the purpose of committing theft or robbery, knowing that or being reckless whether the home is occupied, and using or threatening to use violence. The presence of weapons is sometimes a factor, as is the confinement in some way of occupants of the home.

[43] In 2006, the Court of Appeal pronounced home invasion to be a “serious and increasingly prevalent” crime: see, R. v. Wright, 2006 ONCA 40975, paras 13-14. The Court said, at para. 14, that, “The obligation of the Court is to give proper recognition to the sanctity of the home, to protect all citizens against such intrusions, and to thereby preserve the public’s confidence in the administration of justice.” Consequently, a lengthy penitentiary sentence is appropriate for a home invasion offence.

[44] Because of the myriad of circumstances that can constitute a home invasion offence, the Court in Wright identified a broad sentencing range, in the sense of a guideline, of four or five years in jail at the low end, to 11 to 13 years’ imprisonment at the high end, and even higher where kidnapping, serious injuries, sexual assault, or death is involved. That range was reiterated by the Court of Appeal more recently, in R. v. Hopwood, 2020 ONCA 608.

[45] The Court in Wright indicated, at para. 24, that the paramount objectives of sentencing in home invasion cases are the protection of the public, general deterrence, and denunciation, although the prospects of rehabilitation must also be considered.

[46] Subsequently, in R. v. Brown, 2015 ONCA 361, the Court reviewed the global sentence of nine years’ imprisonment imposed on an 18 year old first offender. He, along with two other persons, committed a home invasion robbery involving a firearm in which the female resident was subjected to “horrendous brutality”: see, para. 6. The offender participated in physically assaulting the victim. The Court applied the sentencing range identified in Wright. The Court accepted that the primary factors in sentencing the youthful first time offender remained individual deterrence and rehabilitation, although noting that general deterrence and denunciation had to be weighed heavily in sentencing for the serious violent crime. It concluded that in balancing the factors, the shortest term of imprisonment that was proportionate to the crime and the responsibility of the offender, given his young age, was required: see, para. 7. The Court reduced the global sentence to one of seven years’ imprisonment.

Analysis

[47] Both the aggravating and mitigating factors specific to this case must be considered.

[48] The aggravating factors include:

1. The offence clearly was planned, motivated by pure greed. It was not impulsive.
2. The actions of Ms. Faryadpoor and her confederate at the door of the house reflected their appreciation that the home might well be occupied at the time. That prospect did not deter them.
3. The offence involved the display and use against the victim of a handgun, by the co-perpetrator.
4. From the very outset, Ms. Faryadpoor’s confederate set about to confine and inflict grave injury to the victim, notwithstanding that she was defenceless and offered no physical resistance.
5. While Ms. Faryadpoor did not witness the initial assault, the risk of harm to the victim would have been apparent to her from all the circumstances, including the manner in which entry to the home was gained, and the fact that she was able to move around the residence searching for money, unimpeded.
6. The victim suffered lasting physical and psychological harm, both direct and consequential. She and her family live with fear and a sense of insecurity as a result.
7. The victim and her family sustained actual financial loss.

[49] There are a number of mitigating factors. They include the following:

1. Ms. Faryadpoor was relatively youthful when she committed the offence. She was not, strictly speaking, a first offender, but she had only one prior conviction at the time, for a non-violent crime.
2. She pleaded guilty. Her plea was not an early one. It was entered well after she set a trial date in the Superior Court. However, it is a sign of remorse and acceptance of responsibility for her offence. She expressed remorse to the author of the pre-sentence report, and also publicly in the courtroom at her sentencing hearing, including in a letter addressed to the victim. Further, her guilty plea spared the victim from having to relive the events at a trial.
3. With respect to the circumstances of the offence, Ms. Faryadpoor did not join in the physical assault of the victim. When the assault escalated, she intervened in order to stop it.
4. It is not suggested that Ms. Faryadpoor grew up in disadvantaged circumstances. However, the discovery, as a young teenager, that she was an adopted child appears to have triggered mental health and behavioural issues that form part of the backdrop to her involvement in this offence.
5. Her periods of pre-sentence custody have involved a measure of harshness. The location and circumstances of her detention have limited her ability to communicate with her family, especially her young daughter. Although not extreme in number, there were some occasions when she was locked down because of staffing shortages.
6. For the duration of any jail sentence I impose, Ms. Faryadpoor will be separated from and unable to care for her young daughter. This will add a measure of harshness to her incarceration. It may also impact her daughter, as well as her parents on whom caregiving responsibility for the child will continue to fall.
7. Ms. Faryadpoor has shown a measure of rehabilitative potential. She took some reformative steps while on bail, and more recently while back in custody. She expressed a desire to change her life path. Her parents are committed to supporting her on her release from custody. That said, it is evident from the pre-sentence report that Ms. Faryadpoor needs rehabilitative programming for a variety of issues. She does not stand on the same footing as the offender in R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830, para 39, who had successfully rehabilitated himself by the time of his sentencing.

[50] It is undeniable that this was a grave offence. It involved a brazen, and terrifying violation of the sanctity of the victim’s home. It was perpetrated against a completely innocent member of the community and by extension, her family, for financial gain. The post-offence photographs of the victim underscore that she was subjected to horrific violence. She was left permanently injured and psychologically scarred.

[51] As I have said, Ms. Faryadpoor did not participate in the physical assault. Her intervention may well have prevented even worse injuries to the victim. For those reasons, her culpability is less than that of her confederate, who is not before the court. But, unlike the offender in R. v. Uribe, 2013 ONSC 6830, Ms. Faryadpoor was not an aider whose role was limited to rendering assistance by renting a vehicle for the use of those who physically carried out the robbery. She was an active co-principal in both the forced entry of the victim’s home and the robbery that followed. She acknowledged on the sentencing hearing that she made her own decisions.

[52] In sentencing Ms. Faryadpoor, I must impose a sanction that is proportionate to the gravity of this offence of robbery committed by means of a home invasion, and her moral blameworthiness, which is significant. The importance of denunciation and general deterrence must be respected. But, although Ms. Faryadpoor was neither a first offender nor a teenager when she committed the crime, she was not far removed from either. Considerations of denunciation and general deterrence should not eclipse the objective of rehabilitation, through which both individual deterrence and protection of the public can be achieved: see, R. v. Al-Akhali, 2025 ONCA 229, paras 70-80. The principle of restraint has application, meaning that even though a penitentiary length sentence is required, it should be for as little time as possible to achieve the governing sentencing principles and objectives: see, for example, Habib, at para. 39.

[53] In seeking a sentence below the low end of the range identified in Wright, defence counsel put considerable weight on Ms. Faryadpoor’s separation from her daughter and its effect on her, the child, and her parents as substitute caregivers. I appreciate that a range of sentence, including for a home invasion offence, is a guideline only, and that sentencing remains an individualized process. I acknowledge that family separation consequences can justify a sentence adjustment or departure from the range. But, it cannot justify the imposition of a disproportionate sentence: see, Habib, at paras. 43-45.

[54] In this case, a sentence of two and a half years in jail would not reflect either the seriousness of the offence or Ms. Faryadpoor’s considerable moral blameworthiness.

[55] On the other hand, the sentence of six years’ imprisonment sought by Crown counsel would fail to give sufficient weight to the mitigating factors.

[56] I have concluded that the appropriate sentence is three years and ten months in jail, less credit for pre-sentence custody at one and a half to one as well as time out of custody on strict terms of release. This sentence incorporates a downward adjustment from the lower portion of the range identified in Wright, because of Ms. Faryadpoor’s circumstances as the mother of a young child.

Conclusion

[57] Ms. Faryadpoor, please stand.

[58] I sentence you to three years and ten months in jail, less 24 and a half months for your pre-sentence custody credited at one and a half to one and less an additional 6 months for your time on a house arrest bail.

[59] That leaves a sentence still to serve of 15 and a half months.

[60] The custodial sentence will be followed by a period of two years’ probation, which is imposed to assist in your rehabilitation, including by ensuring that you have community supports.

[61] The conditions are the statutory conditions, plus the following:

1. Report to a probation officer in person or by telephone within 48 hours of your release, and thereafter as required.
2. Reside with your parents or at another address approved by the probation officer, and not change your address without the prior written approval of the probation officer.
3. Attend Young Street Mission’s HOPE program and/or any other counselling or programming as recommended by the probation officer, and not stop attending without the prior written approval of the probation officer.
4. Sign releases of information so that your probation officer can monitor your progress in counselling or programming.
5. Do not associate with any person known to you to have a criminal record other than someone who is a participant in the counselling or programming recommended for you by your probation officer.
6. Do not have any contact direct or indirect with the [named] victim or any member of her immediate family.
7. Do not be within 100 metres of any place you know the [named] victim to live, work, go to school, or be present.
8. Do not possess any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code.

[62] There is a DNA order, a s. 109(2)(a) order for 10 years, and a s. 109(2)(b) order for life.

[63] I also make a s. 743.21 order of non-communication in respect of the victim and any member of her immediate family.

Justice Michelle Fuerst
Released: June 20, 2025

NOTE: As noted in court, on the record, this written decision is to be considered the official version of the Reasons for Sentence and takes precedence over the oral Reasons read into the record in the event of any discrepancies between the oral and written versions.