CITATION: R. v. Hanareh-Mafarani, 2026 ONSC 1421

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-90000365-0000

DATE: 20260310

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

SOHRAB HANAREH-MAFARANI

Walsh, C. and Glasner, I., counsel for the Crown

Lafontaine, G., counsel for Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani

HEARD: August 15 and November 26, 2025

REasons for sentence

H. mcarthur J.:

Introduction

1Following a trial, I found Sohrab Hanareh-Mafarani guilty of the following four offences: 1) importing opium; 2) possession of opium for the purpose of trafficking; 3) conspiracy to import opium; and 4) conspiracy to possess opium for the purpose of trafficking: see R. v. Hanareh-Mafarani, 2025 ONSC 3788 (Hanareh-Mafarani (2025)).¹

2Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani, along with several other individuals, was involved in the shipment of over 500 kilograms of opium that police discovered hidden in a shipping container sent to Canada from Pakistan.

3After the police covertly seized the opium, violence ensued. Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani forcibly confined and assaulted one of his co-conspirators, Hassan Talebi. Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s brother was also abducted in Iran by others involved in the conspiracy. He has not been seen since.

4The Crown argues that a life sentence is warranted. The Crown acknowledges that this would be an “exceptional” sentence: R. v. Buffone, 2021 ONCA 825, at para. 42. The Crown argues, however, that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani imported an enormous amount of opium and that he held a high-level position in the drug scheme. The Crown submits that the quantity of opium involved in this matter, Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s role, and the violence he perpetrated in support of the drug scheme justify the sentence being sought by the Crown.

5Defence counsel counters that the appropriate sentence is three to eight years in custody. He argues that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani held a low-level position in the conspiracy. The defence also highlights that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani is a first offender. Numerous character-reference letters attest to the fact that apart from this offence, Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani has been a pro-social and contributing member of society. Defence counsel submits that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s low position in the drug scheme, his good character, and the tragic circumstance surrounding his brother’s abduction justify the sentence being sought by the defence.

Circumstances of the Offence

6While the circumstances of the offence are largely undisputed, there are two points of contention between counsel. First, the parties diverge over Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s role. The Crown argues that he was a high-ranking member of the conspiracy, whereas defence counsel asserts that he held a low-level role. Second, the Crown argues that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani tortured Mr. Talebi, but defence counsel submits that this allegation is not borne out by the evidence. I will first address the undisputed circumstances of the offence before considering the two areas of disagreement.

i) The Undisputed Circumstances of the Offence

7On February 14, 2020, officers with the Canada Border Services Agency discovered and seized 507.563 kilograms of opium, with an estimated street value of $35,529,410. The police located the opium concealed in boxes of turmeric in a shipping container. After removing all but a small sample of the opium, the police did a controlled delivery to a storage company.

8In Hanareh-Mafarani (2025), I found that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani conspired, with “persons known and unknown”, in importing opium and in possessing the opium for the purpose of trafficking. Two of the “known persons”, Rasim Kaba and Mr. Talebi, were also charged. They went to trial before Mr. Justice Dineen, who found them both guilty.

9I do not intend to repeat all the facts set out in Hanareh-Mafarani (2025) but rely on those facts in my analysis as to what a fit sentence would be in this matter. In brief, after the shipment arrived in Canada, Mr. Kaba rented a storage unit. Mr. Talebi was seen with Mr. Kaba at the storage facility. Mr. Kaba made several calls arranging for the container with the opium to be delivered to that storage unit. Mr. Kaba and Mr. Talebi were caught on an intercepted communication discussing the shipment.

10On the day the shipment was delivered, Mr. Talebi dealt with the driver and assisted in having the container placed in a storage unit. Mr. Talebi, along with other unknown people, unloaded the container. Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani was not inside unloading the container. But he parked close by, in an area where he would have a view of Mr. Talebi as he dealt with the container truck.

11A day after Mr. Talebi unloaded the container, “someone” accessed the boxes in which the opium had been imported and learned that there was no opium inside. The police did not see who was involved in accessing the boxes. However, based on the fingerprint evidence, there is no doubt it was Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani and Mr. Talebi who did so. Both men left their prints on the tape used to reseal the boxes.

12Hours after Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani and Mr. Talebi learned that there was no opium in the container, a confidential informant alerted police to a “public safety” concern arising from the controlled delivery. To avoid violence erupting between individuals who might suspect their co-conspirators of a drug rip-off, officers advised Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani, and sought to advise Mr. Talebi, that the police had seized the drugs. But the police did not arrest either man at that time.

13The police arrested Mr. Kaba. They believed that they had grounds since he was the contact person for the shipment and had arranged to rent the storage units. Police located a note on Mr. Kaba when they searched him incident to arrest. The note suggested that Mr. Talebi was to receive $20,000 and Mr. Kaba was to receive $10,000. I have no evidence as to who wrote the note. Nothing in the note indicated what Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani was anticipated to earn from the venture.

14Despite the police providing information that they had seized the opium, violence nonetheless occurred. About a week after they learned that the opium was missing, Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani forcibly confined and assaulted Mr. Talebi. After Mr. Talebi managed to escape, he sought help from a nearby household. Mr. Talebi was limping. He was not wearing shoes, and his socks and feet were wet. He was muddy and had duct tape on his neck. He was shaking and appeared scared for his life.

15The homeowner Mr. Talebi approached for assistance called 911. He relayed information from Mr. Talebi to the 911 operator. Mr. Talebi reported that he had been harmed by “Sorob Hanareh”. He said that “they brought two tons of opium to Toronto” and that they wanted to kill him.

16The Crown argues that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s assault of Mr. Talebi is an aggravating factor. Of that, there can be no dispute. That said, the extent of the assault perpetrated by Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani is hotly contested. I set out my findings on this issue in the below section dealing with the disputed circumstances.

17There was other violence arising from the failed drug scheme. After his arrest, the police seized, and ultimately searched, Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s cellphone. They located a video clip sent to him sometime in July 2020. In the video, his brother, Fakhradin, can be seen in chains, with facial injuries. He is surrounded by four men armed with assault rifles or machine guns. Fakhradin is clearly afraid. In the video he pleads with Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani to “speak with the owner of the goods as soon as possible.” He urges him to “please solve this problem” so that “nothing else happens to our families and nothing happens to anyone else.” He ends the video by saying “talk to him and come to an agreement.”

18It is uncontested that in July 2020, someone abducted Fakhradin near where he lived in Iran. Apart from the video sent to Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani showing his brother surrounded by the gunmen, no one has seen or heard from Fakhradin since. It seems likely that he is dead.

ii) The Disputed Circumstances of the Offence

a) Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s Role in the Conspiracy

19The Crown argues that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani held a high-ranking role in the drug conspiracy. Defence counsel counters that his client was nothing but a low-level player. I am not persuaded by either argument.

20I will first address the Crown argument. In support of the position that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani was a high-ranking member of the conspiracy, the Crown points to the note found with Mr. Kaba suggesting that he and Mr. Talebi were making a relatively small sum when compared to the exorbitant value of the concealed opium. I agree that the note supports that both of those men were not leaders in the drug scheme. But the note does not advert to Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani. Nor did the Crown tender any other evidence speaking to what Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani stood to gain from the scheme. In the absence of any evidence as to what Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani expected to earn, the note setting out the profit expected by Mr. Kaba and Mr. Talebi does not assist a great deal in the analysis.

21The Crown also points to the fact that while Mr. Talebi was dealing with the driver and unloading the truck, Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani parked close by, in a position where he could see Mr. Talebi’s actions. This, the Crown argues, shows that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani was insulating himself from discovery by “keeping his hands clean”.

22I agree that the evidence could support that inference. But in my view the evidence could also reasonably support an inference that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s role that day was keeping an eye out for the police or other threats. That is, Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani was not “overseeing” Mr. Talebi, but rather assuming the role of lookout. Moreover, in my view the Crown argument that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani was shielding himself and keeping his hands clean loses force when considering that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani both figuratively and literally got his hands dirty the next day, when he went into the storage unit and attempted to access the concealed opium.

23The Crown also argues that the phone evidence supports that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani was directing or instructing the others. The Crown notes that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani and Mr. Talebi communicated over their phones 39 times between September 2, 2019, and February 14, 2020 (the day the container with the opium arrived in Canada). While this evidence helps in determining that the two men were involved in a mutual enterprise, in my view it does little to assist in determining Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s role in the conspiracy. I have no evidence before me as to whether it was Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani or Mr. Talebi who initiated the calls. I have no evidence as to precisely when these communications occurred within the time frame. I cannot infer from these calls that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani was recruiting Mr. Talebi, or directing him, or that he stood in a much higher position in the conspiracy.

24The Crown also highlights that both Mr. Talebi’s and Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s phones communicated with a phone number ending in 7508 at a time when both men were near the storage facility. The Agreed Statement of Fact (“ASF”) noted that this phone number belonged to a man named Behzad Jahangiri. I have no information about this person. Nor do I have any evidence as to who originated the calls. Given the lack of evidence, it is difficult to know what to make of these communications. But in my view, one reasonable inference flowing from the communications, and the context in which they occurred, is that both Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani and Mr. Talebi were receiving instructions from, or providing updates to, the boss or a higher-up member of the conspiracy. That would cut against the Crown theory Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani was a directing mind of the drug scheme.

25The crown also points to the forcible confinement and assault of Mr. Talebi by Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani as evidence that he held a higher-up position in the drug conspiracy. I agree that this is some evidence to support he had a leadership role. But according to Mr. Talebi, Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani was taking instructions from a person in Vancouver and a person in Iran. That leaves open as a reasonable potential that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani was simply following orders from above when he inflicted the violence that he did against Mr. Talebi. That is, while he was an important and trusted member of the scheme, he was not a directing mind or the “boss”.

26At the end of the day, looking at the totality of the evidence. I find that it is possible that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani held a high position in the drug conspiracy. It may even be probable that he held such a position. But based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt, as an aggravating factor on sentencing, that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani was the boss or directing mind, or that he otherwise held a high position in the drug scheme.

27On the other hand, I am also not persuaded on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani was nothing but a low-level lackey as argued by the defence. The opium in this matter was worth a staggering amount of money. It seems unlikely that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani would be tasked with going into the unit and removing the opium if he were a low-ranking flunkey. Moreover, the phone evidence supports that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani was involved in the drug scheme from the outset.

28Based on the limited record before me, it is difficult to discern with precision what role Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani held in the drug scheme. I am unable to find to the requisite standard that he held the high position argued by the Crown. Nor am I satisfied that he occupied the low-level position argued by the defence. On the totality of the evidence, however, I am satisfied that he held an important and trusted role.

b) The Extent of the Violence Perpetrated Against Mr. Talebi

29While Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani was initially charged with several offences in relation to Mr. Talebi, the provincial Crown either withdrew or stayed all the charges. I have no information as to why the provincial Crown abandoned its prosecution. Given the shocking and horrific allegations made by Mr. Talebi against Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani, the decision not to prosecute is difficult to understand.

30The federal Crown called Mr. Talebi to testify before me in the sentencing hearing. Mr. Talebi provided a harrowing account of being forcibly confined by Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani. According to Mr. Talebi, he was tricked into going to Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s home. Once there, he claims that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani hit him in the head with a heavy construction hammer, causing him to fall down the stairs to the basement.

31Mr. Talebi testified that he was forced to stay in the basement for about 16 hours. During that time Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani struck him about five times in the head with the heavy hammer. He hit him by his eye, causing permanent vision issues. Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani also hit his knees and toes with the hammer. Mr. Talebi also said that after being forced to drink large quantities of water, Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani hung him from the ceiling by his testicles for an extended time. He kept asking Mr. Talebi to tell him what he had done with the opium. According to Mr. Talebi, Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani was receiving instructions on how to torture him from someone in Vancouver and from another person in Iran.

32Mr. Talebi was a poor witness. He was argumentative and evasive. His account of events was unclear and difficult to follow. It also seemed implausible. Despite the vicious attack he claims he endured, he was released from the hospital after only a few hours. Defence counsel also confronted him with the fact that the day after he was allegedly attacked, Mr. Talebi appeared in bail court, apparently without any injuries. Mr. Talebi explained that was because none of his injuries were visible. Mr. Talebi’s lack of visible injuries seems difficult to reconcile with his account of events, where he was struck in the head and eye area with a hammer. I note that I was not provided with any medical records to corroborate that Mr. Talebi was injured in the manner he claims.

33There are also several reasons why in my view Mr. Talebi’s evidence about Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani must be approached with caution. He expressed clear animus towards Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani in his testimony. At one point he shouted out in court that he wanted Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani to be castrated. Of course, if his evidence about what he says Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani did to him is accepted, that animosity would be understandable. On the other hand, Mr. Talebi was involved in a drug scheme gone horribly wrong. There are many reasons why he might have bad feelings towards Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani and want to paint him in a bad light. Whatever the reason, he was clearly hostile towards Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani.

34I also keep in mind that Mr. Talebi is a co-conspirator. He testified before me that he had no knowledge of the opium. But there is overwhelming evidence of his guilt. I thus conclude that Mr. Talebi came to court and, under affirmation, told a deliberate untruth. That is a matter of great concern to me as I evaluate his evidence.

35Moreover, and of import, Mr. Talebi has yet to be sentenced for his role in the drug importation. As he acknowledged in cross-examination, he believes that his testimony against Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani might benefit him in his own sentencing.

36Based on the factors I have set out, I am not prepared to rely on the testimony provided by Mr. Talebi. I certainly am not prepared to find, based on his testimony, that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani assaulted him to the extent or in the manner he claimed.

37That said, in my view the 911 call and the evidence surrounding that call, supports that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani forcibly confined and, to some extent, assaulted Mr. Talebi. As I noted in Hanareh-Mafarani (2025), at para. 57, the intensity of the situation and Mr. Talebi’s fear are factors that provided some assurances about the reliability and credibility of his utterances in the 911 call.

Circumstances of Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani

38Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani is 53 years old. He is a first offender. Apart from this incident, he seems to have lived a pro-social and law-abiding life.

39Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani is Kurdish and originally from Iran. He came to Canada in 2010. He never obtained his Canadian citizenship and remains a permanent resident. He is at risk of being deported because of this matter.

40Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani is married and has four children. His three sons are in their 20s and his daughter just turned 18. He has strong family support.

41Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani has been employed in the construction field since coming to Canada over 15 years ago. By all accounts he is an extremely hard-working individual.

42Defence counsel filed 18 character-reference letters written in support of Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani. The letters express that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani is a helpful, kind, hardworking, supportive, responsible, considerate, and generous person. He is described as a loving husband and a caring and devoted father. While all the letters provide general information about Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s character, many of them also provide concrete examples of Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani helping the writers. Things such as staying with them at the hospital when they or a family member was sick. Or opening his home to them when they needed a place to stay. Or going above and beyond the call of duty when they needed help with their work. The letters all paint a picture of Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani as a man who has made many positive contributions to his friends, family and community.

43Defence counsel also filed a letter from Dr. Mostafa Showraki, who has been treating Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani for major depression and anxiety since 2020. Based on the letter and submissions of counsel, I accept that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani is suffering intense psychological distress stemming from these charges. Defence counsel advised that his client has lost all his teeth because of the stress. I have had the chance to see Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani numerous times as his matter has wound its way through the system.² It seems clear to me that he is a man struggling with deep sadness and that his legal matter has taken a significant toll on him.

44Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani spent four months and 10 days in custody. He encountered harsh conditions during that time. The Crown and defence submit that he should be credited with the equivalent of about eight months and 20 days in custody.

45Following his release from custody, Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani spent eight months under house arrest with GPS monitoring. His release order was then varied several times. He has been on bail for over 5 years without incident. The parties submit that he should be credited four months custody for the time he spent on bail: R. v. Downes, [2006] O.J. No. 555 (C.A.), at para. 29

Sentencing Principles and Objectives

46As noted in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at para. 58, the “determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a purely mathematical calculation. It involves a variety of factors that are difficult to define with precision.”

47Section 718 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 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 to be accomplished through the imposition of just sanctions that have one or more of several objectives enumerated in ss. 718(a) to (f), including denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and rehabilitation.

48Section 718.1 sets out the fundamental principle of sentencing, which is that any sentence imposed “must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.”

49The Criminal Code lists several other principles to guide sentencing judges. The parity principle is set out in s. 718.2(b) and provides that “a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.” Given the highly individualized sentencing process, however, the sentencing principle of parity remains secondary to proportionality: R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46, at para. 38. Sentences imposed for offences of the same type will not always be identical: R. v. Mann, 2010 ONCA 342, at para. 17; Lacasse, at paras. 53-58.

50The totality principle is addressed in s. 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code. It provides that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh.

51The restraint principle is reflected in s. 718.2(d) and provides that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances. Subsection 718.2(e) highlights the particular importance of restraint.

52In addition to the sentencing purposes and principles outlined in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, s. 10 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, applies when sentencing offenders for drug offences. This section provides that “the fundamental purpose of any sentence for an offence” under the Act is to “contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society while encouraging rehabilitation, and treatment in appropriate circumstances, of offenders and acknowledging the harm done to victims and the community.”

53Since sentencing is highly individualized, the determination of a just and appropriate sentence requires the court to assess the aggravating and mitigating factors related to both the offence and the offender. Such an assessment is also mandated by s. 718.2(a) of the Criminal Code, which states that a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. I turn now to the aggravating and mitigating factors in the present case.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

Aggravating Factors

54Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani imported over 500 kilograms of opium. The estimated value of the opium was over 35 million dollars. The vast amount of opium and the enormous value of the shipment is highly aggravating.

55Opium is an addictive drug. If that quantity of opium had been distributed, it could have caused substantial harm to users and the community.

56The importation scheme was relatively sophisticated.

57Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani played an important and trusted role in the drug scheme.

58Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani was motivated by greed, not addiction.

59Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani assaulted and confined Mr. Talebi in relation to the drug scheme.

Mitigating Factors

60Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani did not plead guilty. This is not an aggravating factor, but it does mean that he is not entitled to the mitigation in sentence that he would have received if he had accepted responsibility. That said, the Charter application and trial proper were both conducted in an efficient way, proceeding largely based on an ASF. Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani saved the court time and resources because of this approach.

61Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani is a 53-year-old first offender. Apart from this incident, he has lived a productive and law-abiding life.

62Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani has a solid work history. He is clearly a hard-working individual, which bodes well for his rehabilitation.

63Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani has strong family and community support. This will assist him as he attempts to move forward from this incident.

64Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani has fully complied with the terms of his release order for over five years. This supports that the incident was out of character and that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani has good rehabilitative potential.

Analysis

65There are relatively few sentencing cases dealing with opium offences: R. v. Golizadeh, 2023 ONSC 4686, at para. 43. There are even fewer cases dealing with large-scale opium offences. And there are no reported cases dealing with the quantity of opium involved here. Sentencing for importation of this quantity of opium is essentially unprecedented.

66I say essentially unprecedented, because in Golizadeh, at paras. 12 and 60, there was reference to an unreported matter involving an offender named Hans Lansreth. Mr. Lansreth was implicated in the opium drug scheme with Mr. Golizadeh. According to the agreed facts in Golizadeh, when Quebec police officers searched Mr. Lansreth’s garage, they found 1,970 kilograms of opium. The Crown in the Golizadeh matter advised the court there that Mr. Lansreth received a sentence of 15 years in custody for having approximately two tonnes of opium.

67Unfortunately, counsel on Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s matter were unable to find any reported reasons in the Lansreth matter. I do not know if Mr. Lansreth pleaded guilty or had a trial. If Mr. Lansreth pleaded guilty, I do not know to what facts he admitted. I do not know if Mr. Lansreth had mitigating factors in his favour. I also do not know if there was a joint position on sentence, which would mean that the sentence imposed would lose much of its value as a comparator: Buffone, at paras. 28-31. Thus, the Lansreth matter has little value from a parity perspective.

68The largest reported opium importing case appears to be the matter of R. v. Ayati-Ghaffari, 2013 ONSC 4999; aff’d, 2014 ONCA 812. Following a jury trial, Mr. Ayati-Ghaffari was found guilty of importing opium three times and three counts of conspiracy in relation to those importations. The first importation involved 17 kilograms of opium concealed in a container of pickled cucumbers. The second importation involved 97 kilograms of opium hidden in refrigerator walls. The third importation involved 7 kilograms of opium concealed in cherry syrup. His co-accused, Mr. Chegini, was found guilty of conspiracy to import in relation to the first importation and conspiracy and importing in relation to the second. The sentencing judge found that it was a well-planned scheme.

69The total weight Mr. Ayati-Ghaffari imported amounted to 121 kilograms, which the sentencing judge described as “huge”. Both men were first offenders with positive potential. Both were motivated by profit. Mr. Ayati-Ghaffari received a global sentence of 14 years in custody. Mr. Chegini received a sentence of 12 years.

70The case of Ayati-Ghaffari is useful in trying to gauge the appropriate sentence in the present matter. Of course, there are important distinguishing factors between the two cases. The amount of opium in Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s matter greatly exceeds the amount of opium in Ayati-Ghaffari. On the other hand, unlike in Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s matter, in Ayati-Ghaffari the importing scheme was ongoing. Mr. Ayati-Ghaffari imported opium three times. Mr. Chegini imported opium once and conspired twice to import opium.

71In advocating for a life sentence, the Crown relies heavily on Buffone. There, the Court of Appeal imposed life sentences on two offenders who were the leaders of a sophisticated criminal organization that oversaw the importation and trafficking of two tonnes of cocaine into Ontario over a three-year period. They were the “bosses” or “directing minds” of the conspiracy: Buffone, at para. 39. They both lived a “lifestyle of deliberate criminality” and gained “fantastic amounts of money” because of their criminality: Buffone, at para. 21. While not first offenders, neither offender had a criminal record of significance. However, the court concluded that the “sheer quantity of cocaine” in conjunction with the roles that the offenders played in the criminal organization cried out for the maximum sentence of life: Buffone, at para. 56.

72In my view, the facts in Buffone are highly distinguishable from Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s matter. In Buffone, the substance involved was cocaine. It has been observed that importing opium is less serious than importing cocaine: R. v. Ravandi, [2015] B.C.J. No. 2537, at paras. 22-23; R. v. Rajaei-Mehrabadi, 2016 ONSC 3362, at paras. 31-32. I also note that, as observed in Ayati-Ghaffari at para. 44, although opium is a Schedule 1 substance (a classification reserved for the most serious of drugs) it is recognized as being less addictive than heroin.

73The amount of opium in Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s matter is substantial. Apart from Mr. Lansreth’s matter, it is the largest opium importing case found in the caselaw. That said, the 500 kilograms imported by Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani is vastly exceeded by the 2 tonnes of cocaine involved in Buffone. Moreover, in Buffone, the drug scheme was an ongoing criminal enterprise lasting three years. In Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s case there was only one instance of importing.

74While the importation in Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s matter was relatively sophisticated, it pales in comparison to the complex enterprise involved in Buffone. Moreover, the offenders in Buffone were found to be committing their offences in association with a criminal organization. While Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani conspired with others to import opium, he was not charged with nor convicted of doing so in association with a criminal organization.

75Further, the offenders in Buffone were found to be the “bosses” or “directing minds” of that criminal organization. As indicated above, while I find that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani was an important figure in the importing scheme, I was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he occupied the kind of high position in the hierarchy that the offenders in Buffone held. Given the significant factual differences between Buffone and Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s matter, I do not find the case helpful as a comparator.

76When assessing what a fit sentence would be, I keep in mind that while opium may be less addictive than heroin or cocaine, it is an addictive substance that causes harm to the user and ultimately to the community. Importing opium is particularly serious, as the substance is not native to Canada. Without the importer, the damage that flows from opium would not exist in our country: Golizadeh, at para. 61. Opium offences must be taken seriously.

77Given the gravity of the offences, the paramount sentencing objectives for importing opium and possessing opium for trafficking must be denunciation and deterrence. Opium offences can cause significant societal harm. Courts must clearly communicate that this type of criminality will not be tolerated. Further, as this case shows, there can be a huge profit in importing opium. The court must send a message to those who might be tempted to get involved, that the potential monetary gains are far outweighed by the cost of their freedom. The imposition of exemplary sentences sends that message.

78At the same time, as emphasized by the Supreme Court in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, at para. 104, even when denunciation and deterrence must be given paramountcy, the sentencing judge retains the discretion to assign significant weight to other factors, such as rehabilitation, in giving effect to proportionality, the fundamental principle of sentencing.

79In this case, there are several factors supporting that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani has rehabilitative potential. He is a first offender. He has strong family support. He has support from numerous members of the community. The letters filed on his behalf attest to the fact that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani has done much good in his life. He has been on bail for over 5 years, which supports that he can be pro-social.

80Further, to give proper effect to proportionally, the court must consider all the circumstances related to the offence and the offender. Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani is a permanent resident, and thus at risk of being deported because of this matter. I take that into account as a collateral consequence when determining a fit sentence.

81Another relevant circumstance is that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s brother was abducted and likely killed because of this drug conspiracy. The severe consequences that befell his brother clearly haunt Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani. I had the chance to observe him whenever submissions were made about his brother. He became emotional and often cried. What happened to his brother is a tragedy, and one that has negatively impacted not only Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani, but his entire family.

82To be clear, what happened to Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s brother is not a mitigating factor. Nor is it a collateral consequence of the sentencing. But in my view, it is a relevant factor when determining a fit sentencing as it goes directly to the objective of specific deterrence. Given what happened to his brother, it seems unlikely that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani would become involved in any kind of criminality again.

83This is a difficult case, and one where the parties are far apart in what they submit would be a fit sentence. At the end of the day, I am not persuaded by the submissions of either side. In my view, the life sentence sought by the Crown fails to give sufficient weight to the mitigating factors in this case and to Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s rehabilitative potential. A life sentence would also fail to give appropriate weight to the sentencing principle of restraint, which is important in light of the fact that Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani is a first offender. On the other hand, in my view the three to eight years sought by the defence is wholly inadequate to give voice to the paramount sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

84Considering the relevant sentencing principles and objectives, and balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors, I have determined that the appropriate global sentence before taking into consideration any pre-sentence custody is 16 years, concurrent on all counts.

85I am prepared to grant Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani credit for the equivalent of 13-months pre-sentence custody. Taking the pre-sentence custody into account, a global sentence 14 years and 11 months remains to be served.

Ancillary Orders

Weapons Prohibition Order

86A weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code applies. Pursuant to s. 109(2)(a)(ii), Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani is prohibited from possessing any firearm, other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, and any cross-bow, restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance for a period of 10 years. Pursuant to s. 109(2)(b), he is further prohibited from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, and prohibited ammunition for life.

DNA Order

87Importing, possession for the purpose of trafficking and conspiracy to commit these offences are all secondary designated offences. The Crown seeks a DNA order. I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to make this order, considering the circumstances of the offence, and the minimal impact that the order would have on Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s privacy and security of the person: s. 487.051(3).

Victim Surcharge

88Finally, defence counsel asks me to waive the victim surcharge. I am persuaded by the defence submission. Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani will be serving a lengthy custodial sentence and will not have the means to pay. As a result, I waive the requirement that he pay the surcharge as posing an undue hardship.

Justice Heather McArthur

CITATION: R. v. Hanareh-Mafarani, 2026 ONSC 1421

Footnotes

1. 1Defence counsel argues that I should enter stays on the possession for the purpose and conspiracy to possess the opium for the purpose pursuant to R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729. He submits that the possession offences were both incidental to, and inherent in, the plan to import and the importation itself. I agree with the Crown, however, that the counts each address a distinct delict and as a result the principle in Kienapple does not apply. Thus, I decline to stay any of the counts.
2. 2Mr. Hanareh-Mafarani’s matter took many twists and turns and was adjourned numerous times. In my view, however, he should not be blamed personally for the many delays and adjournments in this matter.