CITATION: R v. Sahoo, 2026 ONSC 2611
COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-00000150-00AP
DATE: 2026 05 01
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: HIS MAJESTY THE KING (Respondent) v. SHUBHAM SAHOO
(Appellant)
BEFORE: D. E. Harris J.
COUNSEL: Elliott Willshick for the Appellant, Shubham Sahoo
Anna Taghavian for the Crown, Respondent
SUMMARY CONVICTION APPEAL
(From the sentence imposed by K. McCallum J. in the Ontario Court of Justice, February 5, 2025)
[1] This is a sentence appeal. The appellant pled guilty midtrial to a total of ten counts against his wife and her brother. The offences to which the appellant pled guilty were assault (x4), threatening (x2), harassment, and fail to comply with bail release (x3). The appellant was a youthful first offender. Counsel for the appellant asked for a conditional discharge; the Crown asked for a suspended sentence.
[2] The sentencing judge imposed a suspended sentence. There had been 136 days of pre-trial custody, equivalent to 204 days after credit was added.
[3] It is argued on appeal that the sentencing judge committed an error in principle by failing to take into account the immigration consequences befalling the appellant as a result of entering convictions instead of a conditional discharge.
[4] I cannot accept that argument. Both counsel agree that the sentencing judge was well aware of the potential immigration consequences. In the plea inquiry he conducted, the sentencing judge explicitly warned the appellant that his guilty pleas could lead to his deportation. The appellant said that he understood. The judge asked whether he wanted to consult an immigration lawyer and the appellant declined.
[5] Defence counsel relied heavily in his argument on the immigration issue, saying that a conditional discharge would give the appellant a “second chance to live in this country.”
[6] The sentencing judge held that a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest and would be unfit. Although he made no reference to the immigration situation in his brief reasons, the subject was front and centre in the sentencing hearing. There is no possibility that the sentencing judge failed to take it into account.
[7] The suspended sentence was an appropriate sentence in the circumstances of these ongoing string of offences against an intimate partner. Collateral immigration consequences cannot lead to the imposition of an unfit, unreasonable sentence: R v Pham, 2013 SCC 15 at paras. 12-16.
[8] The appeal is dismissed.
D. E. Harris J.
Released: May 1, 2026
CITATION: R v. Sahoo, 2026 ONSC 2611
COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-00000150-00AP
DATE: 2026 05 01
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
- and –
SHUBHAM SAHOO
SUMMARY CONVICTION APPEAL
D.E. HARRIS J.
Released: May 1, 2026