ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
His Majesty The King
– and –
A.N.
Accused
Khorshid Rad, Counsel for the Crown
Joseph Osuji, Counsel for A.N.
HEARD: April 21, 2026 (Ottawa)
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
LONDON-WEINSTEIN, J.
1On April 24, 2026, A.N. pleaded guilty to a single count of possession of forged documents with intent contrary to s. 368(1)(d) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46.
2There was an agreed statement of facts in this case and I made some findings of fact which were not included in the agreed statement of facts.
Facts
3A.N. and his wife, F.Y., are from Iran. They married in 2011 and moved to Canada in 2023. They have three children: F.N., A.Y.N., and T.N.
4On October 29, 2025, at 4:00 p.m., F.Y. returned with her two eldest children to the home she shares with A.N. When she arrived, she noted that her husband and son were not home. She called A.N. and he advised he was completing a task for a customer and would be back late.
5She prepared dinner for her eldest children and began to tidy the home. Once in her bedroom, she observed that A.N.’s clothing was missing from his closet. She then noted that her son’s clothing was missing from his room.
6She called her husband again and he admitted that he was at the Toronto Airport with T.N. and that he intended to go to Iran at 9:00 p.m. that evening to visit his ailing father. He had never mentioned an intention to travel to Iran with their son on that day, and F.Y. never provided her consent for the travel. At the time, she feared that her husband was leaving with their son with no intention to return. She informed him that she did not consent to T.N.’s travel and demanded that he return. He ended the call shortly after this exchange.
7She then called the police. Officers attended and noted that her son’s clothing was missing. While police were on scene, F.Y. received a Snapchat video call from her husband. On the call, officers were able to see that he was with T.N. He confirmed that he was at the Toronto Airport and he stated his intention to be gone for one week to visit his father. When he was challenged on the amount of clothing he took with him, he then stated he may be gone for two to three weeks due to his father’s health. As he was speaking, officers heard what sounded like an airport announcement in French. The officers confronted A.N. and he eventually confessed to being at the Montreal Airport. Soon after, he ended the call.
8Due to the exigent circumstances relating to the possible removal of T.N. from the country, Ottawa police triangulated his phone and confirmed he was in Montreal. Police officers from Quebec attended the airport and were able to locate him, along with T.N., at gate 57 of the Montreal Trudeau International Airport. At 7:50 p.m., he was arrested on scene for the abduction of T.N.
9Upon search incident to arrest, officers located luggage and a boarding pass for Turkish Airlines for father and son. The boarding passes were for their passage to Istanbul on October 29, 2025, departing at 8:45 p.m., with a final destination of Isfahan, Iran. Officers also located a document from Global Affairs Canada entitled “Recommended Consent Letter” for children travelling abroad. The letter appeared to be signed by F.Y., providing her consent for her husband to depart Canada with T.N. from October 29, 2025, until November 5, 2025. She did not sign such a document nor was she aware of its existence.
10I also made the following findings of fact based on the material which was provided to me:
A.N. was exceptionally close to his father and his father was not only ill but, in fact, died within days of A.N.’s attempt to visit him with his two-year-old son.
At the time that A.N. attempted to visit his father, Iran was not a safe place to transport a child as it was embroiled in conflict.
A.N. was held in custody for investigative purposes for six days upon his arrest. He would have been held in custody, by my calculation at the time that his father died.
I found as a fact that A.N. was planning to return home to Canada with his son and that the return tickets found in his possession were for this purpose.
Circumstances of the Offender
11A.N. is now 39 years old. He is the father of three children. He has no criminal record. I reviewed a number of letters submitted by family, friends and associates.
12His first child, F.N., was born in 2019. In 2019, he and his family applied for permanent residence in Canada.
13In 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they temporarily returned to Iran. A.N. was employed at this time as a post-doctoral research fellow at IPM (Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences) in Tehran, Iran. His wife was at home caring for the children at this time.
14Their second child A.Y.N. was born by then.
15The family returned to Canada in 2022 following the relaxation of pandemic-related travel restrictions as formally landed permanent residents. A.N. was employed as a post-doctoral research fellow at the University of New Brunswick while F.Y. worked as an IT technician.
16Their third child, T.N., was born at this time.
17In 2023, A.N. established a used car dealership business in order to better provide for his family. In July 2024, the family relocated to Ottawa.
18Over the past six months, he had to close down his used car dealership and is currently employed part-time at a mechanic’s shop.
19He has the opportunity to work at Carleton University teaching Mathematics (Algebra) this summer. He is being treated for depression and is currently prescribed 10 mg of Cipralex per day.
Position of the Parties
20The defence seeks a conditional discharge or an absolute discharge with five months’ probation.
21The Crown seeks a conditional sentence of six months less one day and two years of probation.
Principles and Purposes of Sentencing
22The sentence I impose must be proportional to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The concept of a proportional sentence encompasses a number of different considerations.
23The Criminal Code lists a number of sentencing objectives which the court must consider in deciding on the appropriate sentence in this case, including the following: denouncing unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; deterring the individual offender and others from committing offences; assisting with rehabilitation; providing reparations for harm done to victims and to the community; separating offenders from society where necessary; promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders; and acknowledging the harm done to victims or to the community: see Criminal Code, s. 718.
24The gravity of the offence refers to the harm done by the offender to the victim, as well as to society and its values. The degree of responsibility of the offender invokes factors which relate to the offender’s moral culpability: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 130.
25The greater the harm intended or the greater the degree of recklessness or wilful blindness, the greater the moral culpability.
26However, the reference to the degree of responsibility of the offender in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code does not entail only the mens rea of the offender at the time of the commission of the offence. The degree of responsibility of the offender includes other factors relating to culpability. These might relate, for example, to the offender’s personal circumstances, mental capacity, or motive for committing the crime.
27As a sentencing judge, I am required to account for a number of other principles, all of which are either part of the proportionality principle, which is the overarching principle of sentencing, or properly influence its interpretation and application. All are relevant to arriving at a just sanction that satisfies the proportionality principle: see Criminal Code, s. 718.2; R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, at paras. 40-44.
28A sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating circumstances relating to the offence, or to the offender.
29Secondly, the court should consider evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation.
30In addition to the principles I have already cited, the court must be guided by the principles of parity and restraint.
31A sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. As well, where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh. Finally, an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances.
Analysis
32The mitigating factors in this case are:
The guilty plea.
The lack of a criminal record.
The demonstration of genuine remorse.
The fact that the offence was committed under emotional duress, which reduces the likelihood of recidivism in my view.
33A.N. has also suffered collateral consequences which relate to specific deterrence.
34The aggravating factors include:
The fact that this offence involved a breach of trust.
The offence is one of dishonesty against his wife. The court does not double count this factor, as it is an offence of dishonesty, but notes that the offence of dishonesty was also committed against the child’s mother.
The fact that he did misrepresent being at Toronto when he was in Montreal, further deceiving his wife and the authorities.
While not unlawful, attempting to take the child to Iran at a time when the country was at war risked placing the child in danger.
35I also reviewed several letters of support on behalf of A.N. He was described as honest, kind and trustworthy by Naser Aghaeipour Kazani, a member of the Iranian community in Ottawa who is his friend. He was described as a devoted husband and father who is actively involved in his children’s lives.
36I also reviewed a letter from Mehdi Ranjbaran, a friend who has known him since 2017. They are close friends and get together regularly. Mr. Ranjbaran is an engineer at Qualcomm. He described A.N. as a respectful, well-mannered, and considerate individual who genuinely cares about others, especially his family. Mr. Ranjbaran observed a deep connection between the children and their father. He wrote, “In the numerous times I have been invited to their house, for a visit and to spend time together with his family, what has always been striking to me was his patience with and affection towards his 3 young kids. In return, I also observed that his children felt a deep emotional connection with their father. They really enjoyed being around him and spending time in his presence.” He described him as a dedicated father and husband.
37Mohammed Rezaee also wrote a letter of support. Mr. Rezaee has been a friend for over a decade. He and A.N. met in 2013 when they began doctoral studies at the University of New Brunswick. He described his friend as patient, gentle, and exceptionally good with children.
38He wrote, “Throughout all the years I have known him, A.N. has consistently demonstrated honesty, integrity, kindness and a calm and thoughtful nature. I can confidently say he is a trustworthy and highly principled individual.”
39I am also satisfied that the offence had a significant impact on the victims in this case. T.N. was just two years old at the time, and it is aggravating that he would have been very frightened at his father’s arrest in the airport. While he likely will not remember this event given his age, it was traumatic for him at the time. The offence obviously had an impact on the child’s mother, who was frightened enough to contact police in the first place. It represents a significant breach of trust on the part of A.N.
40I have also considered the victim impact statement submitted by F.Y. on behalf of herself and her son.
41She indicated that she would like to say that she and her son have chosen to forgive A.N. and she knows that A.N. has learned from this experience and will not ever repeat such a mistake in the future.
42She noted that she is still married to him and they have three children together. She writes in her victim impact statement as follows:
My children, including [T.N.] have suffered greatly from being separated from their father. The separation has placed a lot of emotional pressure on me and especially the children. My sincere wish is for our family to be reunited and to move forward together. I am willing to give him another opportunity to rebuild our family life.
In case of potential consequences, a criminal record for A.N., our family will not be able to survive. A.N. will not be able to continue his career and most probably not be able to stay in Canada as he will not be able to renew his permanent residence or apply for citizenship. These will definitely ruin our family and the future of our kids.
So I respectfully ask Your Honour to give this case your kind and careful consideration. Thank you for taking the time to read my statement.
43The victim impact statement speaks to the possible collateral consequences of sentencing. The imposition of a sentence resulting in a criminal record could trigger potential loss of permanent residency and a deportation order.
44Deportation to Iran would not only have disastrous consequences for this family, but pose serious risks to A.N.’s personal safety given that Iran, the United States, and Israel are engaged in a war.
45Iran also has a poor human rights record.
46His three Canadian children would suffer long term emotional and financial hardship.
Relevant Caselaw
47I considered the authorities provided by counsel. I find that the cases provided by the Crown are distinguishable from the case before me. I reviewed all of the authorities provided. However, I found that the cases relating to abduction or potential abduction were not applicable as A.N. is not charged with, nor has he plead guilty to, abducting T.N. He has pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a forged document with intent.
48In R. v. Allen, 2017 ONCA 40, the appellant was convicted of two Criminal Code offences in relation to his application for and use of a false passport. The sentencing judge in that case refused to impose a conditional discharge. The sentencing judge in that case concluded that a conditional discharge was not in the public interest as it would not serve the sentencing objectives of general deterrence and denunciation. The appellant in that case used a fraudulent passport to make multiple entries into the United States, which the Court of Appeal found justified the sentencing judge’s reasons.
49That case is distinguishable from this one, where the offender forged his wife’s signature on a document on a single occasion. His behaviour was not repeated, nor as flagrant as the offender in Allen. Further, his father was dying, which I regard as a factor which may have significantly impaired the otherwise good judgment he has demonstrated in every other aspect of his life as a father and as a husband, based on the record before me. I do not see the holding in Allen as mandating that a discharge is contrary to the public interest in this case.
50The next authority provided by the Crown for a forgery-type offence is R. v. Kapoor, 2021 BCSC 2516. In that case, the offender was convicted after trial by jury of two counts of making a false statement to a passport officer. The two offences were committed within days of each other. The child’s father provided a victim impact statement. He said that he has lived in constant fear that Ms. Kapoor might try to abduct the child back to India, a country which is not a signatory to the Hague Convention. He noted that Ms. Kapoor has shown little respect for Canadian courts and Canadian laws, including violating her release conditions and she has conducted herself in many other unscrupulous ways that have heightened his concern that she will abduct the child. The Crown led evidence from the child’s father that Ms. Kapoor provided false reports that he had assaulted her at the time of separation which resulted in a denial of his parental access to their child for a considerable time, as well as two later allegations she made in 2020 that he had assaulted their son, which caused him to be investigated by the police and child protection authorities. The court found that attempting to obtain a passport is a very serious offence, and lying about it to the authorities was also highly concerning. The context that Ms. Kapoor was trying to obtain a passport for the child against the parent’s wishes was aggravating and the importance of protecting the integrity of the passport system was a factor mandating a jail term of 6 months. The court noted that only jail would meet the sentencing objective of specific deterrence given that the offender had no insight into her criminal behaviour and did not acknowledge what she had done or the harm that she had done and instead blamed others, particularly the child’s father. At para. 58, the court noted, “she claims to have acted out of motherly love and that there was no risk of child abduction, but she has failed to recognize that her conduct gave rise to those very fears.”
51The offender in Kapoor stands in stark contrast to the circumstances of the offender before me. A.N. is remorseful, he pleaded guilty, he has insight into the gravity of his offence, and the impact his offence has had on his family, and the seriousness of the offence. He is entirely distinguishable from the offender in Kapoor.
Availability of a Discharge
52In this case, A.N. is a first-time offender and the principle of restraint applies. All available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to the community should be considered for all offenders.
53Section 730 of the Criminal Code allows the court to impose a discharge where, for an offence for which there is no minimum punishment nor a maximum punishment of incarceration for 14 years or life, the court is otherwise satisfied that a discharge is (1) in the interests of the accused and (2) not contrary to the public interest.
54Section 368(1)(d) does not carry a mandatory minimum, nor does it have a maximum sentence of imprisonment for 14 years of life. As a result, a discharge is available if the court is satisfied that the discharge is in the interests of the accused and it is not contrary to the public interest.
55In this case, the gravity of the offence requires a degree of denunciation of A.N.’s conduct and the harm done to the victims and to the community. Denunciation and general deterrence must be given priority in the balancing of the relevant sentencing factors.
56The harm in this case involves not only the violation of his wife’s trust, but also a breach of the rules relating to international travel which are designed to protect all Canadians. Caution must be exercised in the analysis, however, as A.N. is not charged with kidnapping. He had the legal right to travel with his son, despite the ill-advised nature of that trip in the circumstances given that his country of destination was at war. His offence is possessing a forged document, which, based on the facts before me, he had not even actually presented yet to the authorities, although it certainly is an available inference that he intended to do so.
57In terms of specific deterrence, I find there is zero risk that A.N. will reoffend. He is a person with an otherwise unimpeachable moral character. I reviewed several letters of reference provided on his behalf.
58He has also suffered collateral consequences in this case, which I am certain have had an impact on him, and would provide additional safeguards against reoffence if needed, which I find they are not.
59He has no criminal record. He is highly educated and family oriented. He has suffered the humiliation of arrest, loss of reputation, and six days in custody.
60In terms of rehabilitation, A.N. has excellent prospects. He has a Ph.D. in Mathematics from the University of New Brunswick. I note that his wife is equally accomplished and also has a Ph.D. in Mathematics. In fact, they met in high school and competed in various mathematics competitions in Iran prior to immigrating to Canada.
61The sentence I impose should foster a sense of responsibility in A.N. and an acceptance of the impact of what he has done to his wife and child as well as to the larger community. It is not necessary that he be separated from society for its protection.
62In all of the circumstances, this court concludes that what happened in this case was a lapse in judgment occurring while under extreme emotional duress due to the pending death of a parent. That is not to take away from the seriousness of the offence, but the evidence before me, including the letters of support, give rise to an inference that what happened on October 29, 2025, was completely out of character for A.N.
63This is not a case where the seriousness of the conduct mandates a criminal record to reflect the seriousness of the offence, or the circumstances of the offender. I have before me a highly educated and responsible person who demonstrated a serious lapse of judgment on what I am sure is the worst day of his life, under tremendous emotional duress which I find impaired his judgement. The victim in this case has implored me not to impose a sentence which would result in a criminal conviction. He has no criminal record. He is a person of otherwise exemplary character.
64A case such as this calls for the exercise of judicial restraint.
65The courts have held that a sentence may be adjusted to avoid a disproportionate immigration consequence provided the sentence remains fit: R. v. Pham, 2013 SCC 15, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 739, at para. 14.
66In all of the relevant circumstances, I find that it is certainly in A.N.’s interests and it is not contrary to the public interest to impose a discharge in this case.
Sentence
67His sentence shall be a conditional discharge with five months’ probation.
68He is to report once to probation and thereafter only as required by probation.
69He is to have no contact with F.Y. except with her written and revocable consent to be filed with the probation office.
70He is not to apply for a passport or other travel documents for any of the children.
71He is not to be in possession of any passport or related travel documents for any of his children absent the consent of F.Y. to be filed in advance with the probation office.
72I decline to make a DNA order in the circumstances of this case.
Date: July 3, 2026
Madam Justice Anne London-Weinstein
CITATION: His Majesty The King v. A.N., 2026 ONSC 3919
COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-11408521
DATE: 2026/07/03
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
His Majesty The King
– and –
A.N.
Accused
reasons for sentence
Justice London-Weinstein
Released: July 3, 2026