R. v. Farhan, 2013 ONCJ 768

Information No. 998-11-20009 Citation: R. v. Farhan , 2013 ONCJ 768 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. FAISAL E. FARHAN * * * * * * * * * * REASONS FOR SENTENCE DELIVERED BY THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE H. PERKINS-McVEY on Friday, April 19, 2013, at OTTAWA, Ontario. * * * * * * * * * *

APPEARANCES: C. Seebaran Counsel for the Federal Crown R. Addelman Counsel for the Accused (

i) Table of Contents ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE TABLE OF CONTENTS TRANSCRIPT ORDERED: May 9, 2013 TRANSCRIPT COMPLETED: June 10, 2013 ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED: July 10, 2013 REASONS APPROVED BY PERKINS-McVEY, J.: July 3, 2013

FRIDAY, APRIL 19 TH , 2013 REASONS FOR SENTENCE: PERKINS-McVEY, J. (Orally): This is a decision from the sentencing on the Faisal Farhan matter. The accused entered pleas of guilt to four charges, acknowledging that between October the 6 th of 2009 and January the 18 th of 2011, that he knowingly caused the Passport Office to use forged documents in issuing passports, contrary to s. 368(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . He further acknowledged that between May 28 th , 2009, and January 18 th , 2011, he did, without lawful excuse, have in his possession eight forged passports. Further, he is charged that between October 17 th , 2010, and October 18 th , 2010, with intent to commit an indictable offence, he did have a false wig, contrary to s. 351(2) of the Criminal Code . Lastly, he pled guilty that on January the 17 th of 2011 at or near Toronto Pearson International Airport he knowingly used a forged passport in the name of “Adam Morgan Ibrahim” (ph) as if it were genuine, contrary to s. 57(1) (b)(

i) of the Criminal Code . The facts acknowledged by the accused on his plea of guilt are set out in the agreed statement of facts, filed as Exhibit 1 in the sentencing hearing. The facts, in essence, are that Mr. Farhan submitted false passsport applications to Passport Canada under each of his two aliases; Fadal Bander Farhan (ph) and Adam Morgan Ibrahim and in the name of his brother, Gazi Farhan (ph). The accused agrees that these are not his legal names. Following these applications, Passport Canada issued adult passports in the name of each alias and in the name of Gazi Farhan.

In order to obtain these passports the accused submitted numerous fraudulent documents, falsified photographs of himself, provided false birth certificates, forged letters from St. Mark’s Coptic Orthodox Church, a forged letter from McGill University Health Centre – purporting to attest to his hospitalization following his home birth. A false Ontario driver’s license was also submitted to the Quebec director of civil status to obtain a false birth certificate in the name of Fadal Farhan.

The accused also submitted the same false Ontario driver’s license and a false Ontario insurance card with a passport application. The accused also named Mirim El-Maskil (ph) as Farhan’s common-law spouse, she is, in fact, Farhan’s cousin. On July 8 th , 2010, Passport Canada issued a passport for the false identity, Fidel Bander Farhan (ph). The accused picked up this passport using the false driver’s license for identification. The accused has two children. A daughter, Sarah Farhan (ph), born in 2006, and a son, Edar Farhan (ph), born in 2007.

The accused was separated from his wife during the material times and both children resided in Kuwait with their mother who had sole custody of the children under a custody order issued in Kuwait. The custody order imposed a travel ban on the children to prevent them from leaving Kuwait. In an effort to get his children into Canada he applied to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking sole custody of the children without notice to the children’s mother. The Court issued an order on May the 20 th , 2009, granting the accused sole custody of the children.

This custody order was made on the basis of a false application, however. In the application, Mr. Farhan stated that both children lived in Canada with him and that the mother resided in Kuwait. This was false as the children actually resided with their mother in Kuwait. In June 2010 and in October 2010, using his two false aliases, Farhan submitted child passport applications for four false identities for children the same gender and age as his actual children. These false passport applications were supported with photographs of children

who were not his actual children. Following these applications, Passport Canada issued four child passports for the false identities, Sarah Adam Ibrahim (ph), Bander Adam Ibrahim (ph), Sarah Fidel Farhan and Bander Fidel Farhan (ph). The accused used his alias, Fidel Farhan, to obtain two of those false passports. The accused submitted numerous fraudulent documents and provided false information in support of these child passport applications including a photo of his niece which was submitted as that of his daughter.

A false Ontario birth certificate which was obtained by applying to Service Ontario for a delayed statement of birth for Sarah Fidel Farhan. In support of this application, the accused submitted four false affidavits from four separate affiants. These affiants were family members. Waheda Farhan (ph) and her daughter Miriam Al-Maskil – each of these women stated that a child by the name Sarah Fidel Farhan had been born at home. This was not true. On June 30 th , 2010, the accused also applied for a child passport for the false identity Bander Fidel Farhan.

Similarly, fraudulent documents and information was submitted with that application, including a false Ontario birth certificate that had been obtained by submitting false affidavits to Service Ontario. The same affiants as for Sarah’s false delayed statement of birth, similarly attested that a child by the name of Bander Fidel Farhan had been born at home. This was false. A photo of an unknown boy was submitted with this false passport application. On July the 8 th of 2010, passports for Sarah and Bander Farhan were issued and picked up by the accused.

On July the 5 th of 2010, the accused paid cash to purchase three tickets in the name of Fidel Farhan, Sarah Farhan and Bander Farhan to travel from Montreal to Iman, leaving July the 9 th and returning July the 30 th of 2010. False passports using the accused’s alias, Adam Morgan Ibrahim, were also issued. On October the 19 th of 2010 the accused submitted a false passport application using the name Adam Ibrahim. To obtain this, a falsified photo of himself was submitted, along with a false Ontario birth certificate, which he had obtained using his brother’s name applying for a false delayed statement of birth.

A forged letter was submitted from the Ottawa Hospital claiming that Adam Morgan Ibrahim had been born in hospital. A forged letter from Statistics Canada was also submitted with this application. A false Ontario driver’s license and a false Ontario health card was also provided and the accused named his sister, Nadia Farhan, as Ibrahim’s common-law spouse. On October 28 th of 2010 the accused picked up the false passport, presenting the false Ontario driver’s licence as proof of identification.

Using the false name of Adam Ibrahim, he also applied for and obtained passports for two fictional child identities of the same gender and approximate age as his real children. To obtain the false child passport for Sarah Adam Ibrahim and for Bander Adam Ibrahim, fraudulent documents and information was submitted to support these applications including false Ontario birth certificates, which had been obtained after applying for false delayed statements of birth using false affidavits from three separate affiants.

One of the affiants was his sister, Nadia Farhan, who falsely identified herself as being the mother of each child and each time falsely attested that the child had been born at home. Photos of unknown children were supplied with these applications. The accused picked up both of these false passports on October the 28 th of 2010. On January 17 th of 2011 the accused used the false passport issued under the name of Adam Ibrahim to enter Canada. The accused acknowledges that he obtained the seven fraudulent passports in order to bring his children from Kuwait to Canada with him.

In addition, the Crown produced evidence that on February 17 th of 2011, the accused was stopped by police driving a vehicle. The accused produced to police a driver’s license under the name Adam Morgan Ibrahim.

On February the 20th, 2011, he was, again, intercepted in the same vehicle and although he had shaved off his goatee and was notwearing a hat. At that time, in addition to the false driver’s license, he had an OHIP card, also false, in the name of Adam MorganIbrahim. This driver’s license was also one of those that had been used to obtain the false passport under the same name. The accused was arrested and charged for use of those false documents, but apart from this related entry, which occurred in Montreal,Quebec, the accused has no other criminal antecedence.

In preparation for the sentencing hearing, a pre-sentence report was prepared. As well, I received letters from the accused’s doctorsconfirming his medical condition. The Crown called evidence from Joanne Barton (ph). Ms. Barton is the national manager of clinical services for Corrections Canada,involved in the preparation and implementation of healthcare policy. She is also a registered nurse. Ms. Barton confirmed that, shouldMr. Farhan receive a penitentiary sentence, that on arriving at a facility, he would be seen within 24 hours by a nurse who could identifyhis health issues and medication requirements.

And that within 14 days there would be a more thorough medical assessment and referralto the institutional physician, if necessary. Ms. Barton stated that they do take inmates to specialists while they are in custody and that generally if an inmate has been followed by aspecialist prior to incarceration that they would generally continue to be followed by one or referred to one by the institutional physician. Ms. Barton stated, “Any services available in the community are also available to inmates”. Assurances were made under oath by Ms.Barton that they could deal with the medical issues that Mr.

Farhan presented. Further, it was stated that Mr. Farhan’s medical situation would warrant a recommendation that he should receive a single cell, ifavailable. Ms. Barton also indicated that the accused would be given his medication to self-administer so there would be no delays, asthe medication he is under is not prone to abuse. In addition to calling Joanne Barton, the Crown had sought to rely on documents obtained from the Kuwait government.

At the time ofthe sentencing hearing, the Crown, however, conceded that they could not rely on the Kuwait documents as evidence of murder or toshow that he previously attempted to abduct his children. The Crown indicated that he had learned that the accused had never been notified of the trial held in Kuwait and agreed that the processrequirements were flawed and that the evidence does not meet the adjudicative process requirements as are required in accordance withthe decision of Regina v. Stratton (ON CA), [1978] 21 O.R. (2d) 258, Second Series, page 258.

The Crown, however, does seek to rely on the Kuwait record to show that Mr. Farhan used the fraudulently obtained passports to enterand exit Kuwait while his children were resident in Kuwait and that, thus, the attempted child abduction carried all the way to Kuwait. The defence makes no admission that the accused was ever in Kuwait and strongly contests any use of the Kuwait record. As such, theCrown is required to prove this aggravating fact in accordance with Regina v. Gardner and s. 24 of the Criminal Code, beyond areasonable doubt.

Apart from submitting the Kuwait court record and asking the Court rely on the statement that surveillance cameras and exit and entrydata show that Mr. Farhan entered and exited the country, no other evidence was called. Given the issues raised and the concerns regarding the Kuwait court process, including a reference to a secret investigation by the officer,I find that, absent other evidence, that the Crown has not proven this aggravating fact beyond a reasonable doubt and I will not considerthat information.

The Crown has filed, and also seeks to rely on, the decision of Justice Minnema of the Superior Court of Justice dated November the

29 th of 2012. This is a decision arising from a motion by Kasna El-Shamari (ph), the maternal aunt and current guardian of Salma Farhan (ph) and Bader Farhan (ph). She sought to be made a party to the proceedings and sought to overturn the custody orders that have been obtained by fraud on May the 20 th of 2009 and March 23 rd , 2011. These orders had been made in favour of Faisal Farhan and Nadia Farhan, respectively. A certified copy of the original endorsement was provided to the Court. As such, this court document would be admissible under s. 24 of the Canada Evidence Act .

The Crown seeks to rely, as an aggravating fact, that even following his guilty plea on July the 23 rd of 2012 that the accused continued to mislead the Superior Court and provide false information regarding the residency of the children in seeking to maintain the previous custody orders. It appears, from a review of the decision of Justice Minnema, at paragraph 6 and from the evidence attributed specifically to the accused at paragraphs 10 and 11 that the accused did continue to assert that the childrens’ habitual residence, prior to April the 10 th , had been in Canada.

This is in contrast to the admissions made at paragraph 7 of the agreed statement of facts at the sentencing hearing wherein he agrees that the initial Ontario custody order was obtained on the basis of a false application and that it was not true that both children lived in Canada with him while their mother resided in Kuwait. Justice Minnema found that a fraud had been proven on balance, rejecting the evidence admitted by the accused and his sister. The fraudulently obtained custody orders were set aside.

Given that certified copies of this decision have been filed, I find I can take into account, as an aggravating fact, that the accused has sought to maintain the fraud even in the face of the plea of guilt and the agreed statement of facts that had been filed. In this sentencing hearing the Crown seeks the sentence of two to two and a half years for Mr. Farhan, arguing that this is a: “Sustained, sophisticated attempt in international child abduction through manipulation of the Canadian family court system, manipulation of the Ontario and Quebec birth certificate systems and manipulation of the passport system”.

He argues that general deterrence and denunciation must be the paramount consideration when imposing sentence. The Crown lists a number of aggravating factors to argue that a sentence of two years or more should be imposed and also as reasons why a sentence of less than two years or one served in the community would be inconsistent with the purpose and principals of sentence set out in s. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code . The defence agrees that Mr.

Farhan’s conduct was very serious and that his involvement in securing false Canadian passports for the purposes of bringing his children to Canada involved planning and a degree of sophistication. However, defence argues that the accused plea of guilt, his positive pre-sentence report, his lack of criminal record at the time of the commission of the offence and his strong family support and serious medical condition all warrant consideration of a sentence of less than two years.

Further, given these factors, and that the accused did this in a misguided attempt to bring his children to Canada, and not for monetary gain or to threaten the security of Canada by terrorism, that the scales tip in favour of the Court imposing a conditional sentence. The central issue at this sentencing is the appropriate length of sentence and whether a conditional sentence is warranted and consistent with the fundamental purposes and principals of sentence.

The Crown sought to file a victim impact statement under s. 722 from Passport Canada from its representative, Peter Boulatovik (ph). I declined to allow the evidence to be presented in that form and tendered as a victim impact statement, but agreed that the evidence could be admitted under s. 723(2) of the Criminal Code , as it was relevant. Furthermore, some of the content of the statement of Passport Canada, I found, was the type of statement that might be made in submissions by the Crown when advocating for the need for a sentence to reflect the need for denunciation and deterrence.

However, I allowed the Crown and the defence to make further submissions and to provide be me with additional case law on this point. The Crown has relied on the decision of R. v. Saundercook-Menard (ph), 2001, CanLii 4581 SCJ at paragraph 13 . The Court states at paragraph 13: “The definition of victim, in referring to ‘persons’ does not specifically exclude corporations. The

interpretation, s. 2 of the Criminal Code , explicitly includes corporations within the definition of...organization and “person”...Accordingly, it is clear that corporations and public agencies may file a victim impact statement. They have frequently done so in criminal cases”.* Under s. 722(4) victim in relation to an offence means a person to whom harm was done or who has suffered physical or emotional loss a result of the commission of an offence and,

b) where the victim described is dead, ill or otherwise incapable of making a statement referred to in subsection 1, a statement can be made by the spouse or common-law partner, or any relative of that person, anyone who in law or fact has custody of that person or is responsible for the care of that person or any dependent of that person.

Section 2 of the 2013 Criminal Code no longer seeks to define “person” and hence this Court will give ordinary meaning to the term “person”. That term does not, in my view, implicitly include either a corporation or an organization. I note, that since the decision of R. v. Saundercook-Menard and the decision of R. v. Bogart , which is referred to – and I note those are both fraud cases – that the Criminal Code has been amended. Not only has the definition of “person” been removed, but has now been enacted subsection 380.4(1). The

section has now been enacted to allow for the tendering of a “community impact statement”, for cases involving fraud. Under s. 380.4, the Court may consider statement made by a person on a community's behalf describing the harm done or losses to, suffered by the community arising from the commission of the offence.

Given now the specific enactment of a provision for a community impact statement for offences of fraud and given the removal from subsection 2 of the expansive definition of “person”, it remains my view that it would be improper to accept the statement of Passport Canada under s. 722 as a victim impact statement. The evidence from Peter Bolatovik, however, does provide some insight on the impact of passport offences and that impact on the international confidence in the integrity of the Canadian passport. And, further, the importance of the passport as proof of identity.

Although I agree with defence that some of the statements may be self-evident and could be made by the Crown in submissions, and, indeed, that there are many boilerplate statements contained within his evidence, there is relevant information for use and consideration of the appropriate disposition in this matter. And I do find that, although, Exhibit 7 and the evidence of Peter Bolatovik is not admissible under s. 722, it may be received by the Court under s. 724 of the Criminal Code .

It is noted that the Crown was not tendering the statement for the purposes of proving an aggravating fact, but rather as a statement regarding the general effect of passport fraud.

I now turn to the background and circumstances of the accused, Faisal Farhan. A pre-sentence report was prepared in preparation for sentence, and in addition, counsel did file an affidavit by the accused on which he was cross-examined. The focus of the affidavit was the effect of the strict bail conditions, that, in effect, he was under house arrest, not able to leave his residence unless he was in the presence of either his sister or his brother. Counsel for Mr. Farhan also filed a book of sentencing materials, including a letter from his doctor from the Renal transplant program, confirming that Mr.

Farhan had a kidney transplant in May of 2004 and that he is followed by that program. Dr. Karpinski also indicated that Mr. Farhan is immune-suppressed and therefore at risk of infection. Confirmation was provided of Mr. Farhan’s degrees in electrical engineering from Carleton in June of 2001 and his degree in civil engineering from Kuwait University. Affidavits were also filed by Mr. Farhan’s family attesting to his good character.

The pre-sentence report, I agree, is generally positive, confirming that the accused is 46 years of age, that his prior record for unlawful procurement of identity documents - which is shown as arising March the 5 th , 2012, is, indeed, related to the identity documents in the case before me. The accused is described as the eldest child in the family and the brother who would care for other family members. It’s confirmed that he donated his kidney when he was 18 to his father. He is described as having two engineering degrees and plans to return to school to take a master’s degree.

The accused, it is indicated, has not worked since 2008. That is consistent with the evidence he gave under oath. There is, however, some conflicting information in the pre-sentence report regarding whether he’s engaged in part-time work since 2008 driving taxi or in the pizza business. Since 2003, however, the accused has been under Ontario Disability receiving approximately $1,160 per month because of his medical condition. The accused is not seen as having any alcohol or drug issues.

In the presentence report the accused admitted he did wish to go over to Kuwait to take the children and that he wished them to be raised in Canada. He admits these offences are, ‘The biggest mistake of [his] life’ and that he is, ‘Very, very sorry’ for what he’s done. These offences, he says, occurred when he was depressed and motivated by strong feelings towards his children and that he was worried about their safety and their future.

The probation officer, in her final assessment of the accused states, and I quote, “Based on the lengths that the subject went to obtain illegal documentation in hopes of bringing his children to Canada, recommendations for community supervision are guarded”. Turning now to the law and principals of sentence. There are relatively few cases of passport fraud. In R. v. Fawaz , 2010, British Columbia Supreme Court 384, the British Columbia Court recognizes that in offences such as this the accused makes a conscious choice to break the law.

In that case the Court rejected the imposition of a conditional sentence and imposed a nine month sentence in addition to three weeks of pre-sentence custody. In R. v. John Doe , 2004, British Columbia Court of Appeal 143, the British Columbia Court of Appeal was dealing with an accused who misrepresented his identity as he attempted to enter Canada by use of a forged passport. The accused had pled guilty to three indictable offences. The accused was appealing his sentence of 18 months, in addition to the five

months of pre-sentence custody. He had, in essence, been sentenced to 23 months jail. The accused had many aliases and had international convictions for fraud. The B.C. Court declined to overturn the sentence stating that the sentence was clearly a fit one. The Court stated that, ‘If it could be faulted at all it was because it was at the low end of the range’.

None of the cases provided clearly indicate the purpose and principals of sentence they relied on, but I do accept that in cases such as this, general deterrence and denunciation must be reflected in any sentence imposed for passport fraud and that lesser reliance must be placed on principals of specific deterrence and rehabilitation.

Each case, of course, is dependent on its own facts and the unique circumstances of each offender and the Court in determining the appropriate sentence is guided by the principals of sentence set out in s. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code and must determine a sentence that is proportional to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Sentencing is never an easy process. It is particularly difficult when you balance a serious offence with an accused who is, essentially, a first offender.

Sentencing is not a ‘one size fits all’ and there is no mathematical formula in determination of sentence. The Criminal Code sets out the principals of sentence. Pursuant to s. 718 of the Criminal Code the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing sanctions that are just. The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. A sentence must be consistent with the principals of sentence.

Those objectives are denunciation; deterrence, both general and specific; separation from society, only when necessary; rehabilitation promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment, through sentence, of the harm done to victims and to the community. In this case I take into account the following mitigating factors. The accused pled guilty and accepted responsibility at a relatively early opportunity. No preliminary inquiry or trial was held. He expresses remorse in the pre-sentence report and acknowledges that this is the biggest mistake of his life.

The pre-sentence report is generally positive and does indicate he has strong family support. That’s evidenced here today. The accused does suffer from medical conditions that have been verified which require regular review and monitoring. He received a kidney transplant in 2004 as a result he has a suppressed immune system. He also suffers from a number of conditions as a result, including a blood clot, for which in August of this year he had been under treatment. He also suffered Bell’s Palsy and he is under a strict medication regime.

The accused committed these offences not for monetary gain or to support terrorist activity, but because he was consumed by love for his children and as he was concerned for their safety. It is noted there is no evidence that the children were actually removed from Kuwait at any time, although, clearly that was his intention. The accused has been under strict conditions of release since February of 2011 with significant restrictions on his liberty. I have received no evidence of any reported breaches. I also take into account a number of aggravating factors. These are extremely serious offences.

Offences, which by their nature, require significant planning and sophistication. There is a need to denounce offences such as passport fraud as it compromises the credibility and reliability of passports as identity documentation, both at home and internationally. The accused admits he obtained these false passports and the false birth certificates, false driver’s licenses, false health cards, false applications for delayed statements of birth, used false affidavits and other documents, in order to have Passport Canada issue passports.

He committed these acts so that he could unlawfully bring his children from Kuwait to Canada knowing that there was a custody order which prevented their removal. This was not a simple fraud, but a complex one. As the Crown indicated, it is a nest of lies and the frauds are like that stack of Russian dolls, one fraudulent document was used to create the next in order to cause government officials to act on seemingly valid official documents. The accused, by his education, is clearly intelligent and he used that intelligence to create these frauds.

The accused used false photos and forged letters from organizations such as the Coptic Church and from the Ottawa Hospital so that officials would issue delayed statements of birth, so that birth certificates could be issued. It is also aggravating that in obtaining the delayed statement of birth that false affidavits from the very family members, sisters and cousins that are supportive of him, he used those false affidavits in order to commit these offences. It appears that his family supported, perhaps inadvertently, the commission of these offences.

This, in my view, decreases any reliance that I can place on strong family support as a mitigating factor. It is also particularly aggravating that the accused misled the Courts. He made certain representations under oath, in the Superior Court, that he had served the application on the mother, that the children lived with him and that his sister shared the care of the children with him. On the basis of his lies, his lies under oath, the Superior Court relied on those and granted him custody. The accused has admitted through the agreed statements of facts those claims were false.

Despite having pled guilty on July the 23 rd of 2012, before me wherein he had admitted through the agreed statement of facts, Exhibit 1 in these proceedings, that he lied in the initial custody application, he sought to maintain that custody order, obtained under false pretenses, and sought to contest that those initial orders were fraudulent in the matter before Justice Minnema.

That he continued to seek to support the lie that the children resided in Ontario despite the plea of guilt and despite the statement of lies, suggests that the accused can be careless with the truth and suggests a disregard for the importance of sworn oath in court proceedings. I am satisfied, however, that the documentation that has been provided to me through counsel is legitimate. Without question the offences before the Court required extensive planning, knowledge of the Court and the passport processes.

As I’ve said this was not a simple fraud of putting misleading information on a passport form, but a creation of a false statement of birth to get false birth certificates, false photos were used, health cards and drivers licenses. These offences were created so that the accused could unlawfully bring his children to Canada. The offences of possession of forged passports, as well as the possession of forged documentation before the Court, all to facilitate unlawfully bringing his children from Kuwait to Canada are serious offences that must be denounced and deterred.

I accept that the consequences of real or perceived problems with the integrity of Canadian passports may cause the international community to question their reliance on this identity document. International confidence in the integrity of the Canadian passport is the very essence of the functioning of the global mobility of Canadians as indicated in the statement by Mr. Bolokovic (ph).

Given the seriousness of the offences before the Court and given the extent to which the accused engaged in fraudulent activity, given that this occurred over an extended period of time and his providing of numerous pieces of false information to the Courts all unlawfully to bring his children to Canada; I find that even if a sentence of less than two years was warranted, that a conditional sentence would be inconstant with the fundamental purpose and principals of sentence, particularly general deterrence and denunciation.

Having considered all of the aggravating and mitigating factors in this matter, I find that a fit and appropriate sentence would be two years in custody. I have also considered that the accused has been under strict conditions of release since February 25 th of 2011. He has been unable to leave his residence unless in the company of his brother or sister. He has been precluded from continuing his education or attempting to find even modest work. Although, given his medical disability, it’s unlikely he would return to full employment. Given the restrictions of liberty and the decision of R. v.

Downes , I am prepared to consider giving Mr. Farhan credit for six months pre- sentence custody.

I indicated previously that I have considered the evidence of Joanne Barton (ph). I do appreciate the accused’s medical condition, but do find it is a medical condition that appears stabilized by medication. He is monitored, but not under any acute treatment. I accept the evidence of Joanne Barton, that the accused medication can be monitored and that he can be referred to any necessary specialist for treatment and monitoring if required. Given that I have found that a two year sentence is an appropriate disposition, a conditional sentence would not be available.

I have indicated that I would consider giving the accused credit for six months of pre-sentence custody given the strict conditions of release. As such, I would impose a sentence of 18 months jail followed by 12 months of probation unless counsel would like me to consider imposition of a two year sentence without probation given the parole regime of the federal system. MR. ADDELMAN: May I have a moment to....? THE COURT: Yes. MR. ADDELMAN: I think the preference would be a reformatory sentence at this time. THE COURT: All right.

So I’m imposing a sentence of 18 months followed by probation of 12 months on the following terms and conditions. You will keep the peace and be of good behaviour; appear before the Court if and when required to do so. You will notify the Court or probation office in advance of any change of your name, address, employment, or occupation. You will report, in person, within two working days of your release from custody and thereafter report as and when required.

You’ll reside only at an address approved of by the probation office and you are not to change that address without the prior written permission of probation. You are not to associate or communicate directly or indirectly with Salma Farhan or Beder Farhan, except in accordance with any family court order or unless legally entitled to do so. You are not to attend within 1000 metres of their place of residence, place of employment or any place they may be at, except in accordance with any family court order or unless legally entitled to do so.

You are not to possess any wigs, non-prescription glasses or other items that could be used to disguise your appearance. You are to remain in the province of Ontario and not to leave the province of Ontario without written permission of the Court. You are not to be in possession of any passport or other travel documentation, in any format, unless with specific permission to do so by the Court. You are not to possess any credit cards or electronic credit data not in your own name and must be in your own likeness.

You are not to possess any driver’s license, health card or other identification, unless in your own name and with your own likeness. Upon the request of the Ottawa Police or the probation office you must present yourself and any identification for search to ensure compliance with this order. Are there any other terms or conditions sought? Or do you have any submissions to make on the terms I’ve imposed? MR. ADDELMAN: I have none, Your Honour, I think. THE COURT: All right. SEEBARAN: No, Your Honour. THE COURT: I’ll waive any victim fine surcharge given that the accused is on disability.

Do you understand the terms and conditions, Mr. Farhan? FAISAL FARHAN: Yes I do. THE COURT: You must appreciate that if you fail to abide by any of the terms or conditions, you’d be charged with preach of probation. You’d be brought back before the Court and you could be subject to a further term of incarceration. Thank you, counsel. MR. ADDELMAN: Thank you very much, Your Honour.

MR. SEEBARAN: Thank you. COURT CLERK: Your Honour, would you like that on the first count and the concurrent? THE COURT: Yes. COURT CLERK: Thank you. If your client can just remain in the courtroom? Thank you. [Signature on File] ........................................ The Honourable Madam Justice H. Perkins-McVey * * * * * * * * FORM 2 Certificate of Transcript Evidence Act, Subsection 5(2) I, Amy Pressman, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcription of the recording of R. v. Faisal E.

FARHAN, in the Ontario Court of Justice Held at 161 Elgin St., Ottawa, Ontario, (Courtroom #12) taken from Recording No. #0411-12-20130419, which has been certified in Form 1. Reasons for sentence approved of by Perkins-McVey, J. on July 3, 2013. _________________________ _____________________________ Date Amy Pressman