Background
Yasser Ghoreishi, an Iranian-born man pursuing postgraduate studies in Canada, met the complainant, a newly immigrated Iranian university student, through a family connection. He initially served as a mentor, helping her navigate university admissions and life in Canada. In early 2020, during her visit to Sudbury to tour Laurentian University, the two had non-consensual sexual intercourse; Ghoreishi also videotaped her without consent. Later, Ghoreishi introduced the complainant to S.M., a potential marriage match reflecting Iranian cultural practice. He then imposed strict conditions on their relationship, demanding they not share a room, have sex, or publicize the relationship.
In April and May 2020, during “nights away” from S.M., Ghoreishi coerced the complainant into sex by threatening to destroy her relationship with S.M. and distribute the sex video. During these incidents, he also physically assaulted her—striking her hand and slapping her face. After she and S.M. ended contact with Ghoreishi in May 2020, he sent threatening text messages. In December 2020, an anonymous letter arrived at S.M.’s friend’s house threatening to distribute nude photos of the complainant to damage her reputation. The complainant subsequently reported the assaults to police.
At trial, the jury convicted Ghoreishi of one count of sexual assault and one count of assault, both arising from the April 19, 2020 incident, and acquitted him on five other counts. The trial judge imposed a 20-month conditional sentence. Ghoreishi appealed his convictions; the Crown appealed the sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal for Ontario unanimously dismissed Ghoreishi’s conviction appeal, finding that the jury instruction regarding bad character evidence was adequate. While acknowledging that trial judges should generally warn against both forms of moral prejudice when bad character evidence is admitted, the court held that the absence of an instruction on one aspect—the risk of convicting to punish “bad acts”—was not fatal where the jury was repeatedly instructed on the burden of proof and properly warned against general propensity reasoning. The court found no meaningful risk the jury convicted simply to punish Ghoreishi for misconduct beyond the charged offences, particularly noting the jury’s acquittal on five counts demonstrated it applied the burden of proof rigorously.
The court unanimously allowed the Crown’s sentence appeal, finding the 20-month conditional sentence demonstrably unfit. The court held that serious sexual assault cases require denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives, with conditional sentences rarely appropriate. The sentencing range for sexual assault involving penetration is three to five years’ imprisonment. The trial judge provided no satisfactory explanation for departing significantly from this range. The appellant exploited the complainant’s vulnerability as a new immigrant and betrayed her trust; the offences caused lasting psychological harm, leaving her fearful and distrustful of physical contact.
The court substituted a three-year penitentiary sentence but, exercising discretion, stayed execution of that sentence. Having already served his conditional sentence, Ghoreishi would receive credit for time served and face imminent statutory release. The court found that reincarceration would serve no useful purpose and would merely disrupt his employment and housing. The principles of denunciation and deterrence could be adequately addressed by allowing the appeal, denouncing the original sentence, and substituting the fit sentence while staying its execution.
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts need not provide perfect jury instructions on bad character evidence when the overall charge adequately addresses permissible uses and repeatedly emphasizes the burden of proof; the test is functional assessment of the charge as a whole.
- Sexual assault involving duress and threats attracts sentences of three to five years’ imprisonment; conditional sentences are exceptional in such cases absent highly mitigating factors.
- Exploitation of a vulnerable immigrant by someone in a position of trust significantly aggravates sexual assault sentencing.
- An appellate court may stay execution of a substituted sentence when the offender has already served the original sentence and reincarceration would impede rehabilitation without advancing sentencing principles.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies Canadian law on jury instructions for bad character evidence, establishing that strict perfection is not required—what matters is whether the charge as a whole, read functionally and in context, adequately directs the jury. The decision reinforces that appellate intervention in sentencing requires “significant and for no reason” departure from ranges, not mere disagreement with the trial judge, but it also confirms that sexual assault with duress, threats, and physical violence demands custodial sentences commensurate with the crime’s severity and the perpetrator’s abuse of a position of trust.
The court’s decision to stay execution of sentence—a rare remedy—acknowledges practical fairness concerns when appellate review occurs after an offender has already completed service of an original sentence, signaling that appellate sentencing relief need not always result in reincarceration if denunciation and deterrence can be achieved through the remedy itself.