Background
In 2011, Raza Husain pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault, attempting to procure a person under age 18 to become a prostitute, and procuring the services of a person under 18. The offences involved two complainants aged 13 and 15 at the time of the conduct. Over a 20-month period, Husain brought the complainants to his residence, supplied them alcohol, engaged in sexual intercourse with them, and solicited them to engage in sexual activity with his friends for money.
Husain was sentenced to 5 years 2 months imprisonment with credit for 38 months of pre-trial detention. A 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order was imposed as mandatory at that time. His appeal of conviction and sentence was dismissed in 2012.
On June 23, 2021, Husain received a pardon from the Parole Board of Canada. He then applied to terminate the SOIRA order under section 490.015(3) of the Criminal Code, which permits such applications once a pardon is granted. The application judge (the same judge who had sentenced him) dismissed the application, finding that Husain failed to meet the statutory criteria for termination.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Husain’s appeal. The court held that a pardon alone does not justify termination of a SOIRA order. Instead, an applicant must satisfy the criteria set out in section 490.016(1) of the Criminal Code: demonstrating either that there is “no connection” between the SOIRA order and its statutory objective of helping police prevent and investigate sexual crimes, or that continuing the order is “grossly disproportionate” to the public interest in protecting society through registration of sex offenders.
The court found Husain failed both tests. He provided no expert evidence addressing his sexual addiction (admitted at sentencing) or his risk of reoffending—evidence that the statute explicitly requires courts to consider. The court noted Husain bore the burden of placing all relevant information before the trial judge and cannot now blame the Crown for failing to assist him. The applicant’s attempt to minimize the seriousness of the offences—describing the complainants as not vulnerable and denying coercion—demonstrated a lack of insight that weighed against termination.
The court also rejected Husain’s motion to file fresh evidence, including his pardon application and materials challenging the complainants’ credibility, finding the evidence was not properly sworn and did not meet the legal test for admission on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A pardon from the Parole Board does not automatically terminate a SOIRA order; the statutory criteria under section 490.016(1) must still be satisfied.
- The applicant bears the burden of proof and must provide expert psychiatric or psychological evidence addressing sexual addiction and risk of reoffending—this is a mandatory consideration, not optional.
- Courts will not accept minimization or recharacterization of serious sexual offences against children; lack of insight into offense severity weighs heavily against termination.
- An applicant cannot rely on the Crown to present their case; failure to provide evidence at the trial level cannot be remedied by filing materials on appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the significant practical gap between receiving a pardon and obtaining relief from sex offender registration obligations. While pardons restore certain civil rights, they do not automatically remove SOIRA registration requirements. Offenders seeking termination must affirmatively prove low risk through expert evidence—a demanding evidentiary burden that most applicants will struggle to meet, particularly when they lack insight into the severity of their conduct.
The ruling underscores that courts view sexual offences against children with gravity that persists long after sentencing and pardon. The requirement for expert risk assessment evidence, combined with consideration of the offender’s demonstrated insight, means that SOIRA orders will likely remain in effect for serious child sexual abuse cases absent compelling evidence of genuine rehabilitation and low recidivism risk.