R. v. Khojsteh Kashani

2025 BCSC 1875 R. v. Khojsteh Kashani

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Khojsteh Kashani, 2025 BCSC 1875 Date: 20250916 Docket: 34406 Registry: Vancouver Rex v. Farshad Khojsteh Kashani Restriction on publication: A publication ban has been mandatorily imposed under s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code restricting the publication, broadcasting or transmission in any way of evidence that could identify a complainant or witness, referred to in this judgment by the initials C.M., S.K., D.B., N.G., U.M., E.W., and B.W. This publication ban applies indefinitely unless otherwise ordered. Before: The Honourable Justice Warren Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: J. Lawton S. Dhaliwal Counsel for the Offender: J. Whysall H. Dauvergne, Articled Student Place and Dates of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. July 23 and 24, 2025 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. September 16, 2025 Table of Contents Introduction.. 3 Circumstances of the Offences. 4 Impacts on the Complainants. 12 Circumstances of the Offender.. 15 Legal Principles. 18 Positions of the Parties. 22 Analysis. 26 Conclusion.. 37 [1] THE COURT: I wish to begin by reminding those in the courtroom that there is a publication ban in place prohibiting the publication, broadcasting or transmission in any way of any information that could identify any of the complainants. I will refer to them by their initials. [2] I am now going to deliver my

reasons for sentence. When a transcript is ordered, I may make minor corrections and add to or expand on the citations for the authorities, but neither the outcome nor the reasoning will change. Introduction [3] On May 14, 2024, a jury found Farshad Khojsteh Kashani guilty of seven counts of sexual assault, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. Mr. Khojsteh Kashani, who I will also refer to at times as the offender, is now before the Court for sentencing. [4] Each of the seven counts pertains to a different complainant. Each complaint was a client of Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's medical aesthetics business. The offences occurred at his clinic, while he was performing therapeutic procedures on the complainants. [5] The task is to determine a fit, fair and principled sentence, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, the impact on the complainants, and Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's circumstances, and applying the relevant law and sentencing principles. Those principles include the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in R. v. Goldfinch, 2019 SCC 38, and R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, in which the Court sent a strong message to sentencing judges about the need to ensure that the penalties imposed for sexual offences are harsh enough to reflect society's deepened understanding of the harmfulness and wrongfulness of sexual violence. They also include

the Court of Appeal's recent decision in R. v. Maslehati, 2024 BCCA 207, which reiterated the significance of the impact of that enhanced understanding and instructed that, in the absence of diminished moral blameworthiness or compelling mitigation, a penitentiary term (that is, a term of imprisonment of at least two years) is generally required for indictable sexual assault with aggravating circumstances, even for a first time offender. [6] The Crown seeks a global sentence on all seven counts of 12 years and three months' imprisonment. This reflects, per count, sentences of between 36 months and 48 months served consecutively, which collectively would amount to 24 years and six months, but reduced to half that on application of the totality principle. The Crown also seeks a number of ancillary orders, including an order that Mr. Khojsteh Kashani comply with the provisions of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10, for life. I will refer to that Act by its initials - "SOIRA". [7] On behalf of Mr. Khojsteh Kashani, it is submitted that a conditional sentence of two years less a day, plus three years' probation, is appropriate as a global sentence on all seven counts. A conditional sentence is a sentence of imprisonment that is served in the community subject to a variety of conditions, instead of in an institution. Mr. Khojsteh Kashani does not oppose

the ancillary orders sought by the Crown, except that he submits the SOIRA order should apply only for a period of 20 years and not for life. Circumstances of the Offences [8] Section 724 of the Criminal Code governs the fact‑finding process necessary for sentencing. It provides that I must accept as proven all facts, express or implied, that are essential to the jury's verdict of guilty and I may find any other relevant fact that was disclosed by the evidence at the trial to be proven, or hear evidence presented by either party with respect to that fact. Where a fact is disputed, evidence must be adduced as to the existence of the fact unless sufficient evidence was adduced at the trial, the party wishing to rely on a fact has the burden of proving it, and I must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities of the existence of the disputed fact before relying on it, except that the Crown must prove any aggravating fact beyond a reasonable doubt. [9] In R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, at paras. 17 - 18, the Supreme Court of Canada explained these principles. Again, the sentencing judge is bound by the express and implied factual implications of the jury's verdict, must accept as proven all facts, express or implied, that are essential to the jury's verdict of guilty, and must not accept as fact any evidence consistent only with a verdict rejected by the jury. When the factual

implications of the jury's verdict are ambiguous, the sentencing judge should come to their own independent determination of the relevant facts and in doing so, may find any other relevant fact that was disclosed by the evidence at trial to be proven. As I have said, to rely upon an aggravating fact, the sentencing judge must be convinced of the existence of that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. [10] Although Mr. Khojsteh Kashani denies touching the complainants in a sexual manner, there is no material dispute about the express and implied factual implications of the jury's verdicts of guilt. In other words, there is no material dispute about the circumstances of the offences relevant to the determination of sentence in this case. [11] At trial, the complainants and the offender gave similar or uncontested accounts of the background context. For example, there was no dispute about Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's personal background and qualifications, the nature of his medical aesthetics business, the types of procedures he routinely performed at his clinic, or that each complainant was a client of his during the material time. [12] Each complainant described Mr. Khojsteh Kashani touching them while he performed a non-surgical vaginal rejuvenation treatment using a high-intensity focused ultrasound machine in a manner that was clearly intentional, did not form part of the legitimate

performance of the procedure, and was objectively sexual. I will refer to that machine as a HIFU machine. One complainant, E.W., described sexual touching during two distinct HIFU vaginal procedures. One complainant, C.M., also described sexual touching during a microneedling procedure she says Mr. Khojsteh Kashani performed on her vaginal area. Mr. Khojsteh Kashani denied any inappropriate touching of any complainant, but he conceded that the touching of the complainants as they described would have been sexual and inappropriate if it had occurred. [13] There was no dispute about the therapeutic objectives of a non-surgical vaginal rejuvenation treatment, the nature of the HIFU machine, or the way in which a vaginal rejuvenation procedure using that machine is properly performed. Dr. Darren Lazare, an obstetrician/gynecologist and pelvic floor surgeon, provided expert evidence about the manner in which the machine is supposed to be used and the kind of physical touching involved in using it properly. Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's testimony on these points aligned with that of Dr. Lazare. [14] There was no dispute that Mr. Khojsteh Kashani performed HIFU vaginal rejuvenation procedures on four of the complainants: C.M., N.G., U.M. and B.W. Mr. Khojsteh Kashani acknowledged that the other complainants, that is, D.B., S.K., and E.W., were his clients, but he said he did not perform

vaginal rejuvenation procedures on D.B. or E.W., and he could not recall whether he performed a vaginal rejuvenation procedure on S.K. [15] There was one other material conflict in the evidence at trial. As I have said, C.M. testified that Mr. Khojsteh Kashani sexually assaulted her during a vaginal rejuvenation procedure and also during a subsequent microneedling procedure on her vaginal area. Mr. Khojsteh Kashani denied performing any microneedling procedure on C.M.'s vaginal area. [16] It is implicit from the verdicts of guilt that Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's denial of inappropriate touching was rejected by the jury, and the account of each complainant, at least as it disclosed the facts essential to a verdict of guilty of sexual assault, was accepted by the jury. It is implicit from the verdicts that the jury found the testimony of each complainant, at least as regards the central aspects of the incidents, to be truthful and reliable. I also found their evidence to be truthful and reliable. I accept the testimony of each of them as establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, the central facts concerning how and where Mr. Khojsteh Kashani touched them, what he said to them during the procedures in question, and how they reacted. [17] Throughout their testimony, each of the complainants answered questions thoughtfully, with appropriate precision, and with obvious care. Any lapses in

memory pertained to routine details which, as a matter of common sense, one would have difficulty remembering. Each complainant testified clearly, specifically, and consistently on the central points in issue. Each of them was cross-examined extensively and each maintained her evidence throughout. Some of the complainants first came forward with allegations after reading a media release about the case that was issued by the police or reading associated news articles, but there was no evidence reliably suggesting the media coverage compromised the credibility or reliability of the testimony of any of the complainants. Similarly, there was no evidence suggesting any collusion among any of the complainants. [18] In the circumstances, I accept the following facts as proven to the extent they are essential to the jury's verdict and, if not essential to the jury's verdict, I find they are proven by the testimony of the complainants and Dr. Lazare: a) Each of the seven complainants was a client of the offender during the material time. b) The offender performed a vaginal rejuvenation procedure using a HIFU machine on each complainant. Six of the complainants underwent one such procedure. One of the complainants, E.W., underwent two such procedures. The vaginal rejuvenation procedures lasted between about 10 and 60 minutes in duration. One complainant, C.M., also underwent a

microneedling procedure on her vaginal area. c) Before undergoing the vaginal rejuvenation procedures, each complainant had limited knowledge about what the procedure entailed or how it was supposed to be performed. d) The therapeutic objective of a non-surgical vaginal rejuvenation treatment is to use energy to cause an inflammatory response that will stimulate the production of collagen and elastin in the walls of the vagina. The HIFU machine uses ultrasound waves as the energy source. A wand that is approximately seven inches long (excluding the handle) and one inch wide is connected to the HIFU machine and used to deliver the energy. e) A HIFU vaginal rejuvenation treatment performed properly involves the client lying on their back, undressed from the waist down, with their legs apart, in what I would call a "pap smear" position. The wand is covered by a condom. It is gently and slowly inserted into the deepest part of the vaginal canal and then slowly rotated 360 degrees while the ultrasound energy is emitted. The wand is then partly withdrawn, to a middle depth, and the process is repeated. Finally, the wand is withdrawn further and the process repeated again. The objective is to disperse the energy over the entire surface of the vaginal wall. The process involves a single insertion and then the gradual withdrawal of the wand. The practitioner is required to touch the

vaginal area of the client only to the extent necessary to guide the wand during the initial insertion. f) C.M. first went to Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's clinic for Botox and filler procedures. During one of the Botox/filler appointments, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani told her he had a new machine for vaginal tightening. She agreed to try it. While performing that procedure, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani inserted the HIFU wand into C.M.'s vagina and moved it clockwise. He then removed the wand and told her to turn over, which he said would allow him to reach other areas. She thought this was weird, but she trusted him. She turned over and, with her buttocks raised, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani inserted the wand into her vagina from behind, moving it in a similar manner, making circular motions. There was no legitimate reason for inserting the wand from behind. A couple of weeks later, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani performed a microneedling procedure on C.M.'s vaginal area, as a treatment for hyperpigmentation This procedure was very painful, and C.M. was grimacing and squirming. Mr. Khojsteh Kashani should have applied a numbing cream, but he did not. Mr. Khojsteh Kashani suddenly put the microneedling instrument down, stood with his body leaning over C.M., inserted two of his fingers into her vagina, started pumping them in and out, and asked her if she wanted him to finish her off. She told him to stop, and he

responded with words to the effect of "you wanted it". She got dressed and went into the office area, where he repeated something like "you wanted it". She paid and left, feeling embarrassed and ashamed, and questioning whether she had done something to cause this to happen. g) S.K. first went to Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's clinic for other procedures. During one of her appointments, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani told her about the vaginal rejuvenation procedure, which he said was effective for treating incontinence and increasing sexual pleasure. S.K. agreed to undergo the vaginal procedure. Initially, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani moved the wand in her vagina in a circular fashion. About five minutes into the procedure, he began sweating profusely and moving the wand in and out of her vagina. At some point he withdrew the wand, reapplied gel to it, and reinserted it into her vagina. He then removed the wand and asked, "did that turn you on?". He inserted one or two fingers into her vagina and started thrusting them in and out. She told him to stop and he said, "just five more minutes". She tried to reason with him, asking him to please stop, and asking "what about your wife". She was afraid because she was alone with Mr. Khojsteh Kashani and feared the situation might escalate. Eventually he did stop, and he said, "I am sorry - this has never happened before". After leaving the clinic, S.K. drove

home, feeling shock and disbelief. She went to Vancouver General Hospital later that day and was examined. She then went to the Burnaby police detachment and gave a statement. Unfortunately, the police made little if any progress on the investigation until another complainant, B.W., made a similar report to the police about two years later. h) D.B. first went to Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's clinic for a fat reduction procedure. During her first appointment, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani told her he had a new machine that did vaginal tightening and would treat incontinence. She agreed to try the vaginal procedure. While performing that procedure, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani inserted the HIFU wand into D.B.'s vagina and immediately started moving it aggressively in and out, and to the right and left. The movements got increasingly aggressive and hurt. D.B. did not know if this was part of the procedure. She said "stop" at least twice but he said it was necessary to go deep, and he did not stop. Then he said, "its okay if you orgasm - most women do". She told him she was not going to orgasm, that it hurt, and she wanted him to stop. After about 20 minutes, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani stopped, told her to get dressed, and left the procedure room. i) U.M. went to Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's clinic for what she saw advertised online as a HIFU bladder leakage correction procedure. When preparing to commence the

procedure, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani told her that some of his clients underwent the procedure more than once, and that it is effective to remedy vaginal dryness. Mr. Khojsteh Kashani started the procedure by inserting the wand into her vagina with his left hand. Initially, he moved the wand slowly and gently, but he progressively increased the speed at which he was moving it and he started moving it in and out in a rhythmic way. He also placed his right hand, palm down, on her pelvic area, and moved it from side to side, brushing close to her clitoris, over the clitoral hood. At the end, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani withdrew the wand from her vagina and said she did not have a problem with dryness. j) N.G. went to Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's clinic for what was advertised online as a "HIFU Vulvo-Vaginal Rejuvenation and Tightening" procedure, effective for bladder incontinence. Mr. Khojsteh Kashani performed the procedure in two parts. The first part consisted of him applying an instrument in a grid-like pattern on N.G.'s pubic area, moving from the bikini line down to about the clitoris. She experienced a zapping feeling on her clitoris that really hurt. During the second part of the procedure, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani inserted the wand into her vagina, initially moving it from deep in her vagina downward towards the vaginal opening, slowly applying pressure as it moved. He told her some women

find the procedure pleasurable and this made her uncomfortable. He then began moving the wand, repeatedly, in an in and out manner, and he put his finger inside her vagina with the device. That really hurt. The in and out movements continued for about ten minutes. Mr. Khojsteh Kashani then removed the instrument and changed his position, saying he needed to reach the other side of her vagina. He reinserted the instrument into her vagina, moving it in and out, and he touched the sides of her vulva with his other hand, using his index finger and middle finger, in a v-position, to rub the sides of her clitoris. At some point he began tapping the wand, in a rhythmic manner, on her cervix. When the procedure was over, he slapped her vulva, very hard, two or three times, and muttered something under his breath. k) E.W. first went to Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's clinic for other procedures. During one of her appointments, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani told her about the vaginal rejuvenation treatment, and said she would need two treatments for it to be effective for bladder incontinence. She agreed to try it. During the first vaginal treatment, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani inserted the wand into her vagina, and moved it from place to place. He did not move it in an in and out manner. Rather, he held it in one position for a bit and then moved it to another area, but while doing that, he rubbed her clitoris

with his thumb, in a repetitive, circular motion. This was very uncomfortable and somewhat painful. E.W. asked why he was rubbing her clitoris, and he said it was necessary for the procedure to be effective at tightening the labia. E.W. returned to the clinic for several other treatments, and during one of those appointments she underwent a second vaginal rejuvenation treatment. It proceeded the same way as the first, including the rubbing of the clitoris. l) B.W. suffered from bladder incontinence since giving birth. She went to Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's clinic for what she saw advertised online as a "Vaginal Tightening & Bladder Leaking" treatment. Mr. Khojsteh Kashani started to explain the sexual benefits of the procedure and told her she would need more than one treatment. She interrupted to tell him she wanted the treatment for incontinence, but he continued to talk about the sexual benefits. During the procedure, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani inserted the HIFU wand into her vagina using his left hand and immediately began moving the wand in and out. His other hand repeatedly grazed her clitoral area, with the palm down, moving from side to side. At some point, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani moved his finger in a ring around her clitoris. Toward the end of the procedure, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani told B.W. he had to go deep with the instrument to get at the muscles around her bladder, and then he

started thrusting the instrument very roughly in and out. This was very painful. B.W. felt she was in shock when she left the clinic. She conducted some research about how the procedure is supposed to be performed. About three weeks later she reported the incident to the Burnaby police. m) After receiving B.W.'s report, the Burnaby police issued a media release that identified Mr. Khojsteh Kashani and his clinic. Subsequently, C.M., D.B., N.G., U.M. and E.W. came forward with their allegations. Impacts on the Complainants [19] It was apparent from their testimony at trial, and from their victim impact statements, that each of the seven complainants suffered serious, negative, and ongoing impacts from the offences. [20] In each case, the sexual touching was highly invasive, and five of the seven complainants (C.M., D.B., N.G., E.W., and B.W.) experienced significant physical pain during the sexual assaults. [21] All of the complainants suffered emotionally while undergoing the procedures. Their lack of knowledge about the procedure left them vulnerable and confused about what was happening, and Mr. Khojsteh Kashani exploited that vulnerability. C.M., D.B., N.G., U.M. and E.W. all spoke about feeling, at the time, that what Mr. Khojsteh Kashani was doing was wrong but trusting him to perform the procedure properly and then leaving his clinic doubting themselves and feeling

embarrassed, and ashamed. U.M. and B.W. testified that they froze during the procedure, and N.G. said she began dissociating. [22] All of the complainants have experienced ongoing emotional and psychological suffering. [23] In her victim impact statement, C.M. described being "deeply traumatised" by the sexual assaults. She said that Mr. Khojsteh Kashani manipulated her into thinking that what had happened was somehow her fault, and she was left with "deep feelings of shame and embarrassment". She said she felt trapped by fear and confusion for years, until she learned through the media of the existence of other complainants which she said gave her the strength to come forward. However, coming forward caused her to relive the trauma which affected her work, her relationships, and her daily life. She has been troubled by thoughts that she could have stopped Mr. Khojsteh Kashani from assaulting other complainants had she come forward sooner. She has undergone therapy to, in her words, "navigate the complex emotions [she has] been carrying". [24] In her victim impact statement, S.K. described the sexual assault as "humiliating, degrading and terrifying". The impact was not limited to the assault itself. She was also harmed by the process of coming forward. She identified the hospital exam, the giving of statements, invasive questioning, and the delay in the police investigation as

emotionally damaging. She characterised the lack of knowledge as to the progress of the police investigation, and the delay in the investigation, as causing "emotional whiplash" and feeling like she was "screaming into a void". She described continuing to feel "eroded" and drained by the effort of trying to appear strong. [25] In her victim impact statement, D.B. described feeling vulnerable and violated at the time of the assault. She said that she used to feel safe in medical and similar professional settings, but the assault deeply compromised that sense of safety. She said she now has a heightened sense of fear, particularly around men. She said that at times the memory of what happened wells up inside her and she feels physically ill. She too has been impacted by the process of coming forward. She described being troubled by the weight of the reality that her testimony could result in the offender's incarceration, which no doubt added an unanticipated and confusing layer of distress to what was already an emotionally damaging experience. [26] In her victim impact statement, U.M. noted that she was in a vulnerable position at the time of the assault, and this has caused her ongoing emotional pain and suffering. She also mentioned the impact of participating in the legal system and described it as time stolen from her life. [27] In her victim impact statement, N.G. described

a fear of retaliation she has experienced since going to the police. She said she has a fear of public spaces which has limited her ability to participate in fitness and social activities. Her ongoing fear has caused her to close all her social media profiles. She experienced increased stress from the assault and its aftermath, which she believes has caused cognitive impairments that have affected her job performance. She has withdrawn emotionally and physically from her husband as a result of recurring thoughts of the assault, and this has damaged their marriage. She described struggling in silence with what happened to her, which has impacted negatively on her friendships. [28] In her victim impact statement, E.W. chose to say only that the assault has profoundly impacted her life in several ways. She declined to provide details out of what she described as a desire not to provide the offender with any satisfaction from her pain. [29] In her victim impact statement, B.W. described several specific ways the sexual assault has negatively impacted her. She no longer trusts men to be around her children alone; she has had panic attacks during medical procedures; she has undergone therapy to cope with anxiety. She said the trauma continues to impact her sense of safety, her relationships, and her ability to trust. She too mentioned fearing retaliation for speaking

out. Circumstances of the Offender [30] Mr. Khojsteh Kashani is 52 years old. He was in his mid-40s when the offences occurred. He lives in the Coquitlam area with his wife. They have been married since 1999. They have no children. Each of them has described their marriage in terms indicating they share a strong and supportive bond. His wife remains supportive of him and committed to their relationship, despite the convictions. [31] Mr. Khojsteh Kashani was born in Iran. He has one sister. His mother is deceased. His father and sister continue to reside in Iran. In the course of participating in a pre-sentence psychological assessment, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani reported a generally happy and positive childhood, with supportive parents, both of whom were educators and good caregivers. He reported positive relationships with extended family members and friends. [32] Mr. Khojsteh Kashani obtained a doctorate in medicine from Tehran Azad University in 2000. He then worked as a general practitioner in Iran for about four years. Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's wife also was a doctor in Iran. [33] Soon after marrying, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani and his wife decided they wanted to immigrate to Canada. In 2005, they moved to Malaysia because they understood it would be quicker to complete the Canadian immigration process from there than from Iran. They lived in Malaysia until 2011, while pursuing permanent

resident status in Canada. In Malaysia, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani underwent additional medical training in orthopedics and he studied English. [34] In 2011, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani and his wife arrived in Canada as permanent residents, intending to qualify to practice medicine here. He became a Canadian citizen a few years later. [35] After arriving in Canada, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani commenced the process of becoming certified to practice medicine in British Columbia, but he did not achieve certification because he failed to meet the English language proficiency requirements. He trained in aesthetics procedures, worked on cruise ships performing aesthetics procedures, and ultimately opened his medical aesthetics business. Mr. Khojsteh Kashani operated that business between 2017 and 2022, when the police issued the news release. He developed a large and loyal clientele, and the business was financially successful. His wife has now qualified as a naturopathic physician and she and Mr. Khojsteh Kashani have re-established a medical aesthetics/naturopathic clinic together. It too is successful. [36] Mr. Khojsteh Kashani has no criminal record. Despite maintaining his innocence, he has expressed willingness to participate in any programming identified by the correctional services. In speaking to a pre-sentence report writer, he expressed remorse that his actions caused the complainants to

experience emotional harm, and he apologised for that harm, but he maintained that all of his actions were legitimate aspects of the procedures he was performing and were misunderstood by the complainants. [37] When speaking to the psychological assessor, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani maintained his innocence and again characterized the sexual assault allegations as misunderstandings. Despite this, he expressed sorrow that the complainants had experienced harm, appeared visibly distressed when discussing the impact on the complainants, and expressed openness to participate in sex offender treatment, although he said he does not believe it is needed. He maintained he does not pose a risk of future sexual offending and advised that he has continued to perform procedures to intimate areas of women's bodies, under supervision, without complaint. [38] There is no evidence of Mr. Khojsteh Kashani experiencing any material physical or mental health issues. When speaking to the pre-sentence report writer, he denied being diagnosed with any mental health concerns and he denied experiencing any pervasive mental health issues, although he has reported a deterioration in his mental health, including low mood and anxiety, associated with these proceedings. He denied any alcohol or drug dependency. [39] The psychological assessor expressed the view that Mr. Khojsteh Kashani presented with problems

related to minimization and denial of sexual violence, as well as limited self-awareness. The assessor identified some factors that have been associated with sexual reoffending as being present. These included the chronicity of the offending, which included multiple acts against seven women; the use of psychological coercion through exploitation of his position of trust; his minimization of the sexual violence; and his limited self-awareness. However, the assessor also noted that it is difficult to assess Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's risk to reoffend given his ongoing denial of the offences. Ultimately the assessor opined that Mr. Khojsteh Kashani represents a moderate risk of reoffending while providing intimate procedures within a clinical or quasi-clinical setting without oversight or supervision. [40] Mr. Khojsteh Kashani relied on letters of support from his wife, father, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, and some 24 other family members, friends, and clients, each of whom indicated they are aware of the nature of the offences for which he has been convicted. The letters from his clients describe Mr. Khojsteh Kashani in glowing terms, as a consummate professional. The letters from family members and friends demonstrate that he has a broad base of support from the people who know him best. They too describe him in glowing terms as a person of

integrity, who is kind, compassionate, generous, hard working, and beloved. Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's wife expressed her ongoing support of him. She described him as a respectful, supportive, generous, and devoted partner. Her own family members do not live in Canada, and she says she will be emotionally devasted if she and Mr. Khojsteh Kashani are separated as a result of him being incarcerated. [41] It is apparent that many, if not all of the letter-writers, have struggled to reconcile the favourable opinions they have formed about Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's character with the crimes of which he has now been convicted. Many of them confidently expressed the opinion, based on their knowledge of his character, that he poses no risk to reoffend. I have some reservations about placing weight on such opinions, given the letter writers would no doubt have said the same thing before Mr. Khojsteh Kashani committed the subject offences. However, from my reading of the letters as a whole, I took most of the writers to mean that, because of his demonstrated good character, they believe he has good rehabilitation prospects. In other words, that he is a person for whom the convictions, publicity, and ultimate sentence will have a significantly deterring effect. For example, his father-in-law expressed the view that "this experience has deeply affected [Mr. Khojsteh Kashani] and served as a

powerful turning point". A family friend wrote that from their knowledge of Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's character, they believe "he is capable of meaningful transformation". I accept the views of the letter writers as worthy of weight in assessing Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's prospects for rehabilitation and the need for his sentence to achieve specific deterrence. Legal Principles [42] The offence of sexual assault of a person who is 16 years of age or older carries a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment. There is no mandatory minimum. [43] Determining a just and appropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise that involves a careful balancing of several factors concerning the particular circumstances of the offence and the particular offender. Informed by the common law, this balancing occurs within the legislative framework set out in ss. 718 through 718.2 of the Criminal Code, which articulate the purpose, objectives, and principles of sentencing. [44] Section 718 provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (b) to deter the offender and other persons

from committing offences; (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. [45] It is well established that in cases involving sexual offences, the primary sentencing objectives are denunciation and deterrence: Maslehati, at para.

115. These must take precedent over the other objectives. [46] A sentence with a denunciatory element represents a "symbolic, collective statement that the offender's conduct should be punished for encroaching on our society's basic code of values": R. v. M. (C.A.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, 1996 CanLII 230, at para.

80. In other words, denunciation requires that a sentence express society's condemnation of the offence. Sexual offences, because of the very significant harm they cause, require forceful condemnation. [47] The objective of deterrence relates to both the offender and to other persons. When speaking about deterring the offender, it is referred to as "specific" deterrence. When speaking about deterring others, it is referred to as "general" deterrence. While the effectiveness of general deterrence is a subject of some debate, it remains one of the paramount principles in sentencing offenders for sexual offences. It reflects the desire to discourage other people, who might be tempted to commit such offences, and requires an offender to be punished harshly enough to send a message to the public. [48] Section 718.1 of the Code provides that the fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality, which requires a sentence to be proportionate to the gravity or seriousness of the offence, and the degree of responsibility or moral blameworthiness of the offender. [49] The focus when assessing the gravity of an offence is on the harmfulness and wrongfulness of the offender's conduct. It is now recognized that sexual assaults are violent, serious offences that cause significant harm irrespective of the physical acts involved: Maslehati at para.

72. That is, they are inherently grave offences. The offender's personal circumstances may diminish moral blameworthiness, such as when, for example, an offender has cognitive limitations that interfere with their ability to reason. The offender's personal circumstances may otherwise attract mitigating or attenuating weight such as when, for example, a particular offender will suffer additional or collateral consequences as a result of the conviction. However, an offender's personal circumstances do not make the offence less grave. [50] Section 718.2 of the Code includes a non‑exhaustive list of secondary sentencing principles. First, the court is directed to take into account the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including some aggravating circumstances that are expressed in the section itself. The parity principle provides that similar offenders who commit similar offences in similar circumstances should receive similar sentences. The principle of restraint applies to the use of imprisonment and directs that an offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions are appropriate, and all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done should be considered. [51] Pursuant to s. 718.3(4) of the Code, when an offender is convicted of two or more offences, as is the case

here, the court must consider whether the sentences imposed for each individual offence should be served consecutively or concurrently. This is a fact-specific inquiry to be undertaken in the context of each case but, generally speaking, offences that are so closely linked to each other as to constitute a single criminal adventure may, but are not required to, receive concurrent sentences, while all other offences are to receive consecutive sentences: R. v. Bertrand Marchand, 2023 SCC 26, at para.

95. Where the multiple convictions involve different victims at different times, consecutive sentences are generally imposed but they may then be reduced in accordance with the totality principle: R. v. Moazami, 2025 BCCA 189, at paras. 77 to 84. [52] The totality principle found in s. 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code requires a sentencing judge who imposes consecutive sentences for multiple offences to ensure that the cumulative sentence is not unduly long or harsh, in the sense that it becomes disproportionate to the gravity of the offences and the degree of responsibility of the offender: Bertrand Marchand at para. 99; Moazami at para.

77. However, in applying the totality principle to offences involving multiple victims, it is not appropriate to treat the case as a singular event as that would fail to recognise the unique harm inflicted on each victim. It has been said that failing to recognise that unique harm would allow the offender to commit crimes "cheaper by the dozen": R. v. Maliki, 2005 BCCA 495, at para. 23; Moazami at para. 83. [53] When sentencing an offender for multiple offences, it is appropriate to first determine the just sentence for each offence individually, then consider whether the sentences ought to be consecutive or concurrent, and then apply the totality principal if necessary: Bertrand Marchand at paras. 91-92; Moazami at para. 80. [54] Under s. 742.1 of the Code, a conditional sentence is available where a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years is imposed, and where the court is satisfied that service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. [55] As I have mentioned, the Supreme Court of Canada has sent a strong message to sentencing judges about the need to ensure that the penalties imposed for sexual offences reflect society's deepened understanding of the harmfulness and wrongfulness of sexual violence. In Maslehati, the Court of Appeal confirmed a

generally applicable range of between two and six years' imprisonment for an adult sexual assault involving aggravating circumstances that is prosecuted by indictment, even when the assault is committed by a first-time offender. Justice DeWitt Van Oosten, for the Court, instructed that in the absence of a finding of diminished moral blameworthiness or compelling mitigation, a penitentiary term of least two years' imprisonment will generally be required in such a case. As a result, in the absence of a finding of diminished moral blameworthiness or compelling mitigation, a conditional sentence will rarely be available. Positions of the Parties [56] As mentioned, on behalf of Mr. Khojsteh Kashani, it is submitted that a conditional sentence of two years less a day, plus three years' probation is appropriate as a global sentence for all seven offences, noting that this would result in him living under state supervision for five years. [57] Mr. Khojsteh Kashani acknowledged that his offending is properly viewed as a breach of trust, given the professional relationship between him and the complainants. He acknowledged that the offending conduct was physically intrusive, and that there were multiple incidents. He agreed that all of this heightens the gravity of the offences and his degree of responsibility. However, he points to several factors that he says serve as a counterbalance

in the proportionality assessment. These are the fact that over four years have passed since the last offence and there has been no additional offending; the situational circumstances of the offending, with all the offences occurring while he was performing the same or similar procedures; the absence of bodily harm or injury; the use of fraud as opposed to physical force to obtain sexual gratification; the absence of penile penetration; and the fact that none of the complainants were very young. [58] Mr. Khojsteh Kashani notes his lack of a previous criminal record as a mitigating factor. He emphasizes the principle of restraint which, as I have said, requires imprisonment to be a sanction of last resort and submits this principle should be given significant weight when sentencing a first offender. [59] Mr. Khojsteh Kashani relies on additional attenuating factors. First, he submits that he has good rehabilitative prospects and is a low risk to reoffend, as evidenced by his otherwise good character and broad base of family and community support; what he characterises as positive pre-sentence and psychological reports; and the fact that his offending was situational. Second, he submits that the significant impact of his incarceration on his wife, the impact of the convictions on his career, and the likely financial impact of future civil lawsuits should be taken into account as

collateral consequences that weigh in favour of a reduced sentence. Third, he submits that the objectives of deterrence and denunciation have already been met by the stigma and public shaming he has suffered as a result of the publicity surrounding his offending. [60] In regard to the parity principle, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani relied on several cases, each involving multiple counts of sexual offences committed in breach of trust situations where the offenders received conditional sentence orders of durations varying between nine months and two years less a day plus, in some of the cases, a term of probation. These included a chiropractor convicted of three counts against patients (R. v. Buna, 2010 BCCA 53); a teacher convicted of five counts against teenage students (R. v. Ellison, 2007 BCPC 30); a piano teacher convicted of five counts against children (R. v. Chen, 2017 BCCA 426); a dentist convicted of four counts against patients (R. v. Gavrilko, 2007 BCSC 1473); and a physiotherapist convicted of nine counts against patients (R. v. Witvoet, 2020 BCPC 128). [61] Mr. Khojsteh Kashani submits that a sentence of two years less a day can be achieved by imposing individual sentences of that duration to be served concurrently, or by imposing consecutive sentences of nine months on each of counts 1 and 6, reflecting the fact that there were two separate sexual assaults committed

against each of C.M. and E.W., and six months each on counts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. This would result in a four year sentence that he says should be reduced to two years less a day on application of the totality principle. [62] As mentioned, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani does not oppose the ancillary orders sought, except that he submits the SOIRA order should apply only for a period of 20 years and not for life. [63] The Crown seeks a global sentence of 12 years and three months' imprisonment, which reflects per count sentences of between 36 months and 48 months served consecutively, with each reduced by half on application of the totality principle. The Crown also seeks ancillary orders, including the lifetime SOIRA order. [64] The Crown submits there are several aggravating factors that elevate the already-inherent seriousness of the offence of sexual assault, including the statutory aggravating factor that in committing the offenses, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani abused a position of trust. Other aggravating factors identified by the Crown include the highly invasive nature of the sexual touching, the prolonged duration of the assaults, the exploitation of the complaints' physical and psychological vulnerability, the actual and reasonably foreseeable harm suffered by the complainants, the infliction of physical pain on some of the complainants, the persistence in the face of express requests to

stop in the case of some of the complainants, and the planning of at least some of the offences by suggesting or encouraging some of the complainants to undergo the procedure in question. [65] The Crown places Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's moral blameworthiness at the high end of the scale, given the number of offences he committed, and the aggravating factors mentioned. [66] The Crown submits evidence of Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's good character as a neutral factor. Citing R. v. Bissonette, 2024 MBKB 139 and R. v. Ateyah, 2023 ONSC 6563, each of which involved sexual assaults committed by a doctor against his patients, the Crown argues that where, as here, the same good qualities and standing enhance the relationship of trust between an offender clinician and his client victims, it would be incongruous to give good character significantly mitigating weight. [67] With respect to one of the collateral consequences Mr. Khojsteh Kashani relies on, the Crown noted that his evidence at trial was to the effect that the business he operates with his wife has in fact thrived despite the publicity surrounding his offending, and argued that in these circumstances no weight should be given to any financial impact or the negative publicity more generally. [68] The Crown identified the absence of a criminal record as the only mitigating factor but submits the weight to be given to that is attenuated

by the gravity of the offending and the number of sexual assaults Mr. Khojsteh Kashani committed. The Crown submits that this falls far short of the compelling mitigation identified in Maslehati that would justify a sentence of less than two years' imprisonment for any one of the offences on its own, let alone as a global sentence for all seven. [69] The Crown submits that the record supports a finding that Mr. Khojsteh Kashani is a moderate risk to reoffend, pointing to the psychological assessment which I have already mentioned. [70] The Crown emphasizes that the weight of authority supports the imposition of consecutive sentences where the offences are separate and distinct, citing Moazami at para. 80, which in turn cited R. v. Li, 2009 BCCA 85, at para. 28, and where there are multiple victims, citing Maliki. [71] The Crown submitted that the most challenging aspect of determining a fit sentence in this case is the application of the totality principle. The Crown referred to Moazami in this regard, noting that although the Court of Appeal reduced the sentence in that case from 23 years to 20 years and eight months, the Court endorsed the sentencing judge's application of the totality principle which involved a last look at the sentence to ensure proportionality. [72] In regard to the parity principle, the Crown emphasized that Friesen cautions sentencing judges about

relying on dated precedents that may not adequately reflect society's current understanding of the harms caused by sexual violence against children (para. 110) and Maslehati instructs that society's better-informed appreciation of the harmfulness and the wrongfulness of sexual violence should also inform sentences for adult sexual assault (para. 83). The Crown relied on several post-Friesen cases as helpful in applying the parity principle. Among others, these included: · Bissonnette, which I have mentioned, where a family doctor, who was a first-time offender, was convicted of seven counts of sexual assault against seven of his patients. He received a global sentence of 12 years' imprisonment. · Ateyah, where a doctor, who was a first-time offender, was convicted of 16 counts of sexual assault and one count of exploitation in relation to 13 patients. He received a sentence of nine years' imprisonment, but all but two of the cases cited by the sentencing judge as indicating the appropriate range were pre-Friesen cases. · R. v. Carlson, 2025 BCSC 1173, a recent decision of this Court concerning an offender who was convicted of six counts of sexual assault involving five complainants. The assaults occurred in "date rape" type situations. The offender had a prior conviction, but he was of Indigenous heritage and there was evidence before the Court about impacts of Canada's

colonial policies toward Indigenous communities on the offender's background. He received a global sentence of 10 years, five months' imprisonment. [73] In response to Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's submission that a conditional sentence is appropriate, the Crown referred again to Maslehati where, as I have said, the Court of Appeal instructed that, in the absence of diminished moral blameworthiness or compelling mitigation, a penitentiary term of at least two years' imprisonment will generally be required in a case like this one and, accordingly, a conditional sentence order will generally not constitute a fit sentence. Analysis [74] I have concluded that a conditional sentence order is not a potential sentence in this case because a global sentence of less than two years' imprisonment would be manifestly disproportionate to the gravity of the offences and Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's degree of personal responsibility. [75] As I have already noted, the Criminal Code expressly limits conditional sentence orders to cases where the court imposes a sentence of less than two years imprisonment. When considering the availability of a conditional sentence order, it is incumbent on a sentencing judge to first determine whether a term of imprisonment of two years or more is excluded as disproportionate: R. v. Lee, 2025 BCCA 292, at para. 48; Maslehati at para. 57; R. v Fice, 2005 SCC 32, at para.

15. The sentencing judge need only consider the appropriateness of a conditional sentence order if it is first determined that a fit and proper sentence is one falling below two years' imprisonment. [76] As I will explain, despite Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's personal circumstances, including that these are his first offences and he is viewed by those who know him best as otherwise a person of good character who has led a productive life, this is a case in which the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence are paramount, and a substantial penitentiary term, certainly one well above two years, is necessary to give those principles meaningful effect. In these circumstances, it would be an error to grant a conditional sentence order. [77] I turn then to the question of a fit and proper sentence for Mr. Khojsteh Kashani. [78] I begin with proportionality, the fundamental principle of sentencing, which requires a sentence to be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. In addition to considering the mitigating and aggravating factors relevant to assessing the seriousness of the offence and degree of Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's responsibility, I am required to balance the objectives and principles of sentencing, but giving primacy to denunciation and deterrence. [79] Each one of Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's seven offences is grave. All

sexual assaults are serious acts of violence. Every sexual assault is a forceful subjection of the victim to the offender's sexual desires, and every sexual assault wrongly exploits the victim and harms their personal autonomy, sexual integrity, and dignity. These are inherently grave offences. In addition, there are several aggravating factors present in each of Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's offences that significantly elevate their already-inherent gravity. [80] As mentioned, s. 718.2 of the Code expressly identifies some aggravating circumstances. Of relevance here is s. 718.2(a)(iii): the abuse of a position of trust. Each of the complainants trusted Mr. Khojsteh Kashani to perform legitimate therapeutic procedures. They agreed to undergo intimate procedures, about which they had little knowledge, and they placed themselves in extremely vulnerable physical positions, on the strength of that trust. Each of the offences exploited the complaints' physical and psychological vulnerability, a vulnerability that Mr. Khojsteh Kashani himself created. As Mr. Khojsteh Kashani points out, there was no physical force used to subdue or restrain the complainants. That particular aggravating feature is absent, but the aggravating nature of the deception and breaches of trust used by Mr. Khojsteh Kashani to create the opportunities to commit these offences remains and it is significantly

aggravating. [81] At paragraph 74 of Maslehati, the Court identified other aggravating factors that may be found to elevate the already-inherent seriousness of a sexual assault. Several of those are present in each one of Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's offences: · Every one of the sexual assaults was highly physically invasive. All involved vaginal penetration. All but one involved vaginal penetration with a seven-inch-long instrument. Those perpetrated against S.K., D.B., U.M., N.G. and B.W. involved, to varying degrees, aggressive thrusting of that instrument. One of the sexual assaults perpetrated against C.M. and those perpetrated against S.K. and N.G. involved digital penetration. The sexual assaults perpetrated against U.M., N.G., E.W., and B.W. involved additional, repeated touching of the vulva and/or clitoral area. There was no penile penetration, but that is of little significance given the highly invasive nature of the sexual assaults Mr. Khojsteh Kashani committed. · All of the sexual assaults were prolonged, although to varying degrees. The time estimates ranged between 10 and 60 minutes. Even 10 minutes no doubt felt like an eternity. Certainly, none could be characterised as brief or fleeting. · Despite there being no physical injuries sustained by the complainants, significant actual and reasonably foreseeable emotional and psychological harm was suffered by all of

them. [82] Additional aggravating circumstances are present in some of the offenses: · Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's breach of trust was particularly profound in the offences against D.B., B.W., and E.W. because he overtly lied to them, claiming that particular movements were required as parts of the procedure. · Mr. Khojsteh Kashani sexually assaulted each of C.M. and E.W. twice. · The sexual assault perpetrated against C.M. during the microneedling procedure was particularly demeaning because Mr. Khojsteh Kashani essentially blamed her by accusing her of "asking for it". · The sexual assaults perpetrated against S.K. and U.M. were particularly demeaning because they were accompanied by sexually explicit statements, which these complainants found distressing. · Mr. Khojsteh Kashani inflicted physical pain on C.M., D.B., N.G., E.W., and B.W. · Mr. Khojsteh Kashani persisted in the face of communicated non-consent when sexually assaulting S.K. and D.B., each of whom asked him to stop. · Mr. Khojsteh Kashani took active steps to plan or facilitate the sexual assaults of C.M., S.K., D.B., and E.W. by actively encouraging them to undergo the vaginal rejuvenation procedure when they had not independently formed a desire to do so. [83] I turn now to Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's degree of responsibility. This requires a consideration of his state of mind and conduct at the time of the offences.

Relevant factors include the level of planning and/or intentionality; the degree, nature and extent of his personal participation; the means or method by which the offence was committed; the motive or reasons for the offending; his awareness of the legal or moral wrongfulness of his conduct; his awareness of the actual or reasonably foreseeable harms; and his persistence despite that awareness: Maslehati at para. 135. [84] As I have already said, each of Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's offences was a significant breach of trust. There was a high level of intentionality brought to the crimes. He made a conscious decision to violate each one of the complainants, he exploited their vulnerability, and he attempted to deceive them about the legitimacy of what he was doing. Each sexual assault was highly invasive and prolonged. As a trained physician, he must have been aware of the moral wrongfulness of his conduct and the reasonably foreseeable harm likely to flow from it. He persisted in the face of several of the complainants telling him that he was causing them pain. This is not a case of diminished moral blameworthiness. To the contrary, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's moral blameworthiness in relation to each offence was very substantial. [85] I turn now to the mitigating and other attenuating factors. [86] The absence of a prior criminal record is generally treated as a mitigating factor. This

is because a lack of a criminal record can be indictive of otherwise good character and because a first offender has not had the benefit of the corrective effect of a previous conviction to deter the individual from further offending: R. v. RM, 2019 BCCA 409. However, these rationales do not apply equally to all first offenders. [87] Mr. Khojsteh Kashani has no prior criminal record. This, together with the many letters of support written by his family members and friends, suggests that but for the commission of these offences, he is a person of good character. However, I agree with the Crown that the fact that he committed such a large number of offences, with such intentionality, and over an extended period of time, and the fact that the same good character would have enhanced the trust his clients placed in him, substantially lessen the weight that can be given to his otherwise good character, in assessing his moral culpability. [88] Good character can diminish culpability where an offence is isolated and committed on the spur of the moment, but a person of good character who commits multiple offences with a high degree of intentionality, with time to think about what he is doing, is just as culpable as a person of poor character who does that. In the circumstances, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's lack of a prior record and otherwise good character do not serve to reduce his moral

culpability. Nevertheless, they do have some attenuating effect because, in my view, they are relevant to his prospects for rehabilitation and his risk to reoffend. [89] As I have already mentioned, the psychological assessor expressed a somewhat qualified opinion that there is a moderate risk of Mr. Khojsteh Kashani reoffending. That opinion was based on the chronicity of the offending; the use of psychological coercion through exploitation of his position of trust; his minimization of the sexual violence; and his limited self awareness. However, the assessor acknowledged that it is very difficult to assess his risk to reoffend because of his ongoing denial of the offences. Despite the assessor's opinion, there are factors present in this case that collectively satisfy me that Mr. Khojsteh Kashani does have good rehabilitation prospects and that his risk of reoffending is low. [90] Over four years has passed since the last offence occurred and there has been no additional offending. However, as Mr. Khojsteh Kashani has not been performing intimate therapeutic procedures without supervision, I can give this factor only modest weight. [91] Mr. Khojsteh Kashani has demonstrated personality traits that suggest he has what it takes to commit to and achieve his goals. On all accounts, but for these offences, he has led a pro-social and productive life. His determination is apparent

from his educational success, the attainment of his goal to move to Canada, and the career success he achieved here, despite not qualifying to practice medicine and the publicity surrounding these offences. The people who know him best have attested to his otherwise good character. He is the kind of person who is likely to do what it takes to ensure that he does not reoffend, if that is what he truly wants to do. [92] In my assessment, it is likely that Mr. Khojsteh Kashani is determined to avoid reoffending. This is because he stands to lose so much if he engages in similar criminality again. At present, he has an extraordinarily broad base of family and community support. His wife has remained committed to him despite the nature and seriousness of these offences. When he addressed the Court during the sentencing hearing, he expressed immense gratitude to his friends, family members and clients for all of this support, which has sustained him throughout these proceedings. He must realize that any repeat criminality would put all of this in significant jeopardy. [93] I do not include remorse as a factor indicating good rehabilitation prospects and a low risk of reoffending. Mr. Khojsteh Kashani has indicated, at least to the pre-sentence report writer and the psychological assessor, that he is remorseful about the complainants' emotional suffering, but he has not expressed

unqualified remorse for his offending because he continues to deny that he committed the offences. An acceptance of responsibility and expression of true remorse are typically given significant mitigating weight, at least in part because they indicate an offender has learned his lesson. To be clear, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani has every right to continue to deny his offending and doing so is not an aggravating factor, but he does not get the mitigating benefit that would flow from an acceptance of responsibility and expression of true remorse. [94] Despite this, for the reasons I have expressed and, in particular, the fact that Mr. Khojsteh Kashani has so much to lose from reoffending, it is my view that he is the kind of person who will learn from the experience of being publicly accused and now convicted of such morally reprehensible conduct. As such, his rehabilitation prospects are good, and the objective of specific deterrence is of lesser importance than it otherwise would have been. [95] As I have already noted, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani submits that the impact of his incarceration on his wife, the impact of the convictions on his career, and the likely financial impact of future civil lawsuits should be taken into account as collateral consequences that weigh in favour of a reduced sentence. [96] The role of collateral consequences in sentencing was recently addressed by the Court

of Appeal in R. v. Lee, 2025 BCCA 292. In summary, collateral consequences may be taken into account although they are not mitigating because they do not relate to the gravity of the offence or the moral blameworthiness of the offender. Rather, they speak to the offender's "personal circumstances", to be taken into account based on sentencing principles of individualization and parity. However, collateral consequences cannot be used to reduce a sentence to a point where the sentence becomes disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the moral blameworthiness of the offender. [97] I am not persuaded that the convictions have had or will have a material impact on Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's career. His evidence was that despite the convictions, the business he has now established with his wife is doing very well. [98] Some of the complainants acknowledged they had retained litigation counsel, and some have sent Mr. Khojsteh Kashani a demand letter, but whether they will actually pursue civil actions remains speculative. Nevertheless, the convictions substantially increase the likelihood of success in a civil action. This is a potential consequence that not all offenders face and for that reason, it is appropriate in my view to give it some weight in the application of the principles of individualization and parity. However, because the prospect of civil liability remains so

speculative, I give it only modest weight. [99] Similarly, I am satisfied that Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's wife has suffered from the stigma associated with his offending, and that she will suffer emotionally from his incarceration, but that is not atypical. Often family members of offenders experience similar negative impacts. Accordingly, I give this some, but only modest, weight. [100] I turn now to the specific issue - what is a fit and proper global sentence or total sentence for Mr. Khojsteh Kashani. [101] The first step is to determine the just sentence for each offence individually. Having done that, I will proceed to consider whether the sentences ought to be consecutive or concurrent, and then to apply the totality principal. [102] I have found Maslehati to be helpful in determining appropriate individual sentences, and in particular, applying the parity principle in doing so. While the factual context in which Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's offending occurred differs significantly from the factual context in Maslehati, the gravity of each of Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's offences and his moral blameworthiness is similar to the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender in Maslehati. The similarities include a first offender, a breach of trust, the exploitation of a victim's vulnerability, a high degree of intentionality, highly invasive and prolonged conduct, the offender's own sexual gratification as a motive, and foreseeable and actual harm. In Maslehati, but for certain mitigating and attenuating factors, the Court of Appeal would have imposed a sentence of "close to three years" imprisonment, which I take as meaning somewhat less than three years: para.

157. Ultimately, the sentence imposed was 28 months after accounting for the mitigating and attenuating factors. [103] There are aggravating features present in each of Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's offences that were not present in Maslehati, that have caused me to conclude that before consideration of any mitigating and attenuating factors, a sentence of at least three years is required on each count. These include: · For Count 1 - there were two assaults perpetrated on C.M.; Mr. Khojsteh Kashani blamed C.M. for the second, which was particularly distressing; and the second assault was accompanied by extreme physical pain. · For Count 2 - the sexual assault perpetrated on S.K. was accompanied by sexually explicit statements that she found distressing. · For Count 3 - the sexual assault perpetrated on D.B. was physically painful. · For Count 4 - the sexual assault perpetrated on U.M. was accompanied by sexually explicit statements that U.M. found distressing. · For Count 5 - the sexual assault perpetrated on N.G. was physically painful. · For Count 6 - there were two assaults perpetrated on E.W., each of which was physically painful. · For Count 7 - the sexual assault perpetrated on B.W. was physically painful. [104] Given these additional aggravating factors, but for the attenuating factors I have identified as present, and the sentencing objectives and principles that weigh in Mr.

Khojsteh Kashani's favour, I would have imposed a sentence of three years' imprisonment on each of counts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, and three and-a-half years on each of counts 1 and 6, to reflect the fact that there were two assaults committed on each of C.M. and E.W. [105] What then is the impact of the attenuating factors and the sentencing objectives and principles that weigh in Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's favour? As I have indicated, the mitigating and attenuating factors cannot be given much weight when balanced against the elevated gravity of Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's conduct and his significant moral culpability. They fall far short of compelling mitigation that would justify a sentence below the bottom of the range, that is, a sentence of less than two years, for any one of the offences considered individually. While it is important to recognise Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's good rehabilitation potential, the serious nature of these offences and the harm he has caused to the complainants requires the objective of rehabilitation to be accorded a secondary role. A term of imprisonment of less than two years on any one of the offences would fall far short of prioritizing denunciation and general deterrence and would be manifestly disproportionate to the gravity of any one of the offences considered on its own and Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's degree of personal responsibility for any one of

them. [106] In light of Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's low risk to reoffend, good prospects for rehabilitation, the restraint principle, and the collateral consequences that I have mentioned as worthy of some, albeit modest, weight, I find that a proportionate sentence for each of counts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 is two and-a-half years' imprisonment, while that for each of counts 1 and 6 is three years' imprisonment. [107] The next step in the analysis requires me to consider whether the sentences ought to be consecutive or concurrent. Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's multiple convictions involve different victims at different times, and the harm caused to each victim must be acknowledged. In these circumstances, consecutive sentences are appropriate. Before making any adjustment for totality, the global sentence, that is, the sum of all the individual sentences, would be 18.5 years. [108] That brings me to the application of the totality principle. Applying this principle is difficult because the sentence for each count must remain proportionate, and yet the total must not be unduly long or harsh and therefore become disproportionate. [109] A combined sentence of 18.5 years is significantly higher than six years, which is the top of the typical range that was confirmed in Maslehati for a first offence of sexual assault with aggravating circumstances. Particularly given Mr. Khojsteh Kashani's prospects

for rehabilitation, 18.5 years imprisonment would, in my view, be unduly harsh. However, while the totality principle clearly calls for a reduction, the sentence must remain significant enough to reflect the serious nature of the offences, the large number of offences, the aggravating circumstances to which I have referred, and the need to prioritize the principles of denunciation and general deterrence. [110] In applying the parity principle to the determination of a global sentence, I have considered all the cases referred to me by counsel. None of the cases relied on by Mr. Khojsteh Kashani were helpful. All of them predate Maslehati and all but Witvoet predate Friesen. Witvoet bears little similarity to this case in that it involved a guilty plea and a joint submission in circumstances where the victims preferred not to have to go through the ordeal of a trial. [111] The case I found most helpful as a comparator in determining a global sentence is Bissonnette. As mentioned, that case involved a physician convicted of seven counts of sexual assault against seven patients. The individual sentences that were found to be appropriate in that case ranged between four and seven years imprisonment, for a total of 32 years. On application of the totality principle, a global sentence of 12 years was imposed. The overall number of incidents of sexual assault in that case was greater

than the number here and the individual sentences were higher than those here. On the other hand, in Bissonnette, the offender pleaded guilty to two of the seven counts, and he suffered a more significant collateral consequence in that he lost his medical licence as a result of the convictions. [112] In the end, I have concluded that a global sentence of 11 years' imprisonment for Mr. Khojsteh Kashani is proportionate to the gravity of his offences and the degree of his responsibility, in light of the attenuating circumstances I have identified and, in particular, his good prospects for rehabilitation. [113] As I have said, Mr. Khojsteh Kashani does not oppose the ancillary orders sought, except that he submits the SOIRA order should apply only for a period of 20 years and not for life. Given my conclusion that he represents a low risk to reoffend, the lifetime order sought by the Crown is unwarranted. The SOIRA order will apply for 20 years. Conclusion [114] Mr. Khojsteh Kashani, please stand. I sentence you to a global term of imprisonment of 11 years. This will be effected by the imposition of the following individual sentences to be served consecutively: Count 1 - in relation to C.M. - 1 year and 9 months Count 2 - in relation to S.K. - 1 year and 6 months Count 3 - in relation to D.B. - 1 year and 6 months Count 4 - in relation to U.M. - 1 year and 6 months Count 5 - in

relation to N.G. - 1 year and 6 months Count 6 - in relation to E.W. - 1 year and 9 months Count 7 - in relation to B.W. - 1 year and 6 months. Again, these are to be served consecutively for a total of 11 years. [115] You have been in custody since April 2, 2025, for a total of 168 days up to today, according to my calculation. As I understand it, the Crown concedes that it is appropriate to give you enhanced credit of one and-a-half days for each day you served in custody prior to being sentenced, but I want to confirm that with Ms. Lawton. I take it that is because of the impact on his eligibility for early release. [116] CNSL J. LAWTON: Correct, Justice. [117] Accordingly, you are granted credit at one and-a-half days for each day you served in custody, which amounts to a credit of 252 days of pre-sentence custody. [118] Pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code, I make an order in Form 5.03 authorizing the taking of samples of bodily substances from you for the purpose of registration in the DNA National Databank. [119] Pursuant to s. 109(2) of the Criminal Code, you are prohibited from possessing: a) any firearm, other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, and any crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for a period that begins today and ends 10 years following your release from custody for these offences, and b) you are prohibited

from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life. [120] Pursuant to s. 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code, you must have no contact of any kind with C.M., S.K., D.B., N.G., U.M., E.W., and B.W. while you are in custody. [121] Pursuant to s. 737(2)(b)(ii), you must pay a victim surcharge of $200 per count, for a total of $1,400. [122] Pursuant to ss. 490.012 and 490.013 of the Criminal Code, you are required to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for 20 years. [123] That is all of the ancillary orders. "Warren J."