Five shocking cases that expose Canada’s soft-on-crime sentencing
From sex offenders walking free on statutory release to assailants getting house arrest, a shocking series of 2025 rulings proves our courts are prioritizing “rehabilitation” over public safety.
From sex offenders walking free on statutory release to assailants getting house arrest, a shocking series of 2025 rulings proves our courts are prioritizing “rehabilitation” and leniency over public safety.
The following five cases, drawn from court decisions and public-safety bulletins across the country, illustrate why concerns about sentencing leniency have intensified over 2025.
In mid-2025, for example, an Ontario court gave a conditional discharge—meaning no criminal conviction on record—to Indian national Akashkumar Narendrakumar Khant, who admitted he tried to pay for sex with a 15-year-old.
Rather than jail time, the judge cited feared “collateral consequences,” including delays to Khant’s citizenship application and the impact on his wife’s status. The decision prompted widespread public outrage, including a private member’s bill by Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner that calls for judges to discontinue the practice of considering “immigration consequences” in their sentencing decisions.
Also in Ontario, a former telecommunications technician who exposed himself to a female customer inside her home was sentenced to a 90-day conditional sentence to be served under house arrest. The decision also drew intense public criticism over the perceived leniency of the penalty.
Court heard that Samarpreet Singh, who had been working for Bell Canada at the time of the offence, exposed his genitals and made sexually explicit comments while attending the woman’s residence for service work. The victim told the court the incident left her fearful in her own home and caused lasting emotional distress.
The Crown had sought a custodial term, arguing the offence involved a breach of trust and occurred in a private setting where the victim had every expectation of safety. The defence submitted that Singh had no prior criminal record, had demonstrated remorse, and posed a low risk of reoffending.
The judge accepted a joint submission imposing a 90-day conditional sentence with strict conditions, including a curfew, counselling, and 12 months of probation. Singh is prohibited from attending private residences for work and must avoid unsupervised contact with women in similar service contexts.
In the Northwest Territories, Nelson Lesage, an Indigenous man, was similarly sentenced to house arrest in July 2024 for sexually assaulting a woman while she was asleep with her fiancé at Lesage’s home in Fort Providence. Lesage, like Singh, was given house arrest rather than prison.
The sentencing judge described the victim impact and seriousness of the crime, yet the joint recommendation was accepted—even though commentators labelled it a “huge break.” Later in 2025, Lesage breached his house-arrest conditions when he was found “passed out” at another home, yet was not re-sentenced to incarceration.
In Canada’s westernmost province, high-risk sex offender Randall Hopley was taken back into custody earlier this year after police allege he breached conditions of his statutory release only hours after leaving a B.C. correctional facility.
As previously reported by True North, the Vancouver Police Department said officers arrested the 59-year-old on May 22 after he refused to comply with a requirement that he reside at an approved halfway house. Police said Hopley was subject to a strict supervision order because federal authorities had assessed him as a high risk to reoffend, particularly against young children.
Hopley’s release came despite a lengthy record that includes the 2011 abduction of three-year-old Kienan Hebert from the boy’s home in Sparwood, B.C., an incident that prompted a nationwide manhunt and drew widespread condemnation.
Under federal law, most federal prisoners are entitled to statutory release after serving two-thirds of their sentence, unless officials can demonstrate that the offender is likely to commit a serious violent offence if released. Critics say that framework has repeatedly proven inadequate in cases involving chronic sex offenders such as Hopley.
In Hopley’s case, the fact a known high-risk sex offender with a history of abducting a child was granted statutory release and allowed community supervision—despite an expert assessment of high recidivism risk—illustrates controversial “release and supervise” practices rather than indefinite detention.
But it’s not just police and the lower courts that have had to grapple with Canada’s uniquely lenient criminal justice system.
In October 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the mandatory one-year minimum sentence for possessing or accessing child pornography, ruling it unconstitutional. The decision sparked alarm among critics who argue that judges now have too much discretion—potentially leading to sentences many feel are inadequate for serious harm.
Even before the top-court ruling, many lower courts routinely ignored mandatory minimums. A recent review found that in 30 out of 100 analyzed cases, courts imposed sentences under 12 months—and in 17 of those, offenders served their time at home, often in the same communities where their initial crimes occurred.