Jamie Sarkonak: Non-citizen johns shouldn't get sentence discounts for their crimes

An Ontario resident tried to buy sex from what he thought was a 15-year-old. He was given a conditional discharge to help him stay in Canada

Author of the article:By Jamie Sarkonak
Published Jul 15, 2025
Last updated 2 days ago
4 minute read

In December 2023, Akashkumar Khant, 30 (plus or minus some months), made the mistake of arranging to have sex with a 15-year-old at a Mississauga Holiday Inn for $140.

Only, when he got there, that 15-year-old turned out to be a cop. He was arrested at the hotel (with $140 in cash on hand) and subsequently ended up in court — but he won’t receive a criminal record for his actions, in part because of his immigration status.

On June 25, Khant was sentenced to a conditional discharge for committing an indecent act. For three months, he will be under house arrest — during which time he can go shopping for three hours every Sunday, attend religious services, medical appointments and travel to and from work. Twelve months of probation will follow afterward. Whether Ontario will appeal remains an open question, as the province won’t reveal its plan until after July 25.

Why such a low sentence? Part of it came down to the fact that he pleaded guilty to a lesser offence. Peel Police told the Post that they initially charged Khant with obtaining sexual services for consideration from a person under 18 years. (This would have carried a six-month minimum jail sentence for first-time offenders under the Criminal Code, but the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled this modest mandatory minimum to be unconstitutional last year.)

Khant pleaded to attempting an indecent act instead, which has a maximum penalty of two years’ jail. Crown prosecutors asked for 90 days, but they didn’t get their wish — and much of the reason why came down to the fact that the accused was not a citizen.

Originally from India’s Gujarat state, Khant came to Canada in 2019 for school, specifically, a master’s of engineering. He finished in 2021 and obtained permanent residency in 2023. Also, in 2023, he married his wife, who is currently here on a work visa set to expire in September. This was an important consideration for Justice Paul Thomas O’Marra, who joined the Ontario Court of Justice in the Kathleen Wynne era.

“Mr. Khant is a permanent resident seeking Canadian citizenship and professional licensing,” wrote the judge. “A conviction would not only delay his citizenship by four years but could also prevent him from sponsoring his wife and obtaining his engineering licence.

“These immigration and professional consequences are far more severe than those faced by (an offender in a similar previous case), who was a Canadian citizen with no such vulnerabilities. Courts have recognized that such consequences can justify a more lenient sentence, including a discharge.”

Logically, Khant would be getting a higher sentence if he were Canadian — which is why this sentencing practice is so deeply unfair.

O’Marra also found a lot of good in the accused, noting his above-average IQ, his first-time offender status, his lack of mental illness or criminal record, his “modest and reserved” nature, and his low likelihood of reoffending (he did show “some response to younger females” in phallometric testing, but he agreed to take therapy in light of the finding).

In the judge’s eyes, these overcame Khant’s flaws, such as his apparent intention to see the fictitious 15-year-old on a regular basis: “we could do this a lot depending on how this goes,” he told the officer-in-disguise. After he was caught, he told the risk-assessment psychologist that he never intended to go for underage girls.

The judge was troubled, on the other hand, by what he characterized as “evidentiary weaknesses” in the Crown’s case: namely, “a partial phone download, no direct link between the phone and Mr. Khant, and surveillance footage that failed to show him at the hotel room door.” Though, these concerns are questionable, as police should be able to testify to Khant’s presence at the door, and because his phone was seized upon arrest (and was thus in his possession).

Taking all into account, O’Marra concluded, “A conviction would lead to severe collateral consequences, such as jeopardizing his immigration status, delaying his citizenship, and preventing him from sponsoring his wife, which would likely result in their separation. These consequences would be disproportionate to the offence and would undermine his rehabilitative progress.”

This is an uphill battle. At the top end, Canadian law requires that judges take immigration consequences into account in sentencing “provided that the sentence that is ultimately imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.” At no point did we explicitly legislate this: rather, in 2013, it was decided by the Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by now-Chief Justice Richard Wagner.

Lower down, we have to contend with courts that set soft precedents that later justify even softer decisions. Aside from Ontario’s mandatory minimum strikedown for underage solicitation, Khant was assisted by a 2018 case in which a man was conditionally discharged for breaking his wife’s arm on one occasion and, years later, threatening to kill her while pushing her head into a pillow.

This is happening all around Canada. In Calgary last year, a man on a study visa was found guilty of groping a woman’s genitals at a club; he was given a conditional discharge to lessen his chances of deportation.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has supported the idea of deporting non-citizens who commit violence and hate crimes in Canada. That mentality should be extended to the rest of the Criminal Code — in particular, crimes related to sex and crimes with underage victims — not just as a matter of public safety and immigration integrity, but as a matter of basic justice.