An Ontario mother who left her developmentally delayed young son unattended in a bathtub, leading to his drowning, has been sentenced to 12 months in jail1. The sentence was delivered on September 11, 2025, by Justice Conlan of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, who determined that despite the tragic circumstances and the mother’s genuine remorse, a period of incarceration was necessary to denounce the conduct and deter others. Nancy Fahmi, a 45 year old pharmacist, had previously pleaded guilty to one count of criminal negligence causing death.
The court heard that Fahmi was the primary stay at home caregiver for her son, who was nearly two years and ten months old at the time of his death. The child had significant developmental delays and had received a formal diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder, making him highly vulnerable. On the day of the incident, Fahmi placed her son in the bathtub, which contained approximately eight inches of water. She then left him alone and went to a different floor of the family home to retrieve some laundry. Evidence presented to the court indicated she was gone for a period of two to three minutes. When she returned to the upstairs bathroom, she discovered her son face down in the water and unresponsive. The child was rushed to the hospital, where he was pronounced deceased shortly after arrival.
During the sentencing hearing, the court was presented with details about Ms. Fahmi’s personal circumstances. She is an educated and intelligent woman with a professional background as a pharmacist, though she was not employed in that field at the time of the offence. She has no prior criminal record of any kind. Fahmi is married and the couple has two other children, a son studying pharmacy in the United Kingdom and a high school aged daughter. A presentence report filed with the court was described as quite positive, noting that Fahmi was polite, cooperative, and forthright with the report’s author. It highlighted her genuinely strong feelings of guilt and remorse, as well as her full acceptance of responsibility for her actions. The report also detailed past medical issues, including a battle with thyroid cancer that required major surgery, and confirmed she has no history of substance abuse. Fahmi is a practicing Christian who has been engaging in bereavement counseling since her son’s death. Her husband expressed significant concern for her ongoing mental health. The court accepted that she would be a suitable candidate for community supervision.
The Crown prosecutor, Ms. M. Mackenzie, had argued for a sentence of 18 months in custody. She emphasized that the primary sentencing principles in this case must be denunciation of the conduct and general deterrence, to send a message to the public about the gravity of such negligence. The defence, led by Mr. J. Alsbergas, requested a non custodial sentence, specifically a conditional sentence of two years less one day to be served in the community, often referred to as house arrest, followed by a period of probation. The defence argued that a conditional sentence could still achieve the necessary punitive and restorative objectives without requiring incarceration.
Justice Conlan carefully weighed the competing arguments and the various factors at play. He acknowledged several mitigating factors in Fahmi’s favour, including her early guilty plea, which spared the justice system a trial, her lack of any prior criminal history, her profound and genuine remorse, and her otherwise exemplary character. However, the judge found these were outweighed by numerous and significant aggravating factors. He stressed the extreme vulnerability of the victim, who was not only a very young child but also one with significant developmental challenges that required a higher level of care and supervision.
Justice Conlan stated that the incident represented a gross breach of trust committed by the very person responsible for the child’s safety and wellbeing. He rejected the characterization of the event as a momentary or fleeting lapse in judgment. Instead, he described Fahmi’s decision to leave her autistic toddler in a bathtub filled with water for several minutes while she went to a completely different part of the home as a significant departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable parent.
Furthermore, Justice Conlan agreed with the Crown’s position that the case was marked by not one, but a series of negligent acts. He noted that upon discovering her son unresponsive, Fahmi’s negligent conduct and poor decision making continued. She did not immediately remove the boy from the bathtub, call 911 for emergency assistance, or attempt to provide any first aid such as CPR. The court heard she also did not seek help from the other children who were present in the home at the time until she was instructed to do so by her husband. While Justice Conlan acknowledged that Fahmi was likely in a state of shock after her horrific discovery, he stated that her inaction could not be ignored as part of the overall negligent conduct.
In his reasons, the judge considered legal precedents, including the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Proulx, which confirms that conditional sentences can be punitive and achieve denunciation. He also acknowledged a similar bathtub drowning case where an offender received an intermittent 90 day jail sentence. However, Justice Conlan distinguished Fahmi’s case, emphasizing that every sentencing is a highly individualized process. He determined that the level of moral blameworthiness, or the degree of responsibility, was particularly high in this instance due to the combination of aggravating factors. He referred to a decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, R. v. Lis, to support the view that the concept of child abuse is not limited to intentional assaults and that Fahmi’s actions constituted a form of child abuse through profound negligence.
Ultimately, Justice Conlan concluded that while there may be cases of criminal negligence causing death where a conditional sentence is appropriate, this was not one of them. “I have concluded that a real jail sentence is required,” he stated, explaining that such a sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the gravity of the offence and Fahmi’s high degree of responsibility. In an effort to respect the principle of restraint in sentencing and to account for the powerful mitigating factors, he imposed a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, less than the 18 months requested by the Crown. This will be followed by a 12 month period of probation, a condition requested by the defence to ensure Fahmi receives support. The probation order includes conditions to report to a probation officer and to attend counseling as directed, specifically for grief.
In his concluding remarks, Justice Conlan described the case as tragic and expressed much empathy for Fahmi and her family. He acknowledged that the sentence may appear harsh to some but explained that empathy could not justify what he believed would be an unfit sentence. “I wish you and your family peace and good health, Ms. Fahmi,” he said before concluding the proceedings. A secondary DNA order was also made, and the victim fine surcharge was waived.
Read more crime stories here.
