Soldouzi gets community sentence for violent extortion plot

Soldouzi, a 43-year-old Vaughan real estate agent, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit extortion in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice in Toronto on October 28, 2026. Justice Catherine H. Rhinelander accepted the sentence jointly proposed by prosecutors and the defence: a 16-month conditional sentence, followed by two years of probation.⁠1⁠2

The distinction behind that outcome is important. Soldouzi was not convicted merely for asking someone to recover money. He admitted offering to pay Ryan Cribbie to collect an alleged debt from contractor Alireza Jamalsalahi while knowing the proposed collection involved extreme violence. Nor was the absence of an attack the same as an absence of victims.⁠1

Jamalsalahi, who attended sentencing by video, described months of fear, damage to his marriage and financial security, and stress-related medical problems. His wife no longer felt safe at home. Their basement tenants, a family with two young children, also had to leave.⁠1⁠2

Rhinelander weighed Soldouzi’s guilty plea, remorse, clean criminal record and 85 completed hours of community service. He apologized before sentencing and had intended to plead guilty from the outset. The fact that nobody was physically injured also counted in favour of a sentence outside jail. Soldouzi is a father of two.⁠1⁠2

Those mitigating circumstances did not erase the choices that made the conspiracy serious. “He sought to take matters into his own hands instead of following proper legal recourse,” Rhinelander said. She also noted that Soldouzi took no issue with the proposed Molotov cocktail or with Cribbie’s suggestion that he bring “a bunch of white racist guys” to carry out the collection.⁠1

Assistant Crown attorney Sandra Duffey described the offence as financially motivated and inchoate: the criminal agreement was punishable even though the intended extortion was never carried out. That is the legal centre of this case. The conviction concerns what Soldouzi agreed to, not an assault that prosecutors claimed had happened.⁠1

For the first six months, Soldouzi must remain under strict house arrest. The next five months were described as house arrest with an 11 p.m.–6 a.m. curfew. Neither available court report fully explains the restrictions during the remaining five months of the conditional sentence. His two years of probation begin after the full 16 months are complete.⁠1⁠2

He must also provide DNA samples and have no contact with either Jamalsalahi or Cribbie. This is a conviction with a sentence served in the community—not an acquittal, discharge or unrestricted release.⁠2

The dispute concerned work that Soldouzi said Jamalsalahi had not completed at his parents’ home. Soldouzi and Cribbie knew each other through Narcotics Anonymous meetings. According to the agreed facts reported by Global News, Cribbie had confided that he was struggling financially, partly because of his son’s serious illness and difficulties in his marriage.⁠1

Six intercepted conversations between October 15 and December 3, 2025, traced the discussions. In the first, Cribbie asked whether an offer involving “27k” remained open. Soldouzi said his mother was worried; Cribbie suggested collecting without telling her, and Soldouzi expressed interest. On October 24, Soldouzi said he would bring an envelope containing the target’s address and a breakdown of the alleged debt.⁠1

The amounts shifted: the October 24 discussion referred to $21,000 or $24,000, rather than the earlier $27,000. These were figures used in the conversations—not an established court award or a verified fee promised to Cribbie.⁠1

On November 1, Soldouzi spelled out a Richmond Hill address. He described it as a rental property and said he was unsure whether Jamalsalahi still lived there. The proposed violence included throwing a Molotov cocktail through a window, beating the target as he ran outside and threatening to break his legs. Soldouzi wanted assurances that neither he nor his family would be identified. Cribbie proposed saying he had bought the debt from an unnamed person.⁠1

Soldouzi’s response to the violent proposal was “do what you gotta do.” The two detailed court accounts agree on that substance but place the exchange on different dates: Global News’s October 28 report says November 1, 2025; CBC’s report that same day says December 3. Without the underlying agreed statement of facts or sentencing reasons, that chronology remains unresolved.⁠1⁠2

Global News reports that police identified Jamalsalahi through the intercepted information and warned him on November 2, 2025. He and his wife had already received calls and messages concerning payment for contracting work. Police advised him to make a report, and his family relocated.⁠1

The recorded discussions continued. On November 11, Soldouzi said there was no rush; Cribbie replied that he needed money. On November 22, Soldouzi asked whether anything had happened, and Cribbie said he had been sick. In the December 3 conversation, Cribbie claimed the target had been followed to restaurants, including a Woodbridge coffee shop, and said cameras near the house meant the attack should happen elsewhere. Soldouzi replied, “sounds good.”⁠1

That claimed surveillance is not an established act. Police were tracking Cribbie’s phone and vehicle, and Duffey told the court there was no evidence he had visited the home or restaurants as he described. Cribbie, a 34-year-old Barrie man, still faces an untried extortion-conspiracy charge and firearm charges. Soldouzi’s admission does not amount to a conviction of his co-accused.⁠1⁠2

The interceptions came through Project South, York Regional Police’s investigation into alleged police corruption and the leaking of confidential information to criminal networks. Judicial authorizations allowed investigators to intercept Cribbie’s communications. Prosecutors expressly said Soldouzi was not otherwise involved in the investigation’s other alleged activity; those wider allegations should not be attached to his conviction.⁠1

One consequence of his own conduct was lost rent after the tenants left. Global News’s earlier October 28 account reported a Crown request for $3,100 in restitution and described six to eight weeks of displacement. CBC’s later account explicitly reported that restitution was ordered for unpaid tenant rent, but gave no amount. The order can therefore be reported; $3,100 cannot be treated as its confirmed final value.⁠1⁠2

The remaining gaps are specific: the final restitution amount, the full restrictions across all 16 months, and the disputed date of the violent proposal. They do not change the central finding. Soldouzi knowingly accepted violence as a way to collect an alleged debt. Nobody was attacked, but two families lost the safety of their homes. The sentence reflects the first fact without making the second disappear.