Dr. David Warren

This sentencing decision concerns L.M. and B.W., who were found guilty after trial of failing to provide the necessaries of life to L.M.'s six-year-old daughter, C.M., after she suffered serious burns.

B.W. was also convicted of aggravated assault for causing the burns by spraying hot water on C.M. The court reviews the circumstances of the offences, the backgrounds of the offenders, the impact on the victim, and the applicable sentencing principles.

B.W. received a global sentence of three and a half years' imprisonment, and L.M. received a 14-month conditional sentence followed by probation.

The decision discusses the primacy of denunciation and deterrence in cases involving child victims and the increased maximum sentences for these offences.

The accused, a father and his common-law partner, were charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life to a six-year-old child, and the partner was additionally charged with aggravated assault.

The child sustained severe burns to her buttocks from hot water while in the care of the accused.

The court found that the partner intentionally caused the burns in an angry outburst and that both accused failed to seek timely medical attention, which constituted a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonably prudent parent or caregiver.

Both accused were found guilty of failing to provide the necessaries of life, and the partner was found guilty of aggravated assault.

A child protection application brought by the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society concerning four children found to be in need of protection.

The central issue was whether the children should remain in the care of their mother (T.B.) subject to supervision, or be placed in the custody of their father (M.D.).

The court found that the children should remain in the mother's care subject to a 12-month supervision order with detailed terms and conditions.

The father's request for custody without Society involvement was denied.

The court considered the mother's past conduct, including disturbing wiretap evidence of inappropriate language, but found that with ongoing Society support and services, the risks could be adequately managed.

The father's refusal to participate in a parenting capacity assessment and his inconsistent exercise of access were significant factors against his custody claim.