Domestic violence

The decision addresses a motion by A.C. to enforce a prior order regarding parenting time and family systems therapy for the parties' child, D.C., following a history of domestic violence and high-conflict litigation.

The court finds that the respondent, K.C., has failed to comply with orders regarding both parenting time and therapy, and has unilaterally enrolled D.C. in individual counselling contrary to the court's direction for family systems therapy.

The court orders the resumption of parenting time, directs the parties to engage in family systems therapy, and retains jurisdiction to supervise compliance.

S.K. was convicted of assaulting a child, H.J.P., and sentenced to a 3-month suspended sentence with 18 months’ probation and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The court considered the context of domestic violence, the principles of denunciation and deterrence, and the applicability of Supreme Court guidance in Friesen and Marchand.

The Crown’s request for a common law peace bond was denied due to insufficient evidence of ongoing risk.

The decision emphasizes individualized sentencing and the heightened seriousness of offences against children.

The court sentenced S.F. for mischief to computer data and failing to comply with a recognizance, both relating to his former partner R.J. The court found S.F. changed R.J.'s passwords to control her and maintained contact with her in breach of a court order.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with probation for the mischief to data offence and an absolute discharge for the breach, citing S.F.'s lack of criminal record, addiction recovery, and the limited harm caused.

The decision reviews sentencing ranges and factors for mischief to data, and the appropriateness of a discharge in domestic contexts.

The court sentenced Jeremy Wicker for sexual assault against his former spouse, Josephine Wicker, following a conviction after trial.

The Crown sought a two-year jail sentence and three years' probation, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court reviewed relevant case law, considered aggravating and mitigating factors, and ultimately imposed a custodial sentence with probation, declining to make a SOIRA order.

The decision discusses the impact of domestic context, lack of remorse, and the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The applicant, Valentina Ortega Alvarez, brought an urgent motion without notice seeking a no-contact order and related relief against the respondent, William H. Duong, due to concerns for the safety of herself and their children following an escalation in the respondent's abusive and volatile behaviour.

The court granted a temporary no-contact order under section 28 of the Children's Law Reform Act, finding immediate danger to the children but declined to issue a restraining order, holding that less restrictive measures were appropriate at this stage.

This judgment at trial addresses criminal charges against the defendant, Maxim Dorofeev, for incidents on November 7, 2022 (assault, choking, unlawful confinement) and August 25, 2022 (assault).

The court found the defendant guilty of assault and choking under s.267(c) of the Criminal Code for the November 7 incident, ordering a conditional stay for the simple assault count from the same date.

The defendant was acquitted of unlawful confinement for November 7 and assault for August 25.

The court's decision involved a detailed assessment of witness credibility and reliability, particularly concerning the complainant's and defendant's conflicting accounts, and the corroborative value of independent witness testimony and physical evidence.

The accused, Ahnaf Alvee, faced nine charges related to his former girlfriend, C.M., including assault, mischief, theft, sexual assault, and breach of undertaking.

The central issue was credibility.

The court found C.M. to be a credible and reliable witness, while largely rejecting Mr. Alvee's testimony.

Mr. Alvee was acquitted of assault by choking and assault in the lobby, but convicted of mischief (damaged eyeglasses), assault (grabbing cheeks), theft of a cellphone, sexual assault in a stairwell, and three counts of failing to comply with an undertaking.

The accused, R.M., faced multiple charges including assault, unlawful confinement, and sexual assault stemming from incidents with the complainant, A.J., following their separation.

The court dismissed one assault charge (Count #2) under the de minimis non curat lex defence, finding the contact trivial.

R.M. was found not guilty of unlawful confinement (Count #3) as the complainant was not deprived of freedom for a significant period.

For three sexual assault charges (Counts #4, #5, #6, #8), the court found R.M. not guilty of sexual assault.

Specifically, for Counts #4 and #8, R.M. was found guilty of the lesser included offence of assault simpliciter, as the non-consensual contact was assaultive but not sexual in nature.

For Count #7, R.M. was found guilty of sexual assault, as the intentional, non-consensual contact clearly violated the complainant's sexual integrity.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a protection finding for two children, A.A. and B.B., alleging risk of physical harm, sexual abuse, and emotional harm due to their mother D.C.'s failure to protect them from an abusive male adult, Y.B. The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) supported the protection finding, while the mother opposed it.

The court dismissed the society's motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluding that the children were not in need of protection.

The court determined that the risks, primarily related to Y.B., had been mitigated over time, and there was insufficient admissible evidence to establish a present likelihood of serious harm.

The decision emphasized the importance of the 'flexible approach' to the material time period for protection findings and highlighted issues with the admissibility of hearsay evidence in summary judgment motions.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a child, Z, seeking placement with the paternal grandparents (MY and LY) subject to supervision.

The father (ZF) and aunt (AR) sought to maintain the child in their joint care.

The mother (W-D) did not participate.

The court found that the grandparents and father had joint pre-intervention charge of the child.

The court dismissed the father's request, finding that placing the child with the father and aunt would pose a risk of harm due to parental non-compliance with no-contact orders, self-help tactics, and the aunt's inability to cooperate.

The court ordered the child to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the grandparents, subject to society supervision, and set out terms for parental access.

The appellant, Emmanuel Owusu-Ansah, appealed his conviction for second-degree murder and the imposed sentence of life imprisonment with a 22-year parole ineligibility period.

The appeal raised four issues: reasonable apprehension of judicial bias due to repeated interjections, erroneous admission of prior discreditable conduct evidence, incorrect and inadequate jury instruction on provocation, and an unfit sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, upholding the admission of prior conduct evidence as probative of motive and context, affirming the jury instruction on provocation, and deeming the sentence fit given the horrific nature of the murder and the appellant's prior domestic abuse convictions.

The accused, NL, was charged with sexual assault and mischief against his estranged wife, KL.

The incidents occurred in the matrimonial home following a period of marital discord and separation.

KL alleged that NL sexually assaulted her by physically restraining her, attempting to kiss her, grabbing her breasts and buttocks, and exposing himself while demanding sexual acts.

She also alleged that NL intentionally damaged property in the basement by urinating, spilling beer, and smearing applesauce.

NL denied the allegations, claiming a conspiracy between KL and the investigating officer.

The court applied the W.(D.) analysis, finding NL's testimony incredible due to numerous inconsistencies and lies, including his false claims about the wedding rings and the property damage.

The court found KL's testimony credible and reliable, noting her initial reluctance to lay charges and her uninformed understanding of sexual assault law.

NL was found guilty on both counts.

Joshua Normand pleaded guilty to mischief, criminal harassment, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, and unsafe storage of a firearm, stemming from a tumultuous domestic relationship.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the domestic context, the dangerous use of loaded firearms in a public place, and the significant trauma inflicted on the victims.

Mitigating factors included Normand's Indigenous heritage (Gladue factors), his guilty plea, and his efforts towards rehabilitation while in custody.

The court also addressed a "Duncan application" for enhanced credit for exceptionally harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, granting some additional credit beyond the standard Summers credit, but denying credit for general COVID-19 impacts.

The final sentence was 4 years of custody, reduced by time served, followed by a 3-year probation period with strict conditions.

Samson Ram was charged with assault against his spouse, Tina Ram.

He admitted to applying force but claimed implied consent, arguing the incident was a "consensual fight" initiated by the complainant, and that no bodily harm was caused.

The court examined the common law doctrine of "consensual fight" as established in R. v. Jobidon and R. v. Paice, specifically questioning its applicability and scope in the context of domestic violence.

Considering the unique policy concerns of domestic violence, the court adopted a narrower interpretation, holding that intentional application of force "capable of causing an injury that is more than trivial" vitiates consent in domestic altercations.

The court found that the force used by Mr. Ram, repeatedly slamming his spouse on the floor, was capable of causing more than trivial injury and was intended to cause bodily harm, thus vitiating any implied consent.

Alternatively, the force exceeded the reasonable scope of any implied consent.

Mr. Ram was found guilty of assault.

P.V.T. was convicted of sexual assault on his wife and uttering death threats.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the abuse of authority, the victim's vulnerability, repeated incidents, and significant impact on the victim, balanced against mitigating factors such as no prior criminal record and health issues.

The court emphasized general and specific deterrence, finding that the sexual assault stemmed from a generalized attitude towards women.

A global sentence of 4 years and 6 months imprisonment was imposed, with 4 years for sexual assault and 6 months consecutive for uttering threats.

Mandatory orders for DNA registration, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order were also made, along with a no-contact order with the victim during the custodial period.

This is a sentencing decision for an offender convicted of aggravated assault and breach of undertaking, stemming from a violent domestic incident.

The victim sustained severe facial injuries requiring multiple surgeries.

The Crown sought a 24-month penitentiary sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence, highlighting the offender's rehabilitation efforts.

The court considered the principles of denunciation and deterrence, particularly in the context of intimate partner violence, and aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability and the offender's prior domestic assault conviction.

Balancing these with the offender's rehabilitation, the court imposed a lengthy conditional sentence, emphasizing that such a sentence can still achieve punitive and denunciatory objectives.

The Applicant, Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child J.M.C. was in need of protection and an order for supervision of the Mother with supervised access for the Father.

The Mother consented to the relief, while the Father opposed, seeking custody or alternative placement.

The court found the child in need of protection under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, citing ongoing parental conflict and the Father's history of domestic violence and anger management issues.

The Father's opposition was dismissed, and the court granted a six-month supervision order for the Mother and specific terms for the Father's supervised access, rejecting the Applicant's request for discretionary access.

The Crown, supported by the defence, applied to vary the respondent's undertaking conditions to facilitate his participation in a Partner Assault Response (PAR) program.

A Justice of the Peace had previously declined similar variations, citing *R. v. Valentine*.

The court, disagreeing with *Valentine*, found the proposed consent bail conditions necessary, reasonable, and sufficiently linked to public protection under s. 515(10) of the *Criminal Code*, particularly in domestic violence cases.

The application was granted, varying the bail terms to allow PAR program participation and conditional contact with the complainant.

The defendant, Daniel Reza, was convicted of six offences including assault, assault with a weapon, multiple sexual assaults (some involving penetration while the victim was asleep or incapacitated by marijuana), and threatening to kill the victim's father.

The offences occurred within a domestic relationship.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the domestic context, repeated manipulation, the victim's vulnerability (asleep), use of an object, and lasting impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's youth, lack of criminal record, and mental health/addiction issues.

The Crown sought a six-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed two years.

The court imposed a global custodial sentence of 4.5 years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and issued ancillary orders including a no-contact order, DNA order, SOIRA order, and s. 109 order.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of criminal harassment against the accused, E.T. The complainant, after ending a brief relationship with E.T. due to his controlling and aggressive nature, received over 180 unwanted phone calls and 60 text messages from him, including calls to her workplace, causing her significant distress and fear.

The central issue was whether the complainant's subjective fear for her safety was objectively reasonable.

The court found the complainant to be a credible witness and concluded that the accused's relentless and unwanted contact constituted harassment.

The court determined that the complainant's fear for her safety, encompassing psychological and emotional security, was objectively reasonable given the accused's past behaviour, controlling nature, and persistent contact despite explicit requests to cease.

The Crown successfully proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.