Domestic violence

Following a jury conviction for second-degree murder arising from an intimate-partner shooting, the court was required to impose life imprisonment and determine the period of parole ineligibility under ss. 745 and 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the killing was a deliberate execution of an unarmed pregnant partner, committed at close range with extreme violence, and placed heavy weight on the offender's serious prior record for domestic attempted murder, absence of remorse, high risk of recidivism, and the jury's recommendation.

Social context evidence, including anti-Black racism, poverty, childhood abuse, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions, was reviewed but held not to materially mitigate moral culpability or reduce the parole ineligibility period on the facts.

The offender was sentenced to life imprisonment with 22 years of parole ineligibility, together with ancillary DNA, weapons prohibition, non-communication, and forfeiture orders.

The father brought a motion to change a final order to seek parenting time with his child at a supervised access centre.

The mother opposed the motion, citing a history of domestic violence and the father's unresolved anger issues, and sought a restraining order and child support.

Relying on an Office of the Children's Lawyer report and evidence of the father's past violent conduct, the court found it was not in the child's best interests to grant access at this time.

The father's motion was dismissed, access was suspended, a non-communication order was issued, and child support was ordered based on the father's fluctuating income.

In a child protection trial under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the court found that two children continued to be in need of protection based on a real risk of serious emotional harm arising from repeated exposure to domestic conflict and the parents’ failure to protect them from that conflict.

The court rejected the society’s theory of protection based on alleged illicit drug use and school attendance, but accepted that inconsistent parental involvement, prolonged gaps in access, and failure to comply with safety planning reinforced the continued need for protection.

The court found the mother’s late-stage plan, based on residence with extended family and recent treatment engagement, was untested, not sufficiently child-focused, and did not adequately mitigate the identified risks.

Extended Society Care with the maternal aunt was ordered, together with structured access for the mother and discretionary access for the fathers.

The court also made a First Nations finding in relation to one child and addressed the implications of that status under the CYFSA.

Sentencing decision following convictions for sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, and assault arising from a long-term pattern of exploitation and abuse that began when the complainant was a teenage athlete and the offender was her coach.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as predominant, relying on the modern sentencing approach for sexual offences against children and recognizing the aggravating features of breach of trust, exploitation, domestic violence, humiliation, and lasting psychological harm.

The court also considered mitigating factors including the offender's youth at the time of the sexual assault, lengthy law-abiding period, harsh extrajudicial consequences, and extended bail period.

A global custodial sentence of 45 months was imposed, together with mandatory and ancillary orders.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and breach of probation in a domestic violence context.

The court noted the accused's lengthy history of non-compliance and high risk of violent recidivism.

The court sentenced the accused to 36 months of custody in addition to 99 days of pre-sentence custody credit, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a non-communication order with the victim.

The accused was charged with the first-degree murder of his wife and the attempted murder of his daughter following a stabbing in the family home.

At the preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on first-degree murder based on planning and deliberation, as well as constructive murder via unlawful confinement.

The Crown also sought committal for attempted murder.

The court found sufficient evidence of planning and deliberation based on the accused's internet searches and statements prior to the offence.

The court also found sufficient evidence of unlawful confinement of both the deceased and the daughter.

Finally, the court found sufficient evidence of specific intent to kill the daughter.

The accused was committed to stand trial on first-degree murder and attempted murder.

In this family law trial, the court determined custody, access, travel, restraining order, and police-enforcement issues for a young child amid serious but unproven allegations of sexual and physical abuse by the father.

Applying the best-interests analysis under the Divorce Act and Children's Law Reform Act, the court found significant credibility problems on all sides, held the abuse allegations were not proven on a balance of probabilities, and assessed the future risk of harm as low.

Sole custody was granted to the mother because of conflict, prior domestic violence, and a power imbalance, while the father received a graduated unsupervised access regime rather than supervised access.

The court also imposed significant travel-document restrictions on the father, granted a restraining order, and declined to include a police enforcement clause.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, forcible confinement, assault, and assaulting a peace officer arising from incidents involving his former partner.

The court rejected the accused’s testimony as inconsistent, illogical, and contradicted by prior statements and other evidence.

The complainant’s account that the accused tied her while asleep and engaged in non‑consensual anal intercourse was found credible and supported by surrounding circumstances.

The court also accepted evidence that the accused choked the complainant during a later domestic dispute and actively assaulted an officer while resisting arrest.

The Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt and convictions were entered on four counts, with one count dismissed at the Crown’s request.

On a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, the applicant sought release from a detention order arising from multiple allegations of domestic assault, sexual assault, child sexual offences, mischief, and breach of recognizance.

The court accepted that there had been material change and legal error in the earlier tertiary-ground analysis, but independently concluded that detention remained justified on both the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The proposed release plan, centred on treatment and rotating sureties residing at the applicant's properties, was found inadequately enforceable and insufficient to manage risks of reoffending, witness interference, and non-compliance.

Applying the substantial likelihood standard and the St-Cloud tertiary-ground framework, the court held that release would undermine public safety and confidence in the administration of justice.

The applicant sought continuation of a temporary restraining order against a former common law spouse under s. 46 of the Family Law Act.

The court held that the applicant had reasonable grounds to fear for her physical and psychological safety, relying on evidence of past domestic assault, later threatening conduct, the respondent's alleged criminal associations, and the respondent's knowledge that the applicant had provided information to police.

The court found the applicant's fear was legitimate and had a current relationship to more recent events, notwithstanding the age of some earlier incidents.

The restraining order was continued and the applicant, being substantially successful on the only live issue, received partial indemnity costs.

In a status review trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered whether two young children should be returned to their mother under supervision or made Crown wards.

The evidence showed longstanding alcohol abuse, repeated domestic violence, mental health instability, housing instability, non-compliance with court orders, and inconsistent access causing emotional harm to the children, despite some positive visits and an emotional bond.

Applying the child-centred best interests analysis and the statutory time limits on society wardship, the court held that no less intrusive alternative would adequately protect the children and provide permanence.

The court also held that the mother did not satisfy the conjunctive test for access to Crown wards and rejected a submission that Gladue principles altered the CFSA analysis where the relevant inquiry was the children’s status.

On an urgent family motion, the court held that the matter could proceed before a case conference under rule 14(4.2) because the respondent alleged she had fled an abusive relationship and there was sufficient corroboration of ongoing safety concerns.

Applying the best interests analysis under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court granted the respondent temporary care and control of the parties' one-year-old child.

The court also permitted the respondent to relocate temporarily to Sioux Lookout, emphasizing her role as primary caregiver, the child's ongoing breastfeeding, objective medical evidence, and the need for family and therapeutic supports.

Facilitated access was ordered for the applicant on specified dates pending the case conference.

In a child protection summary judgment motion, the Society sought Crown wardship without access for two special-needs children who had been in care well beyond the statutory time limits.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial because the mother conceded the children remained in need of protection, the history of chronic neglect and parental incapacity was longstanding, and the evidentiary record established no realistic prospect of reintegration.

The court further held that access could not be ordered under the governing statute because it would impair the children's future adoption opportunities.

Crown wardship without access was granted.

The Crown appealed sentence in a criminal matter involving serious conduct in a domestic context.

The Court of Appeal held that substantial deference was owed to the sentencing judge and rejected submissions that denunciation and deterrence had been insufficiently emphasized or that rehabilitation had been overemphasized.

The court further held that the sentence, while perhaps at the low end of the range, was not demonstrably unfit.

The sentence appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a six-year sentence imposed following convictions on 32 counts arising from prolonged domestic violence and sexual assaults against an intimate partner and children.

Applying the deferential sentence appeal standard, the court held that the sentence was manifestly unfit given the number of offences, the duration and escalation of the abuse, the use of weapons, the vulnerability of the victims, and the severe impact on them.

The court compared the case to prior appellate authorities involving severe spousal abuse and sexual violence, while emphasizing the additional aggravating feature of multiple child victims.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was varied to a global sentence of 12 years' imprisonment.

The offender was found guilty of theft under $5000 and criminal harassment after stealing his ex-partner's diaries and cellphone, and using the information to distribute sexually explicit photos and videos of her to her family and friends.

He also created a fake dating profile in her name.

The court balanced the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence with the offender's status as a first-time offender and sole provider for his family.

The court imposed a blended sentence of 90 days intermittent custody and a concurrent 6-month conditional sentence, followed by 3 years of probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, extortion, and obstructing justice, arising from a prolonged period of domestic violence against his intimate partner.

The court accepted a joint submission for a global sentence of three years.

Applying a 1.5 to 1 credit ratio for two years of pre-trial custody due to lockdown conditions, the court suspended the passing of sentence and imposed three years of probation with strict conditions.

The appellant appealed his conviction for attempted murder and his sentence of life imprisonment.

The appellant attacked his former partner with a baseball bat.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in jury instructions regarding his alibi defence, by leaving aiding and abetting as an alternative basis for liability, and by discharging a juror without a formal inquiry.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury instructions adequate and the juror discharge proper.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the brutal domestic attack and the appellant's lengthy criminal record justified a life sentence based on denunciation and deterrence.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed for five offences arising from a single incident involving the respondent's estranged spouse and children.

The court held that a 12-month sentence, in addition to pre-trial custody, was manifestly unfit given the night-time armed break-in, death threats, aggravated assault on the spouse in the children's presence, and assault on a child who intervened.

While noting the respondent was a 53-year-old first offender, the court concluded a substantial penitentiary term was required and substituted a sentence of 3.5 years after applying the same pre-trial custody credit.

The court also held that the sentencing judge erred by failing to impose the mandatory s. 109 prohibition order and added a 10-year prohibition.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed following guilty pleas to multiple offences arising from prolonged domestic harassment, break and enter, threats, and related misconduct.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred in principle by underemphasizing denunciation and deterrence and by relying on an inaccurate understanding of the respondent's prior record.

Applying the sentencing principles emphasized in harassment jurisprudence, the court held that the absence of physical violence was not a mitigating factor for criminal harassment.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, the appeal allowed, and the total sentence increased to four years.