Intimate partner violence

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed J.L.'s application for bail pending appeal from convictions for multiple offences, including sexual assault and intimate partner violence.

The court reviewed the three-part test under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, finding that the grounds of appeal did not clearly surpass the "not frivolous" standard and that public safety and enforceability concerns outweighed reviewability.

The court emphasized the applicant's persistent breaches of release conditions and the risk to the complainant, concluding that continued detention was necessary in the public interest.

The appeal was ordered expedited due to the time already served.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered cross-appeals from both the Crown and D.L. regarding convictions and acquittals arising from allegations of intimate partner violence.

The Crown appealed acquittals on sexual assault and extortion charges and sought a harsher sentence, while D.L. appealed his convictions, arguing errors in the trial judge’s assessment of evidence and sufficiency of reasons.

The Court dismissed both appeals, upheld the trial judge’s findings, and stayed certain duplicative counts.

The decision addresses the proper approach to consent in sexual assault, the scope of appellate review, and the principles guiding sentencing for intimate partner violence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed B.N.'s application for bail pending appeal from convictions for sexual assault and related offences.

The court found that, although the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel clearly surpassed the "not frivolous" standard, public safety concerns—given B.N.'s extensive history of breaches and violence—outweighed reviewability and enforceability interests.

The decision applies the Oland/Farinacci framework for bail pending appeal and emphasizes the stand-alone importance of public safety in intimate partner violence cases.

This sentencing decision addresses multiple offences including breach of a release order, assault, and assault causing bodily harm within the context of intimate partner violence.

The offender, C.P., pleaded guilty after trial commenced, and the court considered both the evidence presented and facts read in by the Crown.

The decision emphasizes the seriousness of intimate partner violence, including physical, emotional, and psychological abuse, as well as breach of court orders.

The court balanced aggravating factors such as repeated breaches and ongoing abuse with mitigating factors including the offender’s guilty plea and efforts to address addiction.

The offender was sentenced to 12 months custody on each count concurrently, with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by three years probation with strict no-contact conditions and ancillary orders including DNA sampling and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The court sentenced Hugo Munoz to 14 years in prison for the manslaughter of his intimate partner, Cindy Coffey, after he pleaded guilty partway through his trial.

The decision details the facts of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, Mr. Munoz’s mental health history, and the joint sentencing submission.

The court accepted the joint position, emphasizing the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and the mitigating factors of Mr. Munoz’s guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and mental illness.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a no-contact order with specified individuals.

The accused, F.(D.), was convicted of sexually assaulting his wife.

The court sentenced him to three years' imprisonment, rejecting the defence's request for a conditional sentence order.

The decision emphasizes the breach of trust inherent in intimate partner sexual assault, particularly involving an intoxicated and vulnerable victim.

The court relied on the Ontario Court of Appeal's established sentencing range of three to five years for such offences and considered the significant harm to the victim, the accused's substance abuse issues, and his moral blameworthiness.

Ancillary orders included DNA sampling, a victim fine surcharge, weapons prohibition, and sex offender registry registration.

This is a sentence appeal by Brendan Bananish from a 7-year and 3-month global sentence (reduced to 24 months after credit), designation as a long-term offender, and an 8-year long-term supervision order, following a violent attack on an intimate partner.

The appellant raised several grounds of appeal, including alleged expert bias, dispute of prior conviction facts, and the fairness of the sentencing process.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the grounds raised and dismissed the appeal, granting leave to appeal sentence but upholding the trial judge’s findings and sentence.

The court sentenced Corbin Hucker to three years’ imprisonment on each of three counts of sexual assault, to be served concurrently, following a jury trial.

The offences involved non-consensual sexual activity with his intimate partner.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including the seriousness of the offences, the intimate partner context, the impact on the complainant, Hucker’s lack of criminal record, his youth at the time of the offences, and the significant emotional and social consequences he experienced.

The court imposed ancillary orders, including a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a 20-year SOIRA order.

This decision involves the conviction of Joseph Herrington for assaulting his intimate partner, Janice Wu, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.

The court carefully analyzed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, including the complainant, a neighbour, and the accused himself.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the judge found the complainant’s evidence credible and reliable despite minor inconsistencies, supported by the neighbour’s independent testimony.

The accused’s evidence was found implausible and inconsistent.

The court rejected the defence’s de minimis argument, emphasizing the seriousness of intimate partner violence.

The accused was found guilty based on the totality of the evidence proving the assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed the Crown's appeal from an absolute discharge imposed on Jennel Christie for assault causing bodily harm.

The Court found the sentence demonstrably unfit, given the seriousness of the offence, the lack of consideration for public interest, and errors in the sentencing judge’s reasoning regarding employment and immigration consequences.

The Court substituted a nine-month conditional sentence with strict conditions, followed by one year of probation.

This decision addresses an application under section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for a witness to testify behind a screen in an assault case involving intimate partner violence.

The court considered the statutory factors and relevant case law, including the lowered threshold for granting such orders.

The complainant expressed emotional distress and discomfort at testifying in the presence of the accused, which the court found sufficient to grant the application.

The ruling emphasizes the importance of facilitating truthful testimony without compromising the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of P.P. from convictions for assault, sexual assault, uttering threats, unlawful confinement, and attempted extortion, setting aside the convictions and ordering a new trial.

The court found that the trial judge made errors by relying on unsupported assumptions about arranged marriages, improperly relying on an evidentiary fact without giving counsel an opportunity to make submissions, and drawing conclusions based on government COVID protocols without evidentiary foundation.

These errors rendered the convictions unsafe.

This decision involves the trial of C.L. charged with mischief, uttering threats, and aggravated assault against V.L. The accused pleaded guilty to uttering threats but denied the other charges.

The case centered on conflicting accounts regarding whether C.L. caused injuries to V.L. by kicking her down stairs and damaging her property.

The Court conducted a detailed credibility assessment, applying the W.(D.) test and principles from recent Supreme Court jurisprudence on reasonable doubt and witness reliability.

The judge found C.L.'s explanations inconsistent and untruthful, particularly regarding the cause of V.L.'s injuries and the damage to the bedroom wall.

The Court accepted V.L.'s testimony and concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that C.L. committed mischief and aggravated assault by causing V.L. to fall down the stairs, resulting in a spinal fracture.

After a five-day judge-alone trial, James Nathan McLarnon was found guilty of sexual assault, multiple counts of assault with a weapon, assault with choking, assault, uttering threats to cause death, and unlawful confinement, all arising from intimate partner violence against the same complainant, M.C., between 2020 and 2021.

The Crown sought a seven-year global sentence; the defence proposed three years.

The court imposed a global sentence of five and a half years, reduced by pre-sentence custody and a modest "Duncan" credit for harsh pre-trial conditions, resulting in a final sentence of two years and 234 days.

The decision details the aggravating and mitigating factors, the application of the totality principle, and the ancillary orders imposed.

This decision addresses whether a conditional discharge is appropriate for two counts of assault against a former intimate partner.

The accused, D.M., was found guilty of two assaults but acquitted of more serious charges involving weapons.

The Court carefully considered the facts, the accused’s background, completion of a Partner Assault Response Program, and the principles of sentencing under the Criminal Code, including denunciation and deterrence in intimate partner violence cases.

The Court concluded that a conditional discharge with two years probation and counselling was appropriate, emphasizing the individualized nature of sentencing and the importance of balancing public interest with rehabilitation.

This sentencing judgment addresses multiple counts of assault by Alexandru Ciobanu against his wife and 13-year-old son, highlighting the serious nature of intimate partner violence and child abuse.

The court emphasizes aggravating factors including coercive control, threats to life, and the impact on vulnerable victims, including children exposed to violence.

Despite the offender's difficult background and refugee status, the court imposes a custodial sentence reflecting the gravity of the offences, the need for denunciation and deterrence, and the protection of victims.

The decision also discusses the limited applicability of conditional sentences in cases of personal violence and the importance of proportionality in sentencing.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced E.T. to 5½ years imprisonment for sexual assault with a weapon involving his former spouse and their child.

The Court considered aggravating factors including the use of a knife, the involvement of the child, and the breach of trust, alongside mitigating factors such as E.T.'s lack of criminal record, supportive family background, and mental health diagnosis of bipolar disorder.

The Court imposed ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA sample provision, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a non-communication order with the victim while in custody.

The decision highlights the balance between denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation in sentencing sexual offences involving intimate partners and children.

The Crown applied under section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for Lindsay Smith, a key witness and former intimate partner of the accused, to testify via closed circuit television (CCTV) in a trial for failing to remain at the scene of an accident causing death.

The application was supported by evidence from a Victim Witness Services Worker, who described Ms. Smith’s anxiety and safety concerns.

The defence opposed, arguing Ms. Smith was no longer intimidated.

The court granted the application, finding that testifying by CCTV would facilitate a full and candid account and was in the interests of justice, especially given the context of intimate partner violence and the need to encourage survivor participation in the justice process.

The court sentenced Alexander George Jolly for manslaughter after he shot and killed Nicole Mercer, with whom he had an intimate relationship.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, the offender’s background, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court imposed a nine-year sentence, less credit for pre-sentence custody, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence in intimate partner violence cases.

This sentencing decision concerns H.T., an Anishnaabe-ikwe, found guilty of three counts of simple assault and one count of mischief under $5000, arising from an intimate partner relationship.

The court considered extensive Gladue factors, including intergenerational trauma from residential schools, child welfare system involvement, sexual exploitation, and substance abuse, which significantly diminished her moral culpability.

Despite the Crown seeking incarceration, the court granted conditional discharges with probation, emphasizing H.T.'s significant rehabilitative efforts, sobriety, and commitment to parenting.

The decision highlights the importance of rehabilitation and restraint in sentencing Aboriginal offenders, particularly when systemic factors have contributed to their circumstances.