Intimate partner violence

The applicant sought an order for production of financial disclosure from third parties (the respondent's father, family corporations, and a family trust) pursuant to the Family Law Rules and Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant and respondent are involved in family proceedings concerning child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The applicant sought to set aside a domestic contract and alleged the respondent's reported income had declined significantly post-separation despite evidence of substantially higher cash flow during the marriage.

The third parties opposed production, arguing the motion was premature and that the domestic contract must first be set aside.

The court found the motion was not premature, that the applicant had met her onus, and that disclosure was necessary to fairly determine the respondent's true income and net family property.

The court ordered production of financial statements and corporate tax returns from the companies and details of non-arm's length expenses from all third parties, subject to confidentiality terms.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault and four counts of failing to comply with a condition of a release order.

The offender sexually assaulted his former intimate partner while subject to a release order prohibiting contact with her.

He breached the non-contact condition by contacting her by telephone the day following the assault.

The Crown sought a global sentence of two years jail followed by 12 months probation, along with ancillary orders.

The defence argued that the offender's pre-sentence custody of 310 real days, credited as 465 days, was sufficient time served given mitigating factors including harsh detention conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of approximately 15.5 months jail followed by 12 months probation, taking into account aggravating factors including persistence in sexual advances despite repeated refusals, the statutory aggravation of intimate partner violence, the offender's criminal record, and breach of court orders, balanced against mitigating factors including remorse, family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

Three self-represented informants filed peace bond applications alleging fear of intimate partner violence (IPV) without specifying whether they sought a standard peace bond under section 810 of the Criminal Code or the newly legislated IPV-specific peace bond under section 810.03.

The court addressed procedural and jurisdictional questions regarding how such nonspecific applications should be processed.

The court determined that informants, not the court, must decide which type of recognizance they are seeking and that the choice cannot be made unilaterally by court staff or judicial officers.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder in the death of his former girlfriend and the 18-year parole ineligibility period imposed at his second trial.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on hearsay regarding statements by the appellant's deceased mother and that the trial judge erred in imposing the 18-year parole ineligibility period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds of appeal, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions and determining that the 18-year period was a fit sentence given the horrific nature of the crime, the appellant's high moral culpability, and the absence of remorse.

The defendant was convicted of assaulting his intimate partner following a domestic dispute.

The assault occurred in the family home after the defendant took the victim's vehicle keys and purse, leaving their children in the van.

The defendant chased the victim around the kitchen island, swung at her with a closed fist, attempted to kick her, and then lunged and grabbed her.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years probation, finding that while the defendant had no criminal record and demonstrated remorse through counselling, the serious nature of intimate partner violence, the context of coercive control, and the presence of children required a conviction to reflect denunciation and deterrence principles.

The Crown applied for an order permitting a witness (the former intimate partner of the accused) to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) from outside the courtroom and in the company of a support person in a trial for breach of a recognizance.

The accused opposed the application, arguing that the witness should testify in-person behind a privacy screen.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the witness would experience psychological and physiological distress if required to testify in the presence of the accused, and that CCTV and a support person would facilitate her ability to provide full and candid testimony.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay.

The information was sworn on March 9, 2022, with trial anticipated to end on October 8, 2025—a total delay of 1,309 days (approximately 43 months).

Applying the Jordan framework, the court calculated net delay of 950 days after deducting 23 days of defence delay and 336 days for exceptional circumstances (Rogers outage and complainant injury).

The net delay of 950 days far exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances sufficient to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness.

The court found systemic issues including delayed disclosure, excessive adjournment following a service outage, a trial coordinator policy requiring rescheduling after re-estimation, and a late-filed DSF application that necessitated further adjournment.

A stay of proceedings was granted.

The offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder of his former domestic partner.

The victim was killed in her home in a brutal attack involving multiple stab wounds and near-decapitation.

The offender had a documented history of violence and threats toward the victim, breached court-ordered no-contact conditions, and committed the murder while the victim's young child was present in the home.

The court imposed a life sentence with parole ineligibility of 18 years, reduced from 20 years due to Charter violations arising from the offender's mistreatment during an Institutional Crisis Intervention Team deployment at Maplehurst Correctional Centre.

The accused was charged with three counts of sexual assault and one count each of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, alleged to have occurred between March 1, 2018 and January 31, 2020, against his spouse.

The charges involved allegations of forced vaginal intercourse, non-consensual anal intercourse on two occasions, assault with a jar of Vaseline, and assault causing a broken toe.

The trial proceeded on the basis of conflicting testimony between the complainant and the accused, with credibility being the central issue.

The court found the accused not guilty on all five counts, citing concerns regarding the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence, inconsistencies in her testimony, and the timing of her allegations to police.

The respondent was convicted after a jury trial of assault by choking, assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and criminal harassment against the victim.

He was acquitted of uttering a threat to cause death.

The Crown sought judicial determination of facts for sentencing purposes and for a s. 752.1 assessment.

The respondent challenged the credibility and reliability of the victim's evidence on several material points, including who initiated contact, the frequency of meetings, and who informed the respondent of his mother's death.

The court conducted a thorough credibility assessment of both witnesses and made findings on the disputed facts, ultimately accepting the victim's evidence as more reliable and credible despite some inconsistencies.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault against a refugee claimant with whom she was in an intimate relationship while both resided at a shelter in Toronto.

The Crown alleged two separate incidents of sexual assault in April 2022.

The accused denied the first incident and characterized the second as a consensual joke.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness, applying a trauma-informed approach to assess inconsistencies in their testimony.

The court rejected the accused's reliance on "implied consent" as a defence and found the touching to be sexual in nature.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The court ruled on whether the defences of self-defence and provocation should be put to the jury in a case where two sisters admitted to killing their elderly mother.

The accused claimed they acted in self-defence based on a lifetime of physical and verbal abuse, which escalated in the week preceding the killing.

The court found an air of reality to the self-defence defence for both accused, considering the chronic abuse, the accused's cultural background, their mental health conditions, and the modified objective test applicable to self-defence.

The court rejected the provocation defence due to insufficient specificity regarding the triggering act and the lack of evidence that the accused acted "on the sudden."

The accused, Royburn Dickson, pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the violence, the accused's position of trust as the victim's former partner and father of her children, and the victim's pregnancy at the time of the offence.

Mitigating factors included the accused's lack of a criminal record, his guilty plea, consistent financial support for his children, the victim's expressed forgiveness, and his compliance with judicial interim release conditions.

The court imposed a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and noting the importance of conditional sentences in addressing the over-incarceration of Black offenders.

The defendant, Kale Wardlaw, was convicted of 11 offences, including six counts of sexual assault and five counts of assault, against his intimate partner over a two-year relationship.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the numerous, serious, and violent nature of the offences, the abuse of trust, and the devastating victim impact, alongside mitigating factors including the defendant's lack of a related criminal record, community support, and prospects for rehabilitation.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, particularly in the context of intimate partner violence, the court imposed a global sentence of seven years imprisonment, along with a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a lifetime SOIRA order, and a no-contact order with the victim.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, forcible confinement, and uttering a forged document.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

The accused pleaded not guilty to the first three charges and guilty to uttering a forged document.

Following a three-day trial in December 2019, the court found the accused guilty of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed the assault and forcible confinement charges.

The court found the aggravating circumstances related to the uttering of a forged document were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment followed by 3 years probation on the sexual assault charge, with a suspended sentence on the uttering forged document charge.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault for stabbing his former girlfriend multiple times with a three-inch blade on November 12, 2018.

The victim, the mother of their child, sustained multiple small cuts requiring stitches.

The sentencing involved complex balancing of psychiatric factors, Gladue factors concerning the accused's Aboriginal heritage, his status as a youthful offender, and the serious nature of the violent domestic offense.

The court imposed an eighteen-month custodial sentence with three years of probation.

The accused was convicted after trial of sexual assault committed against his girlfriend on July 28, 2017.

The assault occurred when the victim was asleep after she had repeatedly refused the accused's advances throughout the evening.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 9-12 months followed by probation, while the defence sought an intermittent sentence or conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 9-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including house arrest with electronic supervision, no contact with the victim, counselling regarding alcohol abuse and sexual violence, and 150 hours of community service, followed by 2 years of probation.

A SOIRA order for 10 years, a 5-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order were also imposed.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of his girlfriend, Rosalyn Boyce, whom he killed in a violent and brutal attack while extremely intoxicated.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a sentence of life imprisonment with parole ineligibility set at ten years.

The court accepted the joint submission, considering the serious and violent nature of the offence, the accused's extensive criminal history, his chronic substance abuse issues, and the impact on the victim's family and community.

The court also imposed ancillary orders including a lifetime firearms prohibition, a DNA order, and a no-contact order with the victim's family members.

The Crown applied to have Justin Primmer declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of detention.

Primmer sought dismissal or a determinate sentence with long-term supervision.

The court found Primmer met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation under two pathways, based on a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour, failure to restrain behaviour, likelihood of future violence, and persistent aggressive behaviour showing substantial indifference to consequences.

The court rejected arguments for a lesser sentence, including religious conversion, pro-social behaviour in custody, treatability, and the "burnout theory," citing his history of manipulation, lack of genuine remorse, and chronic dishonesty.

An indeterminate sentence was imposed to protect the public.

The defendant pleaded guilty to mischief, assault, threatening bodily harm, criminal harassment, and breaching a Youth Justice Court probation order, all committed against a minor victim between September 2013 and February 2014.

The offences involved a pattern of controlling and abusive behaviour in a dating relationship, including physical assault, property damage, threats, and distribution of intimate images.

The court imposed a blended sentence consisting of time served (59 days credited), one day of imprisonment, a six-month conditional sentence, and three years of probation with strict conditions including no contact with the victim and a 20-metre exclusion zone.

A DNA order and ten-year firearms prohibition were also imposed.