Intimate partner violence

Following conviction after trial for two counts of criminal harassment and theft under $5000 against a former intimate partner, the court determined sentence.

The accused had an extensive record including numerous court-order breaches and violent offences, prior conditional sentences, and no remorse or participation at sentencing.

Applying Criminal Code sentencing principles, including ss. 718 and 718.2(a)(ii), the court treated intimate-partner context, repeated attendances at the complainant’s residence, and disregard of police caution as aggravating.

The court held that a conditional sentence order would not protect community safety and would not satisfy denunciation and deterrence.

A global seven-month custodial sentence with pre-sentence custody credit, concurrent terms, two years’ probation, a DNA order, and a lifetime weapons prohibition was imposed.

Sentencing of a 52-year-old repeat offender who pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm against his intimate partner while on probation prohibiting contact with her, and to uttering death threats against a fellow inmate while in pre-trial custody.

The prolonged and degrading attack involved dragging the victim by her hair and stomping on her head, causing injuries requiring stitches and leaving permanent scarring.

The court weighed extensive aggravating factors including intimate partner violence, breach of multiple probation orders, a 125-conviction criminal record spanning 36 years, and the severity of the assault against mitigating factors of guilty pleas, rehabilitative programming in custody, and harsh conditions of incarceration at the Toronto South Detention Centre including frequent lockdowns and triple-bunking.

Sentencing of a first offender who pleaded guilty to uttering threats, assault with a firearm, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, unlawful confinement (kidnapping), and disobeying a court order in the context of intimate partner violence.

The accused conducted a mock execution by pointing a handgun at the victim's head and pulling the trigger while their child was in the apartment, and two days after release on bail kidnapped the victim in violation of a no-contact order.

The court rejected the defence position of 6 years (time served) as insufficient to denounce the crimes, and imposed a global sentence of 7.5 years, resulting in approximately 14 months further custody plus three years probation, along with firearms prohibition orders including a lifetime ban on the kidnapping count.

Criminal trial on multiple counts of assault, assault causing bodily harm, and failing to comply with probation orders arising from three alleged incidents of intimate partner violence in 2023.

The Crown invited dismissal of charges relating to the third incident.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility and reliability, finding that her combative demeanour under cross-examination was attributable to the prolonged proceedings, the manner of cross-examination, and her personal circumstances as a young Indigenous woman, rather than reflecting on her truthfulness.

The court found the complainant's core evidence on the remaining two incidents was compelling, internally consistent, and corroborated by CCTV footage, medical records, body-worn camera evidence, and photographic documentation of injuries.

The Crown appealed acquittals on trafficking in persons and receiving a material benefit from trafficking, where the trial judge had characterized evidence of the accused's regular violence and threats of violence toward the complainant as past discreditable conduct evidence, limiting its relevance to a mere contextual backdrop.

The Supreme Court majority held that this was an error of law because such violence, covered by the indictment's time period and locations, was directly relevant to the actus reus of trafficking under s. 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code — it could establish that the accused exercised control, direction, or influence over the complainant's movements, and could satisfy the definition of exploitation in s. 279.04.

The majority further held this error might have had a material bearing on the acquittals by undermining the trial judge's credibility assessment of the complainant.

The acquittals were set aside and a new trial ordered.

Côté and Rowe JJ. dissented, finding the error did not have a material bearing on the acquittals given the trial judge's detailed credibility findings and the absence of evidence linking the violence to the complainant's provision of sexual services.

The defendant was charged with assault with a weapon and uttering threats to cause death against his spouse on November 1, 2017.

The Crown called only the complainant, who testified that the defendant obtained a knife from the kitchen drawer, pointed it at her while threatening to kill her and her family, and thrust the knife into the bedroom door as she and their son barricaded themselves inside.

The defendant testified that no such incident occurred and that he never possessed or used a knife.

The court found the complainant credible and rejected the defendant's testimony, finding him guilty on both counts based on the totality of the evidence, including photographic evidence of damage to the door, wall, and knife blade.

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 accused was convicted of multiple offences including assault, assault with a weapon, sexual assault with a weapon, uttering threats, choking, unlawful confinement, breach of recognizance, and mischief, all arising from a protracted campaign of domestic abuse against his former domestic partner and mother of his child between January 2016 and May 2017.

The accused absconded and did not attend sentencing.

The court imposed a global sentence of 2 years less 1 day custody with 3 years probation, with consecutive sentences on the most serious counts (sexual assault with a weapon and forcible confinement).

The sentence reflects the serious nature of the offences, the vulnerability of the victim, the duration and escalating pattern of abuse, and the presence of children during some incidents.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, and mischief following an incident on July 8, 2017.

The Crown alleged that the accused struck, choked, and forced his wife to have non-consensual sexual intercourse with him after they returned home from a night out.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming the sexual activity was consensual.

The trial judge applied the W.(D.) test and rejected the accused's evidence as not credible, finding it inconsistent and evasive regarding the troubled nature of their marriage.

The judge accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable, noting that her account was consistent with the relationship dynamics and corroborated by photographic evidence of injuries.

The accused was found guilty of assault and sexual assault but acquitted of mischief.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences including assault with weapon, forcible confinement, and assault causing bodily harm arising from a pattern of domestic violence against his intimate partner over seven years.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation.

The court declined to designate the accused as a dangerous offender, finding that his violent conduct was not intractable and that there was a realistic possibility of eventual control in the community through intensive treatment offered by Corrections Canada.

The court instead designated him as a long-term offender and imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment followed by a ten-year long-term supervision order with conditions including dialectical behaviour therapy, substance abuse counselling, and intimate partner violence counselling.

The accused was charged with eight offences arising from a troubled seven-year on-and-off relationship with the complainant, with whom he had two children.

The charges included assault with a weapon, threatening to cause death, break and enter, sexual assault, and mischief occurring in Hamilton (2012), Richmond Hill (January 2017), and Aurora (February 2017).

The central issue was credibility.

The court found the accused was not a credible witness, with his evidence contradicted by credible external evidence and the testimony of a corroborating witness.

The complainant and corroborating witness were found to be credible and reliable on most counts.

The accused was convicted on six counts but acquitted on the break and enter and sexual assault charges due to reasonable doubt regarding the reliability of the complainant's evidence on those specific allegations.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon against his common-law partner.

The court imposed a two-year penitentiary sentence followed by three years of probation.

The sentencing was aggravated by two prior assaults against the same victim in 1999 and 2012, both involving weapons.

The court emphasized the seriousness of domestic violence in intimate relationships and the breach of trust involved.

Conditions included a no-contact order, weapons prohibition, anger management and domestic violence counselling, and restitution of $1,234.45.

The defendant was charged with assault and sexual assault arising from incidents occurring between April 30 and May 7, 2017.

The defendant and complainant were in an on-again, off-again intimate relationship.

The defendant attended the complainant's residence unannounced and intoxicated, conducted surreptitious surveillance of the complainant, forced his way into her apartment, and engaged in a series of assaults and sexual assaults over several hours.

The complainant ultimately acquiesced to sexual intercourse after being subjected to persistent coercive conduct.

The defendant claimed the complainant consented or that he held an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The court found the defendant guilty of all charges, determining that the complainant did not consent and that the defendant's conduct created a climate of coercion that vitiated any notion of true voluntary consent.

The accused was convicted of failing to comply with a probation order, breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit mischief, assault, and forcible seizure.

The Crown sought a declaration that the accused be designated a Long-Term Offender under Part XXIV of the Criminal Code and sought an eight-year long-term supervision order.

The defence challenged the application on Charter grounds, arguing unreasonable delay in sentencing proceedings.

The court dismissed the Charter application and declared the accused a Long-Term Offender, imposing a 60-day custodial sentence on top of pre-sentence detention credit, followed by a seven-year long-term supervision order.

The court found a substantial risk of reoffending, particularly in the context of intimate partner violence, and determined that community control was possible only through a long-term supervision order.

The accused was charged with 13 offences arising from a domestic relationship with a young woman.

The Crown withdrew four charges and proceeded on five counts: common assault, two counts of assault with a weapon (knife and door), assault causing bodily harm, and unlawful confinement.

The trial involved extensive evidence of a pattern of physical and emotional abuse, isolation, drug manipulation, and threats.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and compelling, rejecting defence arguments based on myths and stereotypes about domestic violence victims.

The court convicted on all five remaining counts.

The Crown applied to adduce evidence of prior incidents of violence between the complainant and defendant in an intimate partner violence prosecution.

The defendant initially challenged whether the parties had been in an intimate relationship sufficient to invoke the principles from R. v. D.S.F. The court found that the parties shared a child and the nature of the allegations established an intimate partner relationship.

The Crown met its burden of establishing that the probative value of the prior incidents outweighed their prejudicial effect under the four-part test from R. v. B.(L.).

The evidence was admissible to establish narrative context, demonstrate ongoing animus, explain reporting delays, and assist in credibility assessment, subject to the Crown presenting it without disproportionate emphasis.

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.

The defendant was charged with assault with a weapon following an incident on February 27, 2014, in which the complainant alleged the defendant struck her with a rum bottle, causing lacerations to her left ear.

The defendant denied striking the complainant and testified that the injury resulted from an accidental fall onto broken glass during a struggle over the bottle.

The trial judge found that while the complainant's account was facially reliable, the physical evidence and forensic findings were more consistent with the defendant's version of events.

The judge concluded that reasonable doubt existed as to the defendant's guilt and acquitted him of the charge.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon (cordless telephone) against his former intimate partner.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 120 days, citing the aggravating factors of domestic violence, prior assaults on the same victim, and breach of trust.

The defence sought an intermittent sentence of 30 days or house arrest of 60 days, emphasizing the guilty plea, pre-sentence custody, volunteer work, and community support.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of four months, finding that a conditional sentence was inconsistent with sentencing principles in domestic violence cases.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount objectives.

The defendant was charged with eight offences arising from domestic violence incidents: two counts of assault with a weapon (May 9, 2011), four counts of assault (December 30, 2010; February 10, 2011; April 2011), and two counts of threatening death (April 2011).

The Crown alleged a pattern of abuse against the defendant's wife.

The defendant denied all allegations, claiming the complainant fabricated the charges to prevent him from obtaining custody of the children after learning he intended to leave the marriage.

The court found the defendant guilty of six counts (assault with a weapon on May 9, 2011; assault on December 30, 2010; assault on February 10, 2011; assault on April 2011; and threatening death on April 2011) and not guilty of one count of assault (April 2011 choking incident) and one count of threatening death (shooting threat).

The court rejected the defendant's credibility based on his delay in surrendering to police and his manipulative conduct, and accepted the complainant's detailed and corroborated testimony.