Intimate partner violence

The appellant appealed a six-year sentence for two counts of sexual assault and one count of unlawful confinement.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred by treating a risk assessment as having no value due to the appellant's alleged dishonesty and by classifying the appellant's mental health issues as "neutral" rather than mitigating.

While upholding the application of the intimate partner aggravating factor, the appellate court re-evaluated the sentence, reducing it from six years to five years concurrent.

The defendant was charged with multiple offences against the complainant, his intimate partner, including assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, assault, pointing a firearm, and uttering threats, as well as breaches of probation.

The Crown sought to admit similar fact evidence across counts, which was dismissed due to lack of similarity between incidents.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility and reliability, noting vagueness, inconsistencies, and a potential motive to fabricate due to the relationship's end and financial difficulties.

Ultimately, the court found that the Crown failed to prove any of the alleged offences beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the defendant's acquittal on all counts.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm, failing to comply with a release order, and obstructing justice, in addition to two other fail to comply counts to which he pleaded guilty.

The central issue at trial was the credibility and reliability of the complainant.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be unreliable due to significant inconsistencies, delayed disclosure linked to civil proceedings, an uncooperative demeanor regarding photographic evidence, and the implausible calm demeanor of the children immediately after the alleged assault.

Discrepancies between the complainant's account and the neighbour's testimony and audio recording further contributed to the court's doubt.

The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a sentencing decision for an accused (PC) found guilty of two counts of sexual assault against an intimate partner (HL).

The court considered aggravating factors, including the two distinct assaults, the accused being on probation for a prior offense against the same victim, and the significant victim impact.

Mitigating factors included the accused's employment, engagement with mental health support, and, crucially, diminished moral blameworthiness due to a history of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and intellectual disability.

The court applied the R. v. AJK sentencing range for penetrative sexual assault on an intimate partner (three to five years).

Despite the diminished moral blameworthiness, the court found the accused's lack of insight and defensive personality made treatment more difficult.

The final sentence was three years in the penitentiary, with ancillary orders including DNA, weapons prohibition, non-contact, and a 10-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order, reduced from the Crown's requested 20 years due to disproportionality.

The accused, Conrad Grizzle, faced six charges including threatening, assault, theft, and breach of a release order, stemming from an altercation with his ex-partner.

The court assessed witness credibility, the applicability of "lawful excuse" for the breach, and the "de minimis" and "consent fight" defenses for the assault and theft charges.

The court found the accused not guilty of theft of a car key, one count of assault (related to taking the phone), and breach of release order (due to lawful excuse to protect a child).

However, the accused was found guilty of threatening bodily harm, assault (bear hug), and theft of the cellphone, rejecting the de minimis and consent fight defenses in the context of intimate partner violence.

The defendant, Eldan Krcic, faced charges of theft, assault, and assault with a weapon arising from allegations of intimate partner violence.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant and the defendant, and photographic evidence of injuries.

The court assessed witness credibility and reliability, applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.).

While the complainant's testimony had some credibility issues and the defendant's testimony was largely untruthful, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt due to residual doubts about the complainant's testimony and the unauthenticated nature of the photographic evidence.

All remaining charges were dismissed.

Following a trial where Eric Dalton was found guilty of assault, the court delivered its sentencing decision.

The assault was perpetrated against an intimate partner in the victim's home, a relationship characterized by fear.

Despite the Crown's recommendation for a conditional discharge, the court noted the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and the offender's lack of remorse or insight into the victim's experience.

Considering the offender's challenging background, lack of criminal record, and positive personal goals, the court imposed a conditional discharge with a three-year probation period, including terms for counselling (Partner Abuse Response, Caring Dads, anger management), no contact with the victim, and community service.

The accused, S.J., pleaded guilty to four counts (6, 7, 8, 9) and proceeded to trial on four others (1, 2, 3, 4) involving the complainant, M.B., with whom he was in an intimate partner relationship.

The trial focused on allegations of sexual assault (Count 1), assault causing bodily harm (Count 2), mischief (Count 3) related to a September 2015 incident, and a later assault (Count 4) from May 2021.

Applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework, the court found M.B.'s evidence regarding the 2015 incident credible and reliable, while rejecting S.J.'s testimony as inconsistent and unbelievable.

Consequently, S.J. was found guilty of sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm for the 2015 incident.

For the 2021 allegations, M.B.'s evidence was deemed credible but unreliable due to internal inconsistencies and implausibility, leading to S.J.'s acquittal on the mischief and May 2021 assault charges.

The offender, Tiago Vieira-Paulino, pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges, including unprovoked knife attacks on strangers and intimate partner violence and child abuse against his partner and her three young children.

The Crown sought an eight-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought six months less a day, primarily to avoid immigration consequences.

The court rejected the proposed sentence as manifestly inadequate, finding it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The judge emphasized the principles of denunciation and general deterrence, particularly for intimate partner violence and child abuse, and the gravity of unprovoked stranger assaults with a weapon.

A global sentence of two years less a day in custody, followed by three years' probation, was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Crown applied under section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant, Makenna Desbiens, to testify via CCTV in a trial involving 11 charges of intimate partner violence against Anthony Grantham.

The complainant, diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and PTSD, testified that she would be fearful and intimidated if required to testify in the same courtroom as the accused, which would negatively impact her ability to give a full and candid account.

The court considered factors under section 486.2(3), including the complainant's mental health, the nature of the offences, and the relationship with the accused.

The court found that CCTV testimony would facilitate a more fulsome and honest account and would not compromise the defence's ability to assess demeanor.

The Crown's application was granted.

Michael Sawicki pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm for transmitting HSV-2 to two intimate partners without disclosure.

The offences occurred between 2016 and 2019, with one victim being a minor.

The court considered the long-term, debilitating impact on the victims and the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and breach of trust.

Despite the defence seeking a non-custodial or conditional sentence, the court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, finding that only a real jail sentence would adequately reflect the gravity of the offences and the offender's moral culpability.

Sawicki was sentenced to ten months imprisonment, followed by two years of probation.

The Crown appealed the seven-year sentence imposed on the respondent for attempted murder of his pregnant intimate partner.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to adequately apply the primary sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence, particularly in a domestic context, by misunderstanding the aggravating impact of planning and deliberation, and by misidentifying the appropriate sentencing range.

The Court emphasized that rehabilitation should not outweigh denunciation and deterrence in such serious cases and that sentencing ranges evolve with societal understanding of domestic violence.

The Court also found an error in the application of "Duncan" credits, which were treated as a direct reduction rather than a mitigating factor.

The appeal was allowed, and a sentence of 15 years imprisonment was substituted, less credit for time served.

David Hercules was found guilty of four counts of intimate partner violence, including assault, assault with a weapon, and assault causing bodily harm.

The sentencing was delayed due to administrative errors and legal uncertainty regarding conditional sentences, which was resolved by the enactment of Bill C-5.

The Crown sought a 90-day jail sentence, while the defence requested a conditional discharge or suspended sentence, or a conditional sentence.

The court denied a discharge, emphasizing the public interest in denunciation and deterrence for violent crimes.

Balancing the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and the harm caused with the offender's rehabilitative prospects, first-time offender status, and the legislative intent of Bill C-5 to address systemic over-incarceration, the court imposed a 90-day conditional sentence followed by one year of probation, a DNA order, and a weapon prohibition.

Following a trial, the defendant was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm and breaching a release order by having contact with his former girlfriend.

The assault involved two punches to the face, resulting in a fractured jaw and broken tooth, and caused significant physical, emotional, and financial harm to the complainant.

The court considered sentencing principles including denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality, as well as aggravating factors (severity of injuries, intimate partner violence, children present) and mitigating factors (first offender, refugee claimant status, employment, community support, qualified remorse).

The Crown sought 18 months imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional or intermittent sentence.

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to the extreme nature of the assault and the defendant's qualified remorse, imposing a 12-month custodial sentence for the assault and a concurrent 30-day sentence for the breach, followed by two years of probation.

The accused, Jaheim Allen-Brown, was convicted of aggravated assault after a trial, for viciously beating his girlfriend, Ms. Greentree, causing lasting disfiguring injuries.

Despite the victim's perjury, overwhelming evidence proved the assault.

Allen-Brown also breached non-communication conditions while in custody.

The Crown sought a sentence of 4-5 years incarceration, while the defence sought 12 months less time served.

The court considered Allen-Brown's youth, difficult background, extensive youth criminal record, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions (including being shot and subsequent inadequate medical care in jail).

The court applied sentencing principles including denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, parity, and restraint, and considered the impact of anti-Black racism as per R. v. Morris.

While acknowledging the offence warranted a penitentiary sentence of 4-5 years without mitigation, the court imposed a sentence of two years less one day incarceration to allow for a three-year probation period, emphasizing rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of assault and assault with a weapon against his intimate partner, stemming from incidents on November 25, 2018, and June 19, 2019.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable, corroborated by medical records and photographs, accepting her explanations for prior inconsistent statements due to the context of intimate partner violence.

The accused's self-defence claim for the November 25, 2018 incident was rejected as his use of force was disproportionate and unreasonable, particularly given the history of abuse.

The accused was found guilty of assault and assault with a weapon for the June 19, 2019 incident, and guilty of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm for the November 25, 2018 incident.

The defendant was charged with assault and uttering death threats against his wife.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the defendant, applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.).

The court found the complainant's testimony truthful and accurate, supported by circumstantial evidence, and rejected the defendant's testimony as internally inconsistent, unreliable, and untruthful.

The defendant was found guilty of both charges.

The applicant, T.M., sought release pending appeal after being convicted of sexually assaulting his intimate partner and choking her, for which he received a four-year sentence.

The application for release was based on an alleged misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge regarding the assessment of evidence and credibility.

The Crown opposed the release, arguing the appeal was frivolous and that detention was necessary in the public interest due to the applicant's extensive criminal record, including prior convictions for intimate partner violence and breaches of court orders.

The court dismissed the application, finding the appeal was frivolous as the alleged misapprehension of evidence was not material to the trial judge's reasoning.

Furthermore, the court determined that the applicant's detention was necessary for public safety and to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, given his history of violence and non-compliance with court orders.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three breaches of a Long-Term Supervision Order (LTSO), which stemmed from his contact with his intimate partner, the complainant, and violation of geographic and residency conditions.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a lengthy criminal record with multiple intimate partner violence convictions and prior breaches of court orders.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, which spared the complainant from testifying, and evidence of rehabilitation efforts from his parole officer.

The court emphasized denunciation, specific deterrence, and public protection, while also balancing rehabilitation.

A penitentiary sentence of three years was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody and collateral consequences of COVID-19.

The court also issued a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a communication prohibition with the complainant.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for violent offences against intimate partners, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

He argued the ORB erred in finding him a significant threat and in failing to grant an absolute or conditional discharge, emphasizing a four-year period of stability while on bail.

The Court of Appeal upheld the ORB's decision, finding it reasonably concluded the appellant posed a significant threat due to his psychiatric history, ongoing symptoms, medication non-compliance, and impaired insight.

The court also found that a detention order was necessary given the inadequacy of the Mental Health Act to manage his risk, and that the ORB had implicitly considered and rejected a conditional discharge.