Intimate partner violence

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.

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 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 Crown applied for an order permitting the complainant to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) pursuant to section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code in a trial involving charges of sexual assault, assault, and uttering threats.

The accused opposed the application.

The complainant initially testified in person without accommodation but renewed her request after the first day of trial, stating that the accused's presence impeded her ability to provide full and candid testimony.

The court granted the application, finding that the nature of the allegations, the intimate partner relationship between the parties, the complainant's expressed fear and sense of intimidation, and the barrier this created to truthful testimony all favoured the granting of the order.

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 accused, R.E.G., was charged with assault and sexual assault against the complainant, K.R. The judge-alone trial focused on the complainant's testimony, as she was the sole witness.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's evidence, including a clear motive to fabricate the complaint due to animus over perceived infidelity and relationship expectations.

Material inconsistencies in her testimony, deliberate vagueness, and lack of candour regarding post-offence contact with the accused further undermined her credibility.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on both counts.

The Crown applied to introduce evidence of other sexual activity and discreditable conduct by the accused in a sexual assault trial.

The court ruled on the admissibility of this evidence, applying the balancing test of probative value versus prejudicial effect.

The court permitted general contextual questions about the relationship and evidence of the accused's controlling behavior regarding the complainant's clothing.

However, it excluded evidence of other "unusual" sexual activity, pressured sexual activity, general use of sex toys, general alcohol consumption, and the accused's mental illness, finding their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value or that they engaged in prohibited "twin myths" or propensity reasoning.

This case involved a trial concerning corollary issues following a divorce, including equalization of net family property, spousal support, and damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The Applicant sought equalization and spousal support, while the Respondent sought a restraining order, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, unequal distribution of net family property, and damages for abuse.

The court dismissed the Applicant's claims, finding his evidence unreliable and his financial contributions negligible.

The court granted the Respondent's claims, ordering the Applicant to pay $75,000 in damages for abusive tortious conduct, granting exclusive possession of the matrimonial home to the Respondent, and ordering the return of personal property.

The accused, M. T-S., was found guilty by a jury of one count of sexual assault against his former intimate partner, C.U. The assault involved penetrative sexual intercourse without consent, occurring in the presence of their young daughter.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the abuse of an intimate partner, the significant impact on the victim, the presence of a child during the offence, and the offender's criminal record.

Mitigating factors were limited to the offender's physical disability (amputee) and the time spent on bail.

The Crown sought a four-year imprisonment sentence, while the Defence proposed 30 months.

The court applied sentencing principles, including proportionality, individualization, denunciation, and deterrence, and considered the 3-5 year starting point range for penetrative sexual assaults.

The court also addressed the relevance of potential immigration consequences, concluding they did not warrant a reduced sentence given the egregious nature of the offence.

M. T-S. was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, along with ancillary orders for DNA, sex offender registration, no-contact, and a weapons prohibition.

Malachi Brown was found guilty by a jury of assault with a weapon and using an imitation firearm while committing an assault with a weapon.

The court addressed the Kienapple rule, determining it did not prevent multiple convictions for these offences due to Parliament's intent to displace it for s. 85 of the Criminal Code.

Considering aggravating factors (use of imitation firearm, victim's age, breach of trust) and mitigating factors (first offender, youth, family support, anti-Black racism social context), the court sentenced Brown to a total of eighteen months imprisonment, to be served as a conditional sentence in the community, followed by two years of probation.

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

The accused, Bernard LaCombe, was found guilty of one count of sexual assault involving four non-consensual sexual acts with an intimate partner.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the intimate partner relationship and breach of trust, and mitigating factors such as the accused's health issues and the out-of-character nature of the offences.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of three and a half to four and a half years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court sentenced the accused to three years in a penitentiary, along with a five-year firearms prohibition and a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

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 defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm following an incident with his intimate partner.

The complainant alleged the defendant slapped her multiple times and punched her in the eye, causing facial injuries.

The defendant testified that the complainant's injuries resulted from her accidental fall as she ran from the apartment.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to multiple inconsistencies, contradictions, and misrepresentations regarding her alcohol consumption, the apartment ransacking, and other material facts.

Despite the complainant's injuries, the judge found the defendant's account plausible and consistent, and acquitted him based on reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found guilty of eight offences including sexual assault, assault, assault with a weapon, threatening death, and criminal harassment, all relating to the same complainant in a domestic context.

The defendant absconded from the jurisdiction after trial but before sentencing.

The court proceeded to sentence in absentia under section 475(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code, finding sufficient information about the defendant's personal circumstances from trial testimony to impose a fit sentence.

The court imposed a global sentence of 39 months (three years and three months) with emphasis on denunciation and deterrence, finding that rehabilitation could not play a role given the defendant's flight from justice.

The defendant was charged with assault and threatening to cause bodily harm to his former intimate partner.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction and sought to introduce evidence of prior discreditable conduct involving similar incidents.

The court found the prior conduct evidence admissible to provide narrative context and demonstrate the nature of the relationship, though limited weight was given to it.

The court found the complainant credible and reliable, and determined that the defendant committed an unlawful assault by forcefully grabbing and restraining the complainant against her will, and that he threatened to cause her bodily harm through statements made immediately following the assault.

The defendant was found guilty on counts 2 and 3.

The defendant was charged with 14 counts arising from a two-month period of criminal conduct directed at his former intimate partner and her three children, including attempted murder, uttering death threats, criminal harassment, and breach of probation.

The defendant pleaded guilty to nine counts and was tried on the remaining five.

He was acquitted of three counts of attempted murder but convicted of attempted possession of a prohibited firearm.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application under section 753 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the defendant met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation based on a pattern of repetitive criminal harassment involving intimate partners spanning approximately 25 years across two countries.

The court imposed a four-year sentence for criminal harassment followed by a maximum ten-year long-term supervision order, finding that this lesser measure would adequately protect the public, rather than imposing an indeterminate sentence.

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 pleaded guilty to three counts of assault and one count of mischief, all involving the same intimate partner victim over a 15-month period.

The Crown sought four months imprisonment followed by three years probation, while defence counsel sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of four months to be served in the community followed by three years probation, with strict conditions including home confinement for the first two months, a curfew thereafter, no-contact provisions, and mandatory participation in anger management and domestic violence counselling programs.

The court also imposed a firearms prohibition for five years and authorized a DNA order.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of assault against the same victim.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with two years probation, while defence counsel sought a conditional discharge with six months or less probation.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with two years probation, considering the accused's acquired brain injury, his youth, lack of prior criminal record, and compliance with bail conditions.

The court also imposed a firearms prohibition order and authorized a DNA order.

The sentencing emphasized the importance of medication compliance in managing the accused's condition.

The accused was convicted after a summary trial of three counts of assault, one count of forcible confinement, one count of threatening bodily harm, and one count of failing to comply with probation.

All offences occurred on May 4, 2012, and involved a series of altercations between the accused and his wife.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record documenting predisposition for violence towards intimate partners, with four prior domestic violence convictions since 2004.

The court imposed an 18-month jail sentence, the maximum available, along with three years of probation with strict conditions including no contact with the victim, mandatory counselling for substance abuse, anger management, and domestic violence, and a strong recommendation for residential treatment.