Intimate partner violence

Sentencing of a military veteran found guilty of three counts of assaulting his ex-wife on separate occasions in 2020 and 2022, and one count of mischief.

The court found that the accused's 20 years of Canadian Forces service, including multiple combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan as a Special Forces member, his documented traumatic brain injuries and PTSD, and the significant collateral consequences of a conviction on his military career and veteran benefits, constituted exceptional mitigating circumstances.

The court held that the accused's moral responsibility was lessened by service-related concussions and PTSD.

Despite the seriousness of intimate partner violence and the predominance of denunciation and deterrence in such cases, the court granted a conditional discharge with 18 months of probation, finding that a custodial sentence was unnecessary in these unusual circumstances.

The offender pleaded guilty to the sexual assault of a former intimate partner.

The assault occurred while the victim was drowsy from medication in her own bed.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found that the offender's guilty plea, deep remorse, lack of criminal record, and pro-social background were highly mitigating.

The court imposed a punitive conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served entirely on house arrest, followed by three years of probation.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including assault, sexual assault, forcible confinement, and firearms offences, primarily against his former intimate partner, as well as one count of assault against her child.

The trial focused heavily on the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, as the accused denied the allegations.

The court found the complainant and other Crown witnesses credible and rejected the accused's testimony.

The accused was found guilty of assault, choking, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, forcible confinement, mischief, sexual assault, possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order, and assault of the child.

The applicant husband and respondent wife separated after a 17-year marriage.

The applicant brought a family law application to resolve complex financial issues, including the equalization of properties and businesses in Canada, Bangladesh, and Australia.

The court first held that an unsigned separation agreement was unenforceable under s. 55(1) of the Family Law Act.

The court determined the beneficial ownership and valuation of various assets, including the matrimonial home, foreign properties, and business debts, ultimately finding that both parties had negative net family properties, resulting in no equalization payment.

The court imputed the applicant's income at $130,000 and ordered him to pay ongoing and retroactive child support.

Furthermore, the court found the applicant liable for the torts of battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress due to a prolonged pattern of intimate partner violence, awarding the respondent $175,000 in compensatory and aggravated damages, plus $25,000 in punitive damages.

The parties separated after a 17-year marriage.

The applicant wife sought spousal support, a right of first refusal to purchase the matrimonial home, and damages for intimate partner violence-related torts including intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault and battery.

The respondent husband sought the sale of the matrimonial home, occupation rent, and the dismissal of the spousal support and tort claims.

The court granted the divorce, ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, and awarded the wife compensatory and needs-based spousal support for 11 years.

The court dismissed the husband's claim for occupation rent.

Finding that the husband engaged in a pattern of gaslighting and physical battery, the court awarded the wife $150,000 in general and aggravated damages and $10,000 in punitive damages.

The accused was convicted by a jury of criminal harassment after sending 131 unwanted and increasingly threatening text messages to a former intimate partner over a two-week period.

The Crown sought a sentence of time served, which would have equated to penitentiary time given the accused's 22 months in pre-trial custody on an unrelated charge.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the complainant's age and the accused's attempt to control her against mitigating factors including his youth, learning disabilities, and family support.

The court imposed a suspended sentence followed by 24 months of probation.

The applicant sought a bail review to vary his release conditions, specifically a no-contact order with his wife, following charges of intimate partner violence.

The complainant provided a full recantation under oath, stating she had embellished the original allegations and wished to resume cohabitation.

The court applied the ladder principle and found that, given the recantation and the applicant's compliance with the original order, the no-contact condition was no longer necessary.

The application was granted, allowing contact subject to the complainant's written and revocable consent.

The accused, charged with importing cocaine, brought a pre-trial motion to challenge prospective jurors for cause under s. 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused intended to advance a duress defence based on being a victim of intimate partner violence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the evidentiary foundation for the proposed questions was insufficient and that the questions themselves were inappropriate as they presumed contested facts.

The court held that tailored jury instructions would be the appropriate mechanism to address potential juror bias regarding intimate partner violence once the evidentiary record was established at trial.

The offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder after stabbing his intimate partner 21 times.

The Crown sought a 16-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 13 years.

The court considered the brutal nature of the attack, the offender's prior assault on the victim, and his criminal record as aggravating factors.

However, the court also weighed the offender's early guilty plea, remorse, and cooperation with police as mitigating factors.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 14 years.

The offender was found guilty of human trafficking, procuring, and multiple violent offences including assault, forcible confinement, choking, and sexual assault against an 18-year-old victim.

The offender controlled the victim's sex work, took her earnings, and subjected her to severe physical and psychological abuse over a year.

The court considered the Tang/Miller factors for human trafficking and the offender's background.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of 11 years imprisonment, including 9 years for human trafficking and 2 years consecutive for choking, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant pleaded guilty to assault, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, and criminal harassment against his former intimate partner.

He was given a suspended sentence and 18 months of probation.

He appealed, seeking a conditional discharge and a reduction of the probation term to 12 months, which was the Crown's position at trial.

The Superior Court of Justice upheld the suspended sentence, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the proportionality principle.

However, the court reduced the probation term to 12 months, holding that the trial judge erred by imposing a longer term than the Crown requested without giving the parties notice and an opportunity to make submissions.

The offender, an Indigenous man, was convicted of sexual assault, forcible confinement, assault, and threatening his former intimate partner, an Indigenous woman.

The Crown sought a global sentence of five years, while the defence sought two years.

The court weighed the aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability and the impact of the offences, against significant mitigating factors, particularly the offender's Indigenous background (Gladue factors), onerous bail conditions, and strong potential for rehabilitation.

The court sentenced the offender to a global term of two years' imprisonment, along with ancillary orders.

The accused, charged with multiple offences including sexual assault and assault against an intimate partner, applied for release from custody after his trial had commenced but was adjourned due to a conflict of interest issue involving his defence counsel.

The accused argued that his continued detention was unjustified and sought a review under sections 520, 523, and 525 of the Criminal Code.

The court held that section 525 did not apply because the trial had commenced, and section 520 did not apply for the same reason.

However, the court assumed jurisdiction under section 523(2)(a) to consider vacating the previous detention order.

Applying the framework from St-Cloud, the court found no error of law in the initial detention order and concluded that there was no material change in circumstances.

The court held that the proposed release plan did not sufficiently mitigate the substantial likelihood that the accused would re-offend or interfere with the administration of justice, and dismissed the application for release.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder and firearms offences following the shooting death of his girlfriend and his own attempted suicide, applied for bail.

The applicant had a history of breaching bail conditions, including no-contact orders with the deceased.

Due to his severe medical condition resulting from the suicide attempt, primary and secondary ground concerns were somewhat mitigated, though the proposed sureties were deemed unsuitable.

The court denied bail primarily on the tertiary grounds, finding that the Crown's case was overwhelming, the offences were grave, and the applicant's history of non-compliance with court orders meant his release would shake public confidence in the administration of justice.

The offender pled guilty to assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and attempting to obstruct justice against his former intimate partner.

The court considered the aggravating factors of prolonged domestic violence and the offender's prior record, balanced against his guilty plea and rehabilitation efforts.

The court applied a 1.5 to 1 credit for pre-sentence custody but declined further enhancement for harsh conditions.

The court did, however, reduce the sentence on the sexual assault count to account for the collateral consequences of COVID-19 restrictions in custody.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 47 months, with 11 months remaining to be served after credit for time served, followed by 3 years of probation.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder for stabbing his female friend to death.

The Crown sought a 14-year parole ineligibility period, while the defence sought the statutory minimum of 10 years.

The court found significant aggravating factors, including intimate partner violence, breach of trust, the savage nature of the killing, and the offender's prior record for domestic violence.

However, the offender's severe mental illness at the time of the offence significantly reduced his moral blameworthiness.

Balancing these factors, the court set the period of parole ineligibility at 12 years.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, and criminal harassment against his former partner.

At trial, the appellant and the complainant gave conflicting evidence, making credibility the central issue.

The trial judge convicted the appellant but failed to make specific findings of fact, explain why he accepted the complainant's evidence despite inconsistencies, or address the appellant's credibility.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review, and ordered a new trial.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault and two counts of mischief against his former intimate partner.

The complainant, who suffered from a traumatic brain injury from a prior motor vehicle accident, testified that the accused strangled her on multiple occasions and destroyed her property, including a cell phone, keyboard, and air mattress.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable despite her cognitive challenges, noting significant corroboration from police photographs of the damaged property.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The offender, a 19-year-old first-time offender, pled guilty to aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and breaching bail after a violent, unprovoked attack on his intimate partner.

The court sentenced him to 12 months in custody for the aggravated assault, focusing on denunciation and deterrence while acknowledging his rehabilitative prospects.

The court granted 1.5 days credit for pre-sentence custody, plus enhanced credit for strict house arrest bail and harsh pre-sentence detention conditions, including frequent lockdowns and isolation from family.

After applying 375 days of total credit, the offender was sentenced to 1 day in jail followed by 24 months of probation.

Following a trial conviction for sexual assault and assault against an intimate partner, the court determined a fit sentence considering the offender’s extensive criminal record for violent offences and repeated breaches of court orders.

The sexual assault involved forced sexual intercourse with the complainant and was followed by a further physical assault.

The court emphasized general deterrence, specific deterrence, and protection of the public given the offender’s persistent violent conduct and poor response to prior sentences.

Credit for presentence custody was limited to one-for-one due to the offender’s record suggesting low likelihood of early parole.

A global sentence of four and a half years was imposed, reduced by credit for time served.