Intimate partner violence

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 offender was convicted of second-degree murder for beating his wife to death with a metal mallet.

The court considered the brutal nature of the offence and the fact that the victim was his intimate partner and caregiver as significant aggravating factors.

The offender's major depressive disorder with psychotic features, his lack of prior criminal record, and his admissions to police were considered mitigating factors.

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

The accused pleaded guilty to second degree murder for stabbing his intimate partner to death.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 16 to 17 years, while the accused sought the minimum 10 years.

The court considered the brutal nature of the killing, the breach of trust, and the aggravating factor of intimate partner violence, balanced against the mitigating factors of a guilty plea, lack of prior record, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 15 years.

The accused, a 79-year-old man, sought release on a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

He was charged with attempted murder and other offences against his former common-law spouse, and subsequently breached a non-communication order while in custody.

Despite a proposed release plan involving GPS monitoring, CCTV, and sureties, and evidence that the accused may be suffering from dementia requiring assessment, the court found the plan insufficient to mitigate the risks.

The court concluded that continued detention was necessary on both the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused, an Indigenous man, was found guilty of sexually assaulting his intimate partner.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the accused sought three years.

The court considered the severe aggravating factors, including the frequency of the assaults and the victim's vulnerability, alongside the mitigating factors of the accused's limited record and mental health issues.

Applying Gladue principles, the court acknowledged the accused's impoverished upbringing and systemic background factors but found that the serious nature of the offence required a significant penitentiary term.

The accused was sentenced to four years in custody.

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 accused was charged with three counts of assault and one count of sexual assault against his intimate partner.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility and found the accused guilty of all three assault charges, rejecting his claims that the physical contact was accidental or unintentional.

On the sexual assault charge, the court found that the accused engaged in sexual activity with the complainant while she was asleep.

Applying the principle that advance consent to unconscious sex is invalid under the Criminal Code, the court found the accused guilty of sexual assault.

The offender was convicted after trial of sexual assault and assault against his intimate partner.

The sexual assault involved forced non-consensual intercourse where the offender failed to stop despite the victim's pleas.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and the violent nature of the offence against the offender's limited criminal record and personal circumstances.

The court imposed a global sentence of 24 months' incarceration, comprising 23 months for the sexual assault and 1 month consecutive for the assault, followed by 12 months of probation.

The accused pled guilty to assault causing bodily harm against his intimate partner and breach of recognizance.

The court considered the severe nature of the assault, the accused's lack of prior record, his low risk of reoffending, and the impact of stringent pre-sentence bail conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The accused was sentenced to 90 days of intermittent jail for the assault, followed by a 12-month conditional sentence for the breach, and probation.

The accused, a 74-year-old retiree, was charged with kidnapping, uttering threats, aggravated assault, and attempted murder against his former partner.

After their separation, the accused drove the complainant to a secluded wooded area against her will, threatened to run her over if she escaped, and stabbed her in the abdomen and neck.

The court applied the W.D. framework to resolve conflicting testimony, rejecting the accused's claim of self-defence.

The accused was found guilty of kidnapping, uttering threats, and aggravated assault, but acquitted of attempted murder as the Crown failed to prove a specific intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 accused was convicted of sexual assault, assault, and uttering threats against his former intimate partner.

He failed to attend his sentencing hearing and was found to have absconded, leading the court to proceed in absentia under s. 475 of the Criminal Code.

The court appointed amicus curiae to address conflicting Court of Appeal precedents regarding sentencing ranges for sexual assault (Smith for intimate partners vs. Bradley for non-partners).

The court found the lower range for intimate partners in Smith irreconcilable with the higher range in Bradley, concluding there is no principled reason to treat intimate partner sexual assault less severely.

Applying the statutory aggravating factors of intimate partner abuse and breach of trust, the court sentenced the accused to a total of 3.5 years in custody.

The offender was convicted of multiple counts of assault, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and mischief against his intimate partner and her son over a 15-month period.

The assaults caused permanent and life-altering injuries to the partner, including facial disfigurement.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended or minimal custodial sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence but also considered the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and rehabilitative potential.

The offender was sentenced to a global custodial term of two years less a day, followed by three 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 offender was convicted of assault causing bodily harm, attempted murder, and forcible confinement against his intimate partner.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay convictions for uttering threats and assault, but declined to stay the forcible confinement conviction.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for domestic violence, the court sentenced the offender to a global term of 6 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

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.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, forcible confinement, and breach of recognizance against his former intimate partner.

The parties initially presented a joint submission structured to minimize the accused's immigration consequences, proposing two consecutive sentences of six months less a day.

The accused later sought to strike his guilty pleas but failed to file the necessary motion materials after multiple adjournments.

The court denied a further adjournment and proceeded to sentencing.

Applying the Cerasuolo test, the court accepted the joint submission, finding it fell within the appropriate range given the mix of aggravating and mitigating factors, and strongly recommended that immigration officials exercise discretion against removing the accused from Canada.