Intimate partner violence

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and uttering threats against his wife and children.

The Crown led evidence of prior discreditable conduct to provide context for the abusive relationship.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the sexual assaults in their apartment to be credible and reliable, despite some inconsistencies regarding historical events.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The offender, a drug dealer, was convicted of assault and assault with a weapon against two female drug addicts, one of whom was his intimate partner.

The Crown sought a two-year sentence, while the defence sought a sentence of time served and probation.

The court denied pre-trial custody credit for time the offender spent serving an unrelated federal sentence.

However, the court granted 247 days of credit for the exceptionally stringent bail conditions (house arrest) the offender endured.

The offender was sentenced to 17 months' incarceration, reduced by the 247-day credit to 270 days to serve, followed by three years of probation.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder in the death of his common-law partner, applied to vacate his pre-trial detention order.

The victim had a history of severe injuries and reported prior domestic abuse by the accused, who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

The court found the proposed release plan inadequate to address the secondary ground of protecting the public, noting the lack of a detailed treatment plan for the accused's mental illness.

The court also found detention necessary under the tertiary ground to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, given the strong Crown case, the gravity of the offence, and the vulnerability of the victim.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault against his former intimate partner.

The assault involved a sustained beating that left the victim with severe facial bruising and swelling.

The Crown sought a 3-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or 90 days intermittent.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for domestic violence, finding the attack was unprovoked and sustained.

After accounting for mitigating factors, including youth, lack of related record, and credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, the court imposed a sentence of 2.5 years in custody.

The accused pled guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing his intimate partner multiple times in the neck and face.

Both the accused and the victim were survivors of the Rwandan genocide.

A psychiatric assessment concluded the accused suffered from severe PTSD and was likely in a dissociative state during the attack, triggered by discussions regarding HIV status.

The court found a causal link between the accused's mental illness and the offence, significantly reducing his moral culpability.

The accused was sentenced to one year of incarceration, with a recommendation for a treatment centre, followed by two years of probation.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including assault, pointing a firearm, and mischief, arising from a seventeen-year relationship with the complainant.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the major incidents, including two instances of pointing a handgun and an assault with rocks, to be credible and reliable, supported by corroborating evidence.

However, the court had a reasonable doubt regarding the reliability of her testimony on lesser charges due to conflation of events over the lengthy period of abuse.

The accused was found guilty of assault, pointing a firearm, assault with a weapon, and mischief, but acquitted of the remaining charges.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault against his intimate partner, who was pregnant, deaf, mute, and unconscious at the time of the attack.

The victim suffered life-threatening injuries.

The court considered the offender's substance abuse, remorse, and the harsh conditions of his pre-trial custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a gross sentence of 7 years, reduced to 2 years, 6 months, and 11 days after applying credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was found guilty of two counts of mischief for damaging the complainant's property during their relationship.

The court considered the aggravating factor of intimate partner violence, the significant impact on the complainant, and the accused's lack of insight into his alcohol addiction.

The court sentenced the accused to 30 days of imprisonment, followed by 12 months of probation with conditions to attend anger management and alcohol counselling, along with a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a no-contact order.

The offender was found guilty of assault, uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, and sexual assault causing bodily harm against his wife.

The Crown sought a sentence of 4 years and 4 months, while the defence sought a two-year conditional sentence.

The court considered the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and the mitigating factors of the offender's lack of a criminal record, employment history, and the collateral immigration consequences.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of 3 years imprisonment.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown sought to admit various ante mortem statements made by the deceased victim to friends and family, as well as text messages, under the principled and state of mind exceptions to the hearsay rule.

The statements included allegations of prior discreditable conduct by the accused.

The court admitted several statements and texts that demonstrated the victim's state of mind, fear, and the accused's animus, finding they met the threshold reliability test and were highly probative of motive and planning.

Some statements were excluded as being repetitive, lacking specificity, or more prejudicial than probative.

The accused was charged with the first-degree murder of his former domestic partner.

He admitted to intentionally killing her and sought a conviction for second-degree murder, arguing the killing was impulsive.

The Crown argued the murder was planned and deliberate, and committed during a forcible confinement.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the accused forcibly confined the victim by throwing her into the trunk of his car before strangling and shooting her.

The court also found that the accused's actions, including bringing a sawed-off shotgun, removing his license plate, and driving to a remote location, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was planned and deliberate.

The accused was found guilty of first-degree murder.

In an uncontested family law trial, the applicant wife sought retroactive child support, retroactive and ongoing spousal support, and an equalization payment.

The parties were married for 22 years and had four children.

The respondent husband failed to provide financial disclosure, ignored previous court orders, and did not pay support despite significant post-separation increases in his income.

The court ordered the husband to pay $45,707.33 in retroactive child support, $71,322.02 in retroactive spousal support, and an equalization payment of $268,160.

The court further ordered that these amounts be satisfied by a direct rollover from the husband's Bell Canada pension into a separate pension plan for the wife.

The accused was charged with 15 counts of violent offences, including assault, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and uttering threats, against his former intimate partner.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the accused, who provided contradictory accounts.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence, finding it inconsistent and contradicted by text messages and photographic evidence.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence, finding that the accused exerted financial control and committed numerous acts of violence, including grinding the complainant's legs into broken glass.

The accused was found guilty on all remaining counts.

The accused was charged with multiple offences against his former partner, including assault, sexual assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, mischief, and dangerous driving, as well as assault against their infant daughter.

The court applied the W.(D.) test to assess credibility, finding the complainant's evidence credible and rejecting the accused's denials.

The accused was found guilty of assault, sexual assault, uttering threats, and mischief, but acquitted of sexual assault causing bodily harm, assault against the child, and dangerous driving due to reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for sexual assault, assault, and mischief arising from incidents involving his wife.

He argued the sexual assault conviction was unreasonable and that the trial judge failed to conduct a proper W.(D.) analysis of the evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeal, finding sufficient evidence to support the sexual assault conviction and that the trial judge properly assessed credibility under the W.(D.) framework.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 73-day intermittent sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the accused, who pled guilty to multiple domestic violence offences including criminal harassment, forcible confinement, and assault with a weapon against his former girlfriend.

The accused had a lengthy history of violence against intimate partners and multiple mental health diagnoses.

The court found that the accused met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation, noting a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour showing a failure to restrain his behaviour and a substantial degree of indifference to the consequences.

The court concluded that the risk could not be adequately managed in the community and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The Crown applied to have the respondent declared a Dangerous Offender following his convictions for criminal harassment, mischief, and breach of a Long-Term Supervision Order.

The respondent had a lengthy history of stalking and harassing former intimate partners.

The court found that the criminal harassment convictions constituted serious personal injury offences, as they caused severe psychological damage to the victim.

The court declared the respondent a Dangerous Offender, imposing a determinate global sentence of 6 years (reduced to 2.5 years after pre-trial custody credit) and a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, threatening death, unlawful confinement, and mischief over $5,000 following a prolonged attack on his former intimate partner in her home.

The court accepted a joint submission, sentencing the accused to two years in the penitentiary in addition to three years and 64 days of pre-sentence custody credit, followed by three years of probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including sexual assault, physical assault, and break and enter, committed against his intimate partner over several years.

The court accepted a joint submission for a global sentence of seven years' imprisonment.

After applying credit for pre-sentence custody, the accused was sentenced to 33 months in the penitentiary, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, a lifetime SOIRA order, a weapons prohibition, and a non-communication order.

The Crown applied to have the respondent designated a dangerous offender following his convictions for serious personal injury offences against an intimate partner.

The respondent had a history of horrific violence against intimate partners, including a prior conviction for attempted murder where he bound, gagged, and locked a former partner in the trunk of her car.

A forensic psychiatrist assessed the respondent as having an anti-social personality disorder and being at a high risk for violent re-offence against intimate partners.

The court found that the respondent's actions constituted a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour showing a failure to restrain himself and a substantial degree of indifference to the consequences.

The court concluded there was no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public, designated the respondent a dangerous offender, and imposed an indeterminate sentence.