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.

Three self-represented informants filed peace bond applications alleging fear of intimate partner violence (IPV) without specifying whether they sought a standard peace bond under section 810 of the Criminal Code or the newly legislated IPV-specific peace bond under section 810.03.

The court addressed procedural and jurisdictional questions regarding how such nonspecific applications should be processed.

The court determined that informants, not the court, must decide which type of recognizance they are seeking and that the choice cannot be made unilaterally by court staff or judicial officers.

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 defendant was convicted of assaulting his intimate partner following a domestic dispute.

The assault occurred in the family home after the defendant took the victim's vehicle keys and purse, leaving their children in the van.

The defendant chased the victim around the kitchen island, swung at her with a closed fist, attempted to kick her, and then lunged and grabbed her.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years probation, finding that while the defendant had no criminal record and demonstrated remorse through counselling, the serious nature of intimate partner violence, the context of coercive control, and the presence of children required a conviction to reflect denunciation and deterrence principles.

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 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 offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder of his former domestic partner.

The victim was killed in her home in a brutal attack involving multiple stab wounds and near-decapitation.

The offender had a documented history of violence and threats toward the victim, breached court-ordered no-contact conditions, and committed the murder while the victim's young child was present in the home.

The court imposed a life sentence with parole ineligibility of 18 years, reduced from 20 years due to Charter violations arising from the offender's mistreatment during an Institutional Crisis Intervention Team deployment at Maplehurst Correctional Centre.

The accused was charged with three counts of sexual assault and one count each of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, alleged to have occurred between March 1, 2018 and January 31, 2020, against his spouse.

The charges involved allegations of forced vaginal intercourse, non-consensual anal intercourse on two occasions, assault with a jar of Vaseline, and assault causing a broken toe.

The trial proceeded on the basis of conflicting testimony between the complainant and the accused, with credibility being the central issue.

The court found the accused not guilty on all five counts, citing concerns regarding the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence, inconsistencies in her testimony, and the timing of her allegations to police.

The respondent was convicted after a jury trial of assault by choking, assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and criminal harassment against the victim.

He was acquitted of uttering a threat to cause death.

The Crown sought judicial determination of facts for sentencing purposes and for a s. 752.1 assessment.

The respondent challenged the credibility and reliability of the victim's evidence on several material points, including who initiated contact, the frequency of meetings, and who informed the respondent of his mother's death.

The court conducted a thorough credibility assessment of both witnesses and made findings on the disputed facts, ultimately accepting the victim's evidence as more reliable and credible despite some inconsistencies.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault against a refugee claimant with whom she was in an intimate relationship while both resided at a shelter in Toronto.

The Crown alleged two separate incidents of sexual assault in April 2022.

The accused denied the first incident and characterized the second as a consensual joke.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness, applying a trauma-informed approach to assess inconsistencies in their testimony.

The court rejected the accused's reliance on "implied consent" as a defence and found the touching to be sexual in nature.

The accused was convicted 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.

Brendan Bananish pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, failure to comply with recognizance, and failure to comply with probation.

The Crown sought a Long-Term Offender (LTO) designation and an eight-year penitentiary sentence.

The defence opposed the LTO designation and sought a shorter sentence.

The court designated Bananish an LTO, imposed a global penitentiary sentence of seven years and three months (with 63 months credit for pre-sentence custody), and ordered an eight-year Long-Term Supervision Order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The court considered Bananish's extensive criminal record, history of intimate partner violence, psychiatric diagnoses (antisocial personality disorder, schizophrenia, severe substance use disorder), and repeated breaches of court orders, while also acknowledging his Indigenous background and related systemic factors.

The defendant was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault, two counts of assault, and uttering a death threat.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including intimate partner violence, the severe impact on the victim, and the defendant's extensive criminal record.

Mitigating factors included a difficult upbringing and credit for previous convictions.

The court applied the principles of sentencing under the Criminal Code, notably addressing and abandoning the "Smith range" for sexual assault sentences in favour of a higher range as per R. v. A.J.K. The defendant was sentenced to 4.5 years imprisonment for sexual assault, with concurrent sentences for the other charges, and various ancillary orders were imposed.

The accused, Royburn Dickson, pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the violence, the accused's position of trust as the victim's former partner and father of her children, and the victim's pregnancy at the time of the offence.

Mitigating factors included the accused's lack of a criminal record, his guilty plea, consistent financial support for his children, the victim's expressed forgiveness, and his compliance with judicial interim release conditions.

The court imposed a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and noting the importance of conditional sentences in addressing the over-incarceration of Black offenders.

The defendant, Kale Wardlaw, was convicted of 11 offences, including six counts of sexual assault and five counts of assault, against his intimate partner over a two-year relationship.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the numerous, serious, and violent nature of the offences, the abuse of trust, and the devastating victim impact, alongside mitigating factors including the defendant's lack of a related criminal record, community support, and prospects for rehabilitation.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, particularly in the context of intimate partner violence, the court imposed a global sentence of seven years imprisonment, along with a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a lifetime SOIRA order, and a no-contact order with the victim.

The applicant father sought to prevent the temporary relocation of the 22-month-old child to Italy with the respondent mother, and for temporary sole custody and an equal parenting schedule.

The respondent mother sought temporary sole custody and permission to relocate with the child to Italy for a new job opportunity.

The court denied the mother's request to relocate, finding it not in the child's best interests on an interim basis due to the potential disruption to the child's relationship with the father and the lack of compelling financial benefit.

The court ordered a progressive parenting schedule for the father, including overnights, and joint decision-making pending trial.

The defendant, B.W.S., was sentenced for nine offences, including sexual assault, assault, threats, intimidation, and breach of probation, arising from three separate incidents involving an intimate partner and another individual.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the nature of the offences, the impact on the victim, and the defendant's criminal history and non-compliance with probation, balanced against mitigating factors like his youth, background, and expressed desire for rehabilitation.

The Crown sought 42 months imprisonment, while the defendant sought "time served" (13.9 months).

The court imposed a total sentence of 26 months, reduced by 13.9 months pre-sentence credit, resulting in a further 12 months and three days of incarceration, followed by two years and four months of probation, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a lifetime SOIRA order.

Taha Shaikh pleaded guilty to multiple charges including assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, assault, and failure to comply with a recognizance.

The court considered aggravating factors such as intimate partner violence, the victim's vulnerability, and the commission of offences while on a peace bond and house arrest.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, genuine remorse, family support, employment prospects, and sparing the victim from testifying at trial.

The court also addressed the "Coke Rule" regarding subsequent convictions and the calculation of pre-sentence custody credit (Duncan credit) for harsh jail conditions.

A global sentence of two years was deemed appropriate, but due to pre-sentence custody credit, the final sentence was one day in custody followed by three years probation with specific conditions.

The Crown applied to have Justin Primmer declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of detention.

Primmer sought dismissal or a determinate sentence with long-term supervision.

The court found Primmer met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation under two pathways, based on a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour, failure to restrain behaviour, likelihood of future violence, and persistent aggressive behaviour showing substantial indifference to consequences.

The court rejected arguments for a lesser sentence, including religious conversion, pro-social behaviour in custody, treatability, and the "burnout theory," citing his history of manipulation, lack of genuine remorse, and chronic dishonesty.

An indeterminate sentence was imposed to protect the public.