ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
ALAIN LUNDI
Before Justice T. Lipson
Released: December 8, 2025
T. Bobrovitz counsel for the Crown
J. Danto-Clancy counsel for Alain Lundi
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Introduction
1On July 25, 2025, I found Mr. Lundi guilty of assault (5 counts), assault by choking (3 counts), Utter threats (3 counts), mischief – interfere with enjoyment of property (3 counts) and forcible confinement (1 count). He appears for sentencing today. The Crown had proceeded by indictment.
2The Crown seeks a sentence of two years less a day plus 3 years of probation and ancillary orders, including a s. 109 weapons prohibition for 10 years, a DNA order and a s. 743.21 non communication order for the victim Sabrina Oliveira and members of her immediate family. The defence submits that a non-custodial sentence or, in the alternative, a conditional sentence with probation would be fit and appropriate sentences in all of the circumstances.
Circumstances of the Offences
3My reasons for judgment delivered on July 25, 2025 (2025 ONCJ 713), provide a detailed account of the circumstances of the offences. By way of overview, the following can be said:
4On July 15 and 16, 2023, Mr. Lundi engaged in a sustained and escalating pattern of violence and intimidation against Ms. Oliveira. At a house party, Mr. Lundi slapped Ms. Oliveira on both thighs during separate confrontations on the porch. Later, in a vehicle of one of their friends named Pascale Brisson, Mr. Lundi straddled Ms. Oliveira and choked her with both hands, demanding she apologize to his friends. Ms. Oliveira complied out of fear. Mr. Lundi subsequently led Ms. Oliveira into Firefly Park, where he dragged her into a secluded area beneath a tree and bush. There, he physically assaulted her by kicking and slapping her repeatedly while she lay on the ground. He then strangled her while she was on her knees, causing her to feel dizzy and nauseous. Ms. Oliveira feared for her life. These events were witnessed and recorded by Kayley McFarlane, whose video footage captured the sounds of slapping and Ms. Oliveira’s pleas for help. Photographs taken later showed extensive bruising consistent with her account.
5During an Uber ride to downtown Ottawa, Mr. Lundi continued his assaultive behaviour, punching Ms. Oliveira and threatening in French to kill her multiple times. At the Byward Market parking garage, Mr. Lundi directed Ms. Oliveira to urinate in the elevator, then choked her inside the elevator and again four times in the lobby. Surveillance footage showed Mr. Lundi backing Ms. Oliveira against the wall, applying pressure to her throat, and forcibly kissing her. He then led her to the top floor, placed her on a railing, and threatened to kill her. Ms. Oliveira resisted and managed to escape. The video evidence corroborated her account and depicted her visible distress. At the JTM bar, Mr. Lundi stomped on Ms. Oliveira’s foot, causing visible injury, and took her phone without her consent, intercepting a call from her mother. At Ms. Oliveira’s residence on Grammond Circle, Mr. Lundi banged and kicked the garage door, causing visible damage. His conduct disrupted the peaceful enjoyment of the property and instilled fear in the household.
Circumstances of the Offender
6Mr. Lundi is a 33-year-old man with no prior criminal record. He was raised in a supportive family environment, is well-educated, and gainfully employed. He holds a bachelor’s degree in international business and has worked in both the financial and non-profit sectors. He is currently employed as a sales representative. Mr. Lundi has two jobs. He resides with his parents and maintains strong ties to his church and community. Despite these positive attributes, the pre-sentence report noted his minimization of the offences and lack of remorse. He continued to deny responsibility and blamed the victim, which to the PSR author raised concerns about Mr. Lundi’s insight and accountability. He has begun therapy and registered for anger management, but, in the opinion of the PSR author, Mr. Lundi’s denial of wrongdoing undermines the rehabilitative potential.
7There were numerous character letters from family, friends and associates which were filed as exhibits and considered by the court.
8Mr. Lundi has completed a 9-session anger management letter.
9It should also be noted that prior to sentencing, Mr. Lundi addressed the court. He appeared to reverse the position he took testifying at trial. He apologized for his behaviour and said he now took full responsibility for his criminal conduct. Mr. Lundi said he felt sincere remorse and regret for his actions. He said that he was committed to making amends. Mr. Lundi said there was no excuse for his actions, and that he does not minimize the seriousness of his conduct. He said that he “is not defined” by his mistakes. Given Mr. Lundi’s denials of almost all of the offences at trial as well as his statements concerning the offence and the victim to the PSR author, I am naturally skeptical about his new professed apology and remorse. However, I do have some degree of optimism that he is sincere.
Victim Impact Evidence
10Sabrina Oliveira described lasting physical and psychological trauma, including PTSD and fear for her children’s safety. Her victim impact statement is poignant and deserves significant weight in the determination of a fit sentence. I will quote excerpts of her victim impact statement:
“But make no mistake: the scars I carry-physical, emotional, and psychological- are permanent. Two years have passed, yet it still feels like yesterday. I was humiliated, beaten, strangled, and threatened with death. My body bore the evidence, but my children bore the weight of my silence in those first days. Just three days later, I forced myself to hide the bruises and attend my daughter’s surgery. I concealed the violence, not by choice, but because that is what survivors do. We survive, even when survival feels impossible…
I am grateful to be here, still navigating through it all. But gratitude does not erase the damage. I had to rebuild myself, piece by piece- reconstructing resilience, dignity, and self-respect from the ruins of what was left behind. I had to show my children that violence is never acceptable, that silence is not safety, and that justice must always be pursued…
I was nearly erased. I was reduced to fear and silence-but I did not disappear. What was meant to destroy me instead revealed my strength…
What happened to me was not only an assault on my body. It was an assault on trust, on love, and on the very foundation of what it means to be human…
Those events instilled fear not only in me, but in my children. Fear that no family should have to carry. I was forced to leave my home-the place that should have been our sanctuary-because it no longer felt safe…
The psychological toll has been profound. I continue to live with PTSD. The strangulation injuries worsened a pre-existing neck condition, leaving me with lasting pain…
The impact extends to my children. My daughter became afraid to attend the gym. My son was terrified that if I stepped outside, harm would come to me. Even now, when I am not at home, my children call in fear-because the trauma left us all hypervigilant, constantly bracing for the possibility of danger in places that should feel safe.”
11Ms. Oliveira’s daughter Malia recounted nightmares and emotional distress, while her young son developed anxiety and fear of abduction.
12Bertilde Santos, the victim’s mother, expressed guilt and helplessness, and described the emotional and financial toll of the incident. Mr. Lundi had entered her residence without her permission. She pleaded with him to leave because he was “terrifying the children.”
13Stephanie Oliveira, the victim’s sister, detailed the disruption to her family life and career, and the ongoing fear and financial burden.
14All statements reflect a profound loss of safety and a plea for protection. The victims described sleepless nights, therapy needs, relocation, and fear of encountering Mr. Lundi again.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
Aggravating Factors
15It is statutorily aggravating that these assaults occurred within an intimate partner relationship. The accused’s assaultive and threatening conduct constituted a grave breach of trust.
16The offences involved multiple incidents of physical violence, including assault by choking, which is considered particularly serious due to the risk of death. The assaultive behaviour was prolonged, intentional and multifaceted. The assaults occurred in several locations. Mr. Lundi was aware that Ms. Oliveira had a pre-existing neck condition but nevertheless choked her in Firefly Park and the Byward Market parkade.
17The victim, Sabrina Oliveira, was subjected to prolonged abuse over an extended period and across multiple locations, indicating a pattern of controlling and violent behaviour. She suffered significant bruising on the lower half of her body as a result of the assaults. Mr. Lundi also grabbed her by the neck on four occasions in the parkade. He sat her on a railing on the top floor of the parkade causing Ms. Oliveira to fear for her life. Mr. Lundi tried to prevent her from calling her mother to get away from him. He caused damage to the victim’s mother’s garage door. He was trying to get into the house to get to Ms. Oliveira. The victim endured profound emotional and physical trauma, including a persistent fear for her life and safety. Ms. Oliveira’s children had to witness the accused’s explosive anger and dangerous conduct at their home on Grammond Circle. Mr. Lundi’s conduct caused significant emotional harm to not only Ms. Oliveira but also her children and her mother, Bertilde.
18Mr. Lundi minimized the seriousness of these offences and deflected responsibility during the Pre-Sentence Report interview, showing limited insight into the impact of his actions. Mr. Lundi placed blame on the victim and suggested she was responsible for the altercation, further demonstrating a lack of accountability. Mr. Lundi is entitled to maintain the position he took at trial. It is important to note that the defendant’s apparent lack of remorse is not an aggravating factor but, instead, deprives him of a potential mitigating factor
Mitigating Factors
19Mr. Lundi has no prior criminal record and has not previously served a term of community supervision. He largely abided by terms of his release order for over two years, including reporting to the police on a weekly basis. However, he did breach his bail by celebrating a birthday in the Byward Market not in the presence of his surety. He has spent a total of 6 days of pre-sentence custody.
20Mr. Lundi is currently involved in a stable relationship with another partner.
21He maintains strong familial and community ties and resides with supportive parents. He is gainfully employed full-time and has a stable employment history. He has been attending individual therapy and recently enrolled in an anger management course, indicating a willingness to engage in rehabilitation. Collateral sources, including his father and current partner, describe him positively and report no concerns regarding violence.
22Mr. Lundi engaged in anger management counselling.
Relevant Sentencing Principles
23The fundamental purpose of sentencing, as set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code, is to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.
24The sentence must reflect the principles of denunciation and deterrence, particularly in cases involving intimate partner violence and repeated assaults.
25Mr. Lundi is a first offender, and I must consider the principle of restraint contained in sections 718.2(d) and (e) of the Criminal Code. In R. v. Romano, 2021 ONCA 211, the Court of Appeal indicated that a sentencing judge is required to consider all sanctions apart from incarceration and impose imprisonment only when there is no other reasonable punishment…It follows that where imprisonment is required, the term should be as short as is reasonable given the circumstances”. See para. 64.
26Though these provisions speak of restraint, it is vital to remember that section 718.2 (e) requires a sentence to be consistent with the harm done to the victims or the community. An assault “against an intimate partner is an offence against that victim, but also an offence against the community because of the long term and significant societal harm such offences cause: see R. v. Smith 2024 CanLII 53407 (NLPC)
27Rehabilitation is an important consideration in sentencing, especially for offenders with no prior criminal record and demonstrated efforts toward personal improvement. However, in R. v. Cunningham, 2023 ONCA 36, the Court of Appeal described the effects of intimate partner violence as “heinous” and reiterated the importance of courts prioritizing general deterrence and denunciation in the sentencing process: see para 26. Offenders who commit these offences abuse of a position of trust concerning their victims, which is an additional aggravating factor: see Cunningham at para. 27; Criminal Code section 718.2(a)(iii).
28Proportionality requires that the sentence be commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
29The Court must consider the impact on the victim, including physical and emotional harm, and the need to protect the victim from further harm.
Fit and Appropriate Sentence
30The evidence at trial established that Mr. Lundi inflicted a range of very serious physical and emotional violence that took place over several hours, including acts of choking, slapping, kicking, stomping on Ms. Oliveira’s foot, death threats, and directing her movements in the parkade. His conduct was not only intended to cause her physical harm but also emotional degradation and humiliation. The emotional and psychological harm Mr. Lundi caused to Ms. Oliveira was severe. I again note that Ms. Oliveira’s mother, Bertilde, daughter Malia and son Adare were directly exposed to the accused’s abusive behaviour. They all suffered emotional harm. They were home at the time he came back and committed further offences at the residence of Bertilde Santos. I agree with the Crown’s submission that the presence of the children is a significant aggravating factor.
31The accused choked the victim in Firefly Park, four times in the parking garage and also in a parked vehicle during the party. Choking is extremely dangerous conduct, particularly in this case where Ms. Oliveria’s previous neck injury was known to Mr. Lundi. I agree with the Crown that these acts of choking were done to humiliate, dominate and control the victim.
32As Crown and defence counsel noted in their submissions, the sentencing range for intimate partner violence is broad, particularly in the instance of a first-time offender. Sentencing is always a highly individualized process. There are several cases cited by the Crown where a period of incarceration is entirely appropriate, even for a first offender.
33I have carefully considered whether a conditional sentence is appropriate in this case and have concluded that it is not. The assaultive behaviour by Mr. Lundi was prolonged and multifaceted. The impact on the victim and her family has been significant. The sentence must address not only the physical injuries caused but also the emotional and psychological trauma which has resulted. Given the accused’s breach of his bail order, I have concerns about his ability to follow a conditional sentence order. More importantly, it is my view that in this case, a conditional sentence would be inconsistent with the sentencing principles identified in ss. 718-718.2 of the Criminal Code. A conditional sentence is not appropriate in this case given the high level of violence and the need to adequately reflect the sentencing objectives in domestic assault cases of denunciation and deterrence, both specific and general.
34I am satisfied that in the circumstances of these offences and this first offender, the appropriate sentence is in the mid to high reformatory range. Mr. Lundi is to be credited for pre-sentence custody of six days enhanced to 9 days on a 1.5 to 1 basis.
35Mr. Lundi also spent a significant period on strict release conditions. He did breach his bail order on one occasion by being outside his home to celebrate his birthday without his surety present. Nevertheless, he was under strict conditions including weekly reporting to the police for over 2 years.
36Mr. Lundi is a first offender, and the sentencing principles of restraint, totality and proportionality are applicable in this case.
37The total custodial sentence will be 15 months. This will be followed by probation for three years. This sentence is to be apportioned as follows:
Counts relating to incidents at Firefly Park:
Count 2: Assault by choking 5 months
Count 14: Assault 5 months concurrent to count 2
Counts relating to incidents in the Byward Market parkade:
Count 20 Assault by choking 5 months consecutive
Count 6 Forcible confinement 5 months concurrent to count 20
Count 7 Utter Threats 5 months concurrent to counts 6 and 20
Counts Relating to Rowallen House Party porch incidents:
Count 1 Assault Suspended sentence and probation for 3 years
Count 18 Assault Suspended sentence and probation for 3 years
Counts relating to incident in Pascale Brisson’s car:
Count 19 Assault by choking 3 months consecutive
Counts relating to Uber ride:
Count 3 Assault 30 days consecutive
Count 4 Utter Death Threats 30 days concurrent to count 3
Count 5 Utter Death Threats 30 days concurrent to counts 3 and 4
Counts relating to incidents at JTM Bar:
Count 8 Assault 30 days consecutive
Count 16 - Mischief 30 days concurrent to count 8
Counts relating to incidents at Grammond Circle:
Count 13 - Mischief Suspended sentence and probation 3 years (9 days of pre-trial custody credited).
Count 17- Mischief Suspended sentence and probation 3 years
Terms of probation:
Report as required
Sign waivers and releases for probation to monitor counselling
Counselling with particular focus on intimate partner violence
No communication directly or indirectly with Sabrina Oliveira, Bertilde Santos, Malia Oliveira and Adare Oliveira
Not to be within 250 metres of any place those people are known to be
Not to possess or carry any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code
Ancillary Orders: DNA; s. 109 Weapons Prohibition Order for 10 years; section 743.21 non communication order with the same people noted above.
Released: December 8, 2025
Justice T. Lipson