ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
LONNIE MCINTYRE
Before Justice A. Neil Singh
Guilty Plea: December 19, 2025
Sentencing Submissions: February 19, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on March 27, 2026
Gursharn Gill counsel for the Crown
Norman Panzica counsel for the accused Lonnie McIntyre
Introduction
1Mr. McIntyre appears before me for sentencing today on a count of aggravated assault. This is an instance of intimate partner violence.
2This matter originally commenced as a trial before me, but Mr. McIntyre changed his plea at the start of a trial continuation date. The victim, Tavia Wiggan was still amid cross-examination.
3The Crown seeks a penitentiary sentence of 5-6 years. The defence seeks a conditional sentence order.
Facts
4The accused and victim were in an intimate partner relationship. They were living together since August 2021 at an apartment in Mississauga.
5On January 15, 2023, at approximately 10:30 a.m., Ms. Wiggan contacted police reporting an assault. She stated that she awoke that morning to find the accused angry with her for contacting his workplace. When she attempted to leave the residence, he pushed her onto the couch, struck her repeatedly with his fists, and applied pressure to her neck, causing her to gasp for air while struggling to break free. During the assault, she told him that he should “just kill her and take her other eye,” referencing an earlier attack. Police observed bruising and swelling to her face and cuts to her mouth.
6In her statement to the police, Ms. Wiggan disclosed prior unreported incidents of violence.
7In March 2022, during an argument that escalated, Ms. Wiggan hit Mr. McIntyre once with a plastic spatula. In response, Mr. McIntyre seized the spatula and began to beat her with it. He knocked her to the floor. During the assault, he struck Wiggan in her eye causing catastrophic injury. Mr. McIntyre took Ms. Wiggan to the hospital but convinced her to lie about the cause of the injury. She later required surgery to her damaged eye. Ultimately, she has permanent blindness in the eye that was injured by Mr. McIntyre during the assault.
8In August 2022, McIntyre and Wiggan were at their residence. Ms. Wiggan took Mr. McIntyre’s phone while he was in the shower. The accused emerged, pushed her down, and hit her in the stomach and back. At the time, she was approximately three to four months pregnant. The next day she experienced bleeding and passed tissue. She did not seek medical attention. Weeks later, it was discovered that she had suffered a miscarriage because of the attack. Mr. McIntyre was not aware that she was pregnant.
Victim Impact
9Ms. Wiggan’s victim impact statement describes a lifelong and devastating transformation caused by McIntyre’s coercive control and physical violence. The ongoing psychological trauma is apparent.
10She explains that long before the assault that left her permanently blind in one eye, McIntyre had eroded her autonomy through manipulation, emotional blackmail, and boundary‑breaking behaviour that dismantled her identity and self‑worth. By the time the violence escalated, she was living in a state of fear, self‑blame, and powerlessness.
11The permanent blindness fundamentally alters every aspect of her daily life: she struggles with depth perception, balance, independence, and basic tasks such as cooking, washing her hair, moving through crowded spaces, or being outside in certain conditions.
12Every moment of her day is marked by a physical limitation directly tied to the assault, serving as a constant reminder of the brutality she endured.
13Her work and studies were significantly disrupted. She felt unable to continue living in her home, its sense of safety having been destroyed. She moved to protect herself.
14Psychologically, the impact is equally profound. Ms. Wiggan now lives in a constant state of hypervigilance, panic, and overwhelming anxiety. She is terrified of encountering McIntyre in public and scans streets, cars, and parking lots for signs of him.
15Ordinary errands feel unsafe, her world has “grown smaller,” and she startles easily, even amongst loved ones. Her nervous system now interprets sudden movement or loud noise as danger. Sounds resembling violence can trigger flashbacks and intense distress. These symptoms have fractured her relationships. She has shrunk her social circle. It has undermined her ability to trust, connect, or feel at ease even with family. She mourns not only the physical loss of her sight but also the loss of who she once was: a confident, autonomous, and unafraid person.
16The violence has created long‑term financial instability. Medical needs, recovery limitations, and reduced ability to work have left her repeatedly on the brink of homelessness. She has been navigating these hardships alone.
17She describes feeling overwhelmed daily. She struggles to sleep, function, and rebuild relationships.
18Across every dimension of her existence, be it physical, emotional, psychological, relational, or financial, McIntyre’s actions have inflicted permanent and deeply life‑altering harm.
19Despite the trauma and setbacks, she is committed and determined to rebuild her life. She emphasizes that healing does not erase what was taken from her, but rather, it is a testament to her survival and resilience.
Mr. McIntyre
20Mr. McIntyre is 31 years old. He has no criminal record. He is a Canadian citizen, having immigrated from Grenada as a young adult. He has built a stable life centred around long-term employment, commitment, and ongoing efforts at self-improvement.
21He endured a severely abusive childhood in Grenada. He reports physical violence, deprivation, and exposure to domestic abuse at the hands of his stepfather.
22His early years in Canada included a period of being unhoused following conflict with his father. Eventually, however, he established himself in the construction industry where he has worked for a decade and currently holds a leadership position as the lead foreman.
23Mr. McIntyre is described by multiple collateral sources as hardworking, reliable, and well-respected.
24Mr. McIntyre is married, with a two-year old child and another on the way. His relationship with his wife is characterized by mutual support, open communication, and established conflict-management strategies.
25He has completed the Partner Assault Response (PAR) program, continues to participate voluntarily in counselling, and remains active in church and community volunteer work. Throughout the PSR process, he expressed remorse, accountability, and a desire to continue addressing the impact of his childhood trauma while improving as a husband, father, and community member
26The defence submitted several letters in support of Mr. McIntyre. They portray him as a devoted family man, a consistently reliable worker, and an individual who has made sincere efforts toward rehabilitation. His wife, Janeen McIntyre, describes him as a caring, responsible partner who supports his family financially and emotionally, demonstrates patience and integrity, and has shown deep remorse and meaningful change since the incident. She emphasizes his active involvement in counselling, his commitment to their growing family, and his dependable, selfless behaviour in daily life.
27Workplace letters attest to Mr. McIntyre’s strong work ethic, leadership, dependability, and integrity developed over almost a decade of employment. The letters highlight his promotion to foreman, his positive influence on coworkers, and his trustworthiness in handling significant responsibilities.
28Additional letters speak to his long‑standing volunteer work at a community food bank, where he is regarded as enthusiastic, reliable, and compassionate, as well as his meaningful role in his church community, where he is seen as respectful, service‑oriented, and of good moral character.
29Two counsellors who have worked with Mr. McIntyre describe him as punctual, engaged, remorseful, and committed to change, noting his willingness to discuss difficult past experiences and to apply strategies for accountability and emotional regulation. They further emphasize his dedication to family life and his efforts to overcome the impacts of childhood trauma.
30Mr. McIntyre also authored a personal letter documenting experiences of racial discrimination in the construction industry, describing how these incidents have affected his sense of safety, dignity, and workplace well‑being.
31Mr. McIntyre addressed the Court in his allocution. He expressed deep remorse and apologized directly to Ms. Wiggan. He acknowledged that nothing he could do or say could undo the harm he caused. He stated that he has lived with regret every day since the events and asked for her forgiveness. He emphasized that although their relationship was toxic, he truly cared for her and recognizes the pain he inflicted. He reiterated his sorrow and acknowledged the impact she described in her Victim Impact Statement. He assured her that she does not need to fear him, stating that he will always take steps to ensure she feels safe and that she can continue her life without ever having to worry about encountering harm from him again.
Positions of the Parties
32The Crown asserts that a significant penitentiary sentence is required. They submit that a sentence in the range of 5–6 years custody is necessary to properly denounce and deter Mr. McIntyre’s conduct. The Crown emphasizes that intimate partner violence demands strong condemnation due to its prevalence, the breach of trust involved, and its devastating consequences.
33The Crown stresses the gravity of the aggravated assault, the series of violent incidents, and the life‑altering injuries inflicted, including the permanent blindness in the victim’s right eye, the profound psychological trauma, and the long‑term financial and emotional harm she continues to endure.
34While acknowledging mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, remorse, and lack of criminal record, the Crown argues that these are outweighed by the seriousness, persistence, and impact of the violence. The Crown maintains that denunciation and deterrence are paramount in cases of intimate partner violence and submits that a substantial custodial sentence is necessary to reflect the severity of the harm Mr. McIntyre caused and protect broader societal interests.
35The defence argues for a markedly lower sentence. They suggest that a conditional sentence of two years less a day. They rely on Mr. McIntyre’s strong rehabilitative prospects and substantial mitigating factors. Defence counsel emphasizes his lack of a criminal record, three years of strict compliance on bail, stable long‑term employment, positive community and family support, and his extensive engagement in counselling, including completing the PAR program and continuing therapy.
36The defence highlights Mr. McIntyre’s traumatic upbringing, experiences of anti‑Black racism, and the significant personal growth he has demonstrated. They note that his guilty plea waived substantial trial issues, spared the complainant further testimony, and reflects genuine remorse.
37In their submission, sentencing must remain individualized, and given his progress, stable life, and demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation, a community‑based sentence would better support ongoing reform while still holding him accountable.
Analysis and Discussion
Principles of Sentencing
38The goal of any criminal sentence is to protect society, contribute to respect for the law and help maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society.
39In sentencing offenders, the sanctions imposed by the Court must consider the following objectives:
(1) To denounce unlawful conduct
(2) To deter the offender and other persons from committing similar offences
(3) To separate offenders from society, where necessary
(4) To assist in rehabilitating offenders
(5) To provide reparations for harm done to victims or the community
(6) To promote a sense of responsibility in the offenders and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or the community.
40In cases of intimate partner violence, aggravated assaults, and offences that breach the sanctity and security of the home denunciation and deterrence must be given primary consideration. The Court must condemn this conduct and through its sentence, deter Mr. McIntyre and the community from engaging again in this conduct.
41For first time offenders, rehabilitation and reintegration must also be considered in determining the appropriate term of incarceration, but here they must take a secondary role to the primary sentencing objectives. I am mindful that my sentence must be the least restrictive sentence available that will adequately consider and apply the relevant sentencing principles.
42My sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of Mr. McIntyre.
Case Law
43In R. v. Allen-Brown, 2022 ONCJ 238, the accused viciously assaulted his girlfriend in a hallway, causing serious facial fractures and permanent disfigurement. He continued to breach no‑contact orders while in custody. The court imposed 4 years, highlighting the statutory aggravation of IPV, the offender’s significant youth record, and his lack of genuine remorse.
44In R v. Rowe, 2022 ONSC 6667, the accused assaulted his estranged wife with a weapon, inflicting a 40‑stitch facial wound that produced lasting emotional, social, and financial consequences. Despite no prior record and steady employment, he showed no remorse and absconded. The Court imposed a 4-year sentence on the aggravated assault.
45In R v. Dockery, 2018 ONCJ 797; aff’d 2020 ONCA 278, the accused brutally attacked his intimate partner in public. He slapped, dragged, and stomped her on the face, leaving her unconscious with a multiple‑fracture broken jaw requiring permanent titanium plates. Despite a guilty plea, extensive prior domestic‑violence history led to a 5‑year sentence.
46In R v. Onyeachonam, 2021 ONSC 6893, the accused beat his deaf, mute, pregnant partner unconscious, causing life‑threatening head, rib, and internal injuries requiring ICU treatment. Although he showed remorse and faced harsh custodial conditions, the gravity of the assault led to a 7‑year sentence.
47In R v. Buni, 2025 ONSC 3948, the accused repeatedly stabbed his intimate partner in her home, including near the jugular vein, causing serious lasting injuries. He had a prior aggravated‑assault conviction with breaches of court orders. The court imposed 7.5 years, reflecting the combination of a serious pattern of domestic violence, weapon use, and disregard for court‑imposed constraints.
48Across these authorities, the Crown argued that Ontario courts impose significant penitentiary terms when intimate‑partner violence causes significant lasting injuries, or forms part of a pattern of escalating assaults, with denunciation and general deterrence treated as paramount. Cases involving single incidents with non‑permanent injuries cluster around 4 years (Allen‑Brown and Rowe), while cases involving permanent injuries, multiple incidents, coercive control, or extreme brutality fall within 5–8 years (Dockery, Onyeachonam, Buni).
49Because McIntyre blinded the victim permanently, continued to assault her on multiple occasions including during pregnancy, and left her with profound psychological, functional, and financial consequences, the Crown maintained that he falls well above the 4‑year baseline and properly within a 5–6-year penitentiary range.
50In R v. Rochetta, 2016 ONCA 577 the accused was a youthful first offenders involved in a spontaneous altercation at a party that left the complainant virtually blind in one eye after a single punch. Although the aggravated assault conviction was upheld, the Court of Appeal reduced the sentence from 21 months to 9 months, emphasizing restraint for young first offenders, genuine remorse, strong community ties, and the aberrational nature of the event. The defence cites Rochetta to demonstrate that permanent eye injury does not necessarily dictate a penitentiary sentence, particularly when the offender has positive prospects and the conduct is out of character.
51In R v. Bonnington, 2013 ONSC 6332, a 49‑year‑old man, during a boating dispute, delivered a single forceful blow causing the complainant’s permanent loss of vision in one eye. The Court imposed 9 months’ of incarceration plus probation. The judge emphasized the brief and impulsive nature of the encounter, absence of weapons, some provocation, genuine remorse, and the fact that although the record existed, most convictions were remote in time. The defence uses Bonnington to show that even where permanent blindness results, sub‑penitentiary sentences can be imposed where mitigating factors soften moral culpability.
52In R v. Bowen, 2024 ONSC 6189, the accused was a black offender. His life experiences included growing up in poverty, exposure to gun violence, negative police interactions, school exclusion, gang‑dominated neighbourhoods, and intergenerational trauma. These were recognized by the Court as the direct effects of systemic anti‑Black racism that shaped both his risks and his coping behaviours. The judge held that this social context mitigated his moral blameworthiness and elevated rehabilitation as a key sentencing objective even for very serious firearms and drug offences. The defence relies on this outcome to argue that lived anti‑Black racism can meaningfully reduce custodial exposure even for grave offences.
53The defence argues that these authorities demonstrate that permanent injury alone does not fix a sentence in the high penitentiary range, and that courts routinely impose time‑served, short custodial, or sub‑two‑year sentences where powerful mitigation exists. In Bowen, the court accepted that systemic anti‑Black racism can significantly reduce moral blameworthiness and justify prioritizing rehabilitation over deterrence, even for dangerous offences. In Rochetta and Bonnington, courts imposed non‑penitentiary jail sentences despite catastrophic, life‑altering injuries.
54Drawing on this line of reasoning, the defence submits that Mr. McIntyre, who has no criminal record, accepted responsibility, demonstrated genuine remorse, engaged in counselling, supported his family, and faced his own traumatic upbringing should similarly receive a sentence emphasizing restraint, rehabilitation, and community‑based accountability, not a penitentiary term.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
55There are many aggravating factors that I have considered.
(1) Intimate Partner Violence – This is an instance of intimate partner violence. Intimate partner violence is uniquely devastating. It turned the very person Ms. Wiggan should have felt safest with into a source of fear, injury, and profound betrayal. This was a grave breach of trust that magnified the harm caused to Ms. Wiggan.
(2) Permanent-Life Altering Injury & Bodily Harm – The assault permanently blinded Ms. Wiggan in one eye, leaving her with irreversible damage that affects her balance, depth perception, daily functioning, and appearance every moment of her life. On another occasion, violence was inflicted on Wiggan while she was pregnant. Although McIntyre was not aware of the pregnancy, he still inflicted significant bodily harm upon her. She started bleeding and passing tissue. She ultimately lost the baby, deepening her physical suffering and inflicting profound emotional trauma.
(3) Severe and Ongoing Psychological Harm – The violence has left her living in a constant state of fear, hypervigilance, panic, and emotional exhaustion, shrinking her world and depriving her of any enduring sense of safety.
(4) Pattern of Repeated Intimate Partner Violence – The conduct formed a part of a sustained pattern of coercion and brutality over many months, compounding the victim’s trauma and demonstrating a persistent disregard for her autonomy, dignity, and wellbeing.
(5) Violence Occurring in the Sanctity of the Home – The attacks occurred in the sanctuary of Ms. Wiggan’s own home, destroying her sense of refuge and permanently destabilizing her ability to feel safe in the place where she should have been, and felt, most protected.
(6) Continued Assault after Disabling Injury – Even as she cried out that something was wrong with her eye, McIntyre continued to strike Wiggan, magnifying her physical harm and intensifying her terror in a moment when she was already gravely injured.
(7) Extreme Violence in the Final Incident – McIntyre’s conduct, squeezing Wiggan’s neck and punching her repeatedly inflicted acute terror and reinforced the dangerous nature of his escalating abuse.
(8) Severe Financial and Social Impact – As a direct result of the violence, Wiggan experienced repeated risk of homelessness, loss of employment, medical hardship, and social isolation, leaving her to rebuild her life from a place of profound instability.
(9) Longstanding Coercive Control and Emotional Degradation – Before and during the physical abuse, McIntyre eroded Wiggan’s autonomy, confidence, and identity through manipulation and emotional control, causing deeply rooted psychological harm that compounded the effect of the violence.
56There are numerous mitigating factors as well.
(1) Guilty plea – McIntyre plead guilty. It occurred during the cross-examination of Ms. Wiggan. While she was not saved the trauma of having to relive these events in Court, she was saved from further cross-examination. The plea is a sign of Mr. McIntyre’s remorse. I find it to be a meaningful plea.
(2) No prior criminal record – McIntyre has no prior involvement in the criminal justice system. He appears to have otherwise been leading a prosocial and law-abiding life.
(3) Genuine Remorse and Acceptance of Responsibility – McIntyre has consistently expressed remorse, shame, and accountability for his actions. He has acknowledged the harm he has caused and demonstrated insight into the gravity of his actions. He has apologized to Ms. Wiggan. I accept his apology, expression of remorse, and acceptance of responsibility as genuine.
(4) Strong and Sustained Rehabilitation Efforts – McIntyre’s completion of the PAR program, continued counselling, improved conflict management skills, and proactive pursuit of personal change all show meaningful rehabilitation and reduced future risk.
(5) Stable Employment and Strong Work History – Mr. McIntyre has shown almost a decade‑long record of steady employment as a construction foreman, supported by positive letters from supervisor. This shows reliability, pro‑social engagement, and stability.
(6) Positive Community Involvement – McIntyre’s five years of volunteering at the Vision of Hope Food Bank and active participation in his church community demonstrate a commitment to service and integration into pro‑social community networks.
(7) Supportive and Structured Family Environment – His stable marriage, supportive spouse, active parenting role, and strong extended family supports provide protective, pro‑social influences that facilitate rehabilitation.
(8) Successful Compliance with Bail for Over Three Years – McIntyre’s impeccable compliance with strict bail conditions for three years shows that he can follow court orders, manage risk, and live peacefully in the community.
(9) Significant Personal Trauma Background – His childhood exposure to severe physical abuse, domestic violence, and periods of homelessness provides important social context that mitigates moral blameworthiness and underscores the need for trauma‑informed rehabilitation.
(10) Family and community support – Mr. McIntyre has positive connections with his community. He has the support and love from his parents and siblings. He has meaningful pro-social connections in the community that provide support to him. He participates in his community in a pro-social manner.
(11) Evidence of Workplace Racism and Social Context Factors – His experiences of racism and discriminatory treatment in construction settings contribute to the broader social context of his background. That being said, there has been no established connection to the workplace racism he has been subjected to and his offending behaviour.
(12) Prosocial Goals and Future Orientation – McIntyre has stated an intention to heal, be a better husband and father, and continue counselling supports the conclusion that he is motivated to reform and avoid future violence.
Collateral Consequences
57Mr. McIntyre is the primary financial support for his spouse and child. They are soon expecting another child. Any jail sentence I impose on Mr. McIntyre will have a devastating impact on his family. They will be forced to suffer the consequences of his actions. This is a relevant consideration.
58I am mindful however, that I cannot let any one factor, including collateral consequences, overwhelm the analysis. I must still impose a fit sentence that properly considers and applies the relevant sentencing principles.
59I recognize and instruct myself that if, after considering all the factors, I determine a period of incarceration is the appropriate sentence, I must impose it.
Decision
60The primary sentencing considerations in these circumstances must be denunciation and deterrence. I recognize that Mr. McIntyre is a first offender and his rehabilitation must be given proper consideration as well.
61The cases submitted by the defence are distinguishable. I find that they do not assist in the analysis I must conduct. Mr. McIntyre’s criminality involves intimate partner violence. The offences occurred within the sanctity of the home. There numerous occasions upon which Mr. McIntyre chose to brutalize his partner, Ms. Wiggan. It was not a single incident like the defence cases. He caused her permanent blindness in one eye. On that occasion, he used a weapon against her. On another occasion, he caused her bodily harm leading to her loss of pregnancy. He exerted extended coercive control over Ms. Wiggan for an extended period, including having her lie to hospital staff about the source of her injury. This was not a spontaneous conflict like in the cases submitted. There is also profound and continued psychological devastation and chronic terror that Ms. Wiggan struggles with.
62Further, I find that while the racism Mr. McIntyre has been subject to in his workplace is terrible, abhorrent, and a relevant consideration on sentence. It does not operate to reduce his moral blameworthiness as envisioned by R v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680.
63The Court has been clear. The law requires a meaningful link between the systemic or overt racism an offender has experienced and the conduct for which they are being sentenced. Without such a connection, racism cannot properly mitigate moral culpability. Racism may reduce moral blameworthiness where it helps explain the offender’s life circumstances, decision‑making, or pathways into criminality, or may otherwise inform the proportional blending of sentencing objectives. Absent this nexus, any reduction would amount to an impermissible discount based solely on the offender’s race, something rejected by the courts: see R v. Morris, supra at para 97.
64There has been no such connection established. There has however been a connection established between Mr. McIntyre’s traumatic upbringing and his offending behaviour. He was the witness to his mother’s intimate partner violence and abused himself all at the hands of his stepfather, the man who was in a position to lead by example for Mr. McIntyre how a spouse should be treated by their partner. This serves to reduce his moral culpability, albeit modestly. Mr. McIntyre’s moral culpability remains very high, as does the gravity of his offending conduct.
65The conduct here was gratuitous. His conduct was heinous in the truest sense of the word. It was sustained, deliberate and carried out against his partner. His repeated brutality demands an exemplary sentence that denounces and deters this conduct in the strongest way possible. At the same time, I recognize that this is a first offender. I must exercise restraint. I also recognize that the mitigating factors as discussed above collectively establish that Mr. McIntyre has excellent rehabilitative prospects. This too must be given proper consideration.
66In these circumstances, when I consider all the sentencing objectives and principles, I find that a sentence less than two years would fail to give appropriate weight to denunciation and deterrence. They must remain paramount. In that regard, such a sentence would be woefully inadequate. It would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
67There is a strong appetite in adopting the range as submitted by the Crown to be appropriate. The one distinguishing factor present here are Mr. McIntyre’s excellent rehabilitative prospects. The Crown’s authorities do not involve an offender with rehabilitative prospects approaching those of Mr. McIntyre. At best, they recognize modest potential for change in circumstances far less favourable than his, and in several cases the courts expressly found rehabilitation to be limited or remote. I have found Mr. McIntyre to have excellent rehabilitative prospects.
68When I consider all that I must, giving paramountcy to denunciation and deterrence, while also considering McIntyre’s rehabilitative prospects, and applying restraint, I find that a sentence of 4 ½ years (54 months) incarceration is appropriate. This is the most restrained sentence that adequately addresses and weighs the sentencing principles in this manner.
69A sentence of more than two years is appropriate and will be imposed. A conditional sentence is therefore not available (see s.742.1 of the Criminal Code).
SENTENCE
70Mr. McIntyre will be sentenced to a penitentiary sentence of 4 ½ years in custody. Pursuant to s.743.21 of the Criminal Code during your incarceration you will be prohibited from communicating either directly or indirectly, by any physical electronic, or other means with Tavia Wiggan.
Ancillary Orders
DNA
71Aggravated Assault is a primary designated offence. The Order is mandatory.
72I order that you provide samples of bodily substances reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis to be used in accordance with the DNA Identification Act.
Weapons Prohibition
73A mandatory weapons prohibition pursuant to s.109 of the Criminal Code applies to this offence. It will commence upon your release from custody.
74You are prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, firearm part, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance for a period of 20 years. You are further prohibited from possessing any prohibited or restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life.
Victim Fine Surcharge
75Mr. McIntyre is about to serve a significant jail sentence. I find that to order he pay the victim fine surcharge in the circumstances of this case would be an undue hardship and I will waive his obligation to do so.
CONCLUSION
76Mr. McIntyre, what you did to Ms. Wiggan was abhorrent, and this Court must denounce it in the strongest possible terms. The violence you inflicted, and the lasting harm it has caused, demand a sentence that reflects society’s absolute rejection of such conduct.
77That being said, I want you to hear this as well: you are not defined solely by your worst moment. You have shown remorse, you have taken steps toward change, and you have people who still believe in the man you can be. If you choose to put in the hard work, you can emerge from this sentence stronger, wiser, and capable of building a life that honours the family who depends on you and the better self you have begun to show. The path forward is yours to take and I sincerely hope you commit to one with a positive trajectory.
78Ms. Wiggan, I want to acknowledge your extraordinary strength and courage. Your courage in coming forward, in sharing the harm you’ve endured, and efforts made to try to rebuild your life are evident. I want you to know that your voice has been heard, your fear and distress understood, and your safety and dignity considered paramount.
79What you have endured would break many, yet you have continued to speak your truth with dignity, clarity, and resolve. Your perseverance is remarkable. I wish you nothing but healing, safety, and peace as you move forward, and I hope that the support you deserve surrounds you as you continue rebuilding your life. I want to acknowledge the incredible resilience you have shown in the face of these profound harms. I wish you all the best in your ongoing healing journey.
80My thanks to counsel.
Released: March 27, 2026
Signed: Justice A. Neil Singh