WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(2.1) of the Criminal Code. These subsections and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(2.1), read as follows:
486.4 (2.1) Victim under 18 — Other offences — Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.
(2.2) Mandatory order on application — In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order; and
(c) if an order is made, as soon as feasible, inform the victim of the existence of the order and of their right to apply to revoke or vary it.
486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Court File and Parties
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
V.K.
Before: Justice R. Tomovski
Heard on: April 30, 2026
Reasons for Sentence released on: May 13, 2026
Counsel: Hubert Gonzalez................................................................................. counsel for the Crown Gurbir Singh…….…………………….………………………counsel for the accused V.K.
Reasons for Sentence
Introduction
1V.K. was convicted after trial of assaulting his son and daughter by repeatedly slapping them on the head for purported “disciplinary” reasons. He was also convicted of assaulting his wife by cutting her neck with a potato peeler, causing a small cut and bleeding. The Defence seeks a discharge, submitting that it is justified in light of several mitigating factors and collateral consequences. The Crown seeks a custodial sentence, submitting that it is warranted given the presence of several aggravating factors, including statutory ones.
2I have considered the submissions of both parties, the applicable sentencing principles, and the circumstances of the offence and the offender, including the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. Having done so, I conclude that a sentence short of jail is not appropriate in the circumstances. My reasons for that conclusion follow.
Position of the Parties
3The Crown and Defence advance markedly different sentencing positions. The Crown seeks a custodial jail sentence, whereas the Defence asks the court to impose a conditional discharge. Each party relies on factors said to support its respective position.
4The Crown seeks a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment followed by a period of probation. He submits that a custodial sentence is required to give effect to the primary sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence, particularly in light of several aggravating factors, including that two of the victims were under the age of 18, that V.K. abused a position of trust as the victims’ father, and that the remaining victim was an intimate partner.
5By contrast, the Defence seeks a conditional discharge accompanied by a period of probation, submitting that a lengthy term of probation would adequately address the applicable sentencing objectives, including denunciation and deterrence. The Defence submits that such a disposition would not be contrary to the public interest in light of several mitigating factors, including V.K.’s lack of a prior criminal record, his genuine remorse, and his strong prospects for rehabilitation. The Defence further emphasizes the significant collateral consequences a conviction would have on V.K.’s immigration and employment status.
Applicable Sentencing Principles
6Section 718 of the Criminal Code provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: denunciation; deterrence; rehabilitation; to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders; separating offenders from society; reparations for harm done to victims or the community; and acknowledging the harm done to others.
7Section 718.1 requires as the fundamental principle of sentencing that a sentence is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
8Section 718.2(d) states that “an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances”. Section 718.2(e) states that “all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders[.]”
9Section 718.01 identifies denunciation and deterrence as the primary sentencing objectives when imposing a sentence for an offence involving the abuse of a person under 18 years old.
Circumstances of the Offence
10The Crown proceeded summarily. V.K.’s trial was held over five days, on February 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, 2026. On February 17, I found him guilty of assaulting his son and daughter, and of assaulting his wife with a weapon.
11The assaults against V.K.’s son occurred on consecutive days sometime between June 2023 and June 2024. On each occasion, the son showed V.K. a poor school mark, which angered him. The first incident occurred in the family home, where the son was seated on the living room couch. The second occurred in the car while V.K. was driving his son to school. On both occasions, the son was repeatedly struck in the face. During the second incident, the son was slapped with such force that his glasses flew off and his teeth and jaw were sore for several days.
12The assault against V.K.’s daughter occurred in the family home on May 26, 2024. After returning from grocery shopping, V.K. found his daughter sitting on the couch watching videos on her cell phone instead of helping to carry in the groceries. This angered V.K., who slapped his daughter on the head approximately 10 to 15 times. She attempted to shield herself with her hands, but many of the blows landed. Apart from redness, she did not sustain any injuries.
13The assault against V.K.’s wife also occurred in the family home, on June 2, 2024. Following an argument about financial matters, V.K. grabbed his wife from behind in the kitchen and ran the sharp edge of a potato peeler across the front of her neck. The assault resulted in a minor cut and minimal bleeding. A photograph of the injury was entered into evidence at trial. Their daughter witnessed the entire incident.
Circumstances of the Offender
14V.K. is 48 years old. He was born in India, where he completed a university degree in engineering. He married his wife in 2006. They have two children, a son and daughter, who are victims in this matter and who are currently 17 and 13 years old, respectively. V.K. arrived in Canada in 2016 on a work permit and became a permanent resident in 2021. He is not a Canadian citizen.
15The family resided together until V.K.’s arrest. V.K. has been gainfully employed throughout his adult life, including with his current employer for the past 18 years in the intellectual technology sector. I am advised by the Defence that a criminal record would not automatically preclude him from continuing his employment with his current employer or, more generally, within his chosen field. However, a period of incarceration could result in V.K. being laid off due to his physical absence from the workplace.
16V.K.’s wife does not work. She and the children are financially dependent on him.
17V.K. was arrested on June 2, 2024, the same day he assaulted his wife. He was released on bail on conditions that required him to reside with his surety and to have no contact with his family. He has not seen his family since his arrest, a period of approximately two years. I am advised that V.K.’s wife does not wish to reconcile with him, nor does she or their son wish to have any contact with him. I am also advised that his daughter wishes to see her father.
18A pre-sentence report was filed. It is a very positive report and confirms many of the mitigating factors already noted, including V.K.’s genuine remorse, his acceptance of responsibility, his insight into his offending behaviour, his strong community supports, and his very good prospects for rehabilitation. The author spoke to V.K.’s friends, who described his strong work ethic and positive contributions to his community. They confirmed that he expressed remorse and accepted responsibility for his actions and spoke about his love for his children. The report further confirmed that, since his trial, V.K. has completed over 100 hours of community service and 18 hours of counselling focused on intimate partner violence and parenting issues.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
19There are several aggravating factors in this case, including statutory ones.
20Section 718.2(a)(ii) treats as aggravating an offence committed against an intimate partner. In this case, V.K. assaulted his wife.
21Section 718.2(a)(ii.1) treats as aggravating an offence committed against a victim who is under the age of 18. At the time of the assaults, V.K.’s son and daughter were 15 and 11 years old, respectively.
22Section 718.2(a)(iii) treats as aggravating an offence committed while the offender occupies a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim. The father-child relationship is one such position of trust.
23The assaults committed by V.K. against his son were deliberate and relatively serious acts of violence, involving multiple applications of force. One incident resulted in soreness to his teeth and jaw for several days. A second incident occurred in the family home. A family home is a place where a child is entitled to feel safe, protected and free from violence, especially at the hands of a parent: see R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 at para. 178. Although Friesen concerned a sexual offence committed in the home, the underlying principle, in my view, applies equally to a non-sexual offence committed in the home.
24Similarly, the assault committed by V.K. against his daughter was a deliberate and relatively serious act of violence involving repeated blows to her head, also committed in the family home, resulting in redness.
25The assault with a weapon committed by V.K. against his wife was a deliberate and very serious act of violence, also committed in the family home, resulting in a small cut and bleeding to her neck.
26Section 718.2(a)(iii.1) treats as aggravating an offence that has had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances. Two of the victims were children, aged 15 and 11 at the time, and a third victim was an intimate partner who was financially dependent on her husband. The assaults have had a profound and enduring impact on the victims, as reflected in the pre-sentence report, including the wife’s account of her ongoing fear.
27There are also several mitigating factors in this case.
28V.K. has no prior criminal record.
29He has expressed genuine remorse, accepted responsibility for his actions, and demonstrated significant insight into his offending behaviour.
30V.K. benefits from strong community support, as noted in the pre-sentence report.
31He has complied fully with the terms of his release order for a period of approximately two years, including the condition that he have no contact with his family. This compliance supports the conclusion that he has good prospects for rehabilitation and presents a low risk of reoffending.
32V.K. has been gainfully employed for nearly his entire adult life and currently works five days a week. He is the sole financial provider for his wife and children, who are financially dependent on him. Any term of incarceration, even a brief one, would have a direct financial impact on the victims.
33Relatedly, family separation – at least with respect to his daughter, who wishes to resume contact with her father – is a mitigating factor and a meaningful collateral consequence that may be relevant even where denunciation and deterrence are required: see R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830 at paras. 45-47.
34The Crown and Defence submit that the assault against V.K.’s daughter may be characterized as out of character, and I accept that submission. However, a video excerpt depicting uncharged assaultive behaviour by V.K. against his wife was entered on consent at the sentencing. I take that evidence into account in concluding that the offence against his wife was not out of character, nor were the multiple assaults against his son. I treat this not as an aggravating factor, but as the absence of a mitigating one in relation to those offences.
Range of Sentence and Recommended Cases
35There is no sentence that is legally precluded for a summary conviction for assault or assault with a weapon.
36The Defence seeks a conditional discharge and a period of probation. A discharge may be granted where it is in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest: s. 730(1) of the Criminal Code.
37The Crown seeks a global sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment followed by a 24-month period of probation. Specifically, the Crown proposes consecutive sentences of 6 months’ imprisonment for the assault with a weapon and 3 months’ imprisonment for each assault against the son and daughter.
38In support of its position, the Crown relies on R. v. A.A., an unreported decision of the Ontario Court of Justice dated May 8, 2024, which the Crown submits is factually similar and therefore instructive. While there are some similarities between that case and the present one, the facts in A.A. are ultimately more severe and justified the imposition of a 12-month custodial sentence in that case.
39In A.A., Mr. A. was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to forcibly confining and assaulting his 15-year-old daughter. He struck his daughter repeatedly in the face during a car ride home from school while directing derogatory comments at her. Once home, he repeatedly smashed her head against a refrigerator and struck her body with a metal broomstick for approximately 30 minutes. He also threatened to kill her while brandishing a knife. The victim sustained numerous injuries, including scratches, bruises, cuts, and stitches. Particularly egregious and an affront to her sexual dignity was the offender’s act of forcing his daughter to undress to her bra and underwear while continuing the assault.
40There are some common mitigating factors between A.A. and the present case, including that both were first-time offenders, expressed remorse, accepted responsibility, and had completed counselling. However, notwithstanding the guilty plea in A.A., the violence inflicted in that case was significantly more prolonged, severe, and egregious, resulting in multiple and serious injuries, and is therefore distinguishable.
41The Defence relied on three cases in support of its request for a conditional discharge. I summarize them below. I find each distinguishable and of limited persuasive value in the circumstances of this case.
42In R. v. Liu, an unreported decision of the Ontario Court of Justice dated December 12, 2019, Mr. Liu pled guilty to assaulting his wife by grabbing her neck during an argument and to assaulting his daughter by striking her with a spoon as a form of discipline for doing her homework incorrectly. A conditional discharge was imposed. Notably, the discharge was supported by both a guilty plea and a joint submission – features that are absent here.
43In R. v. Marr, 2023 ABKB 648, Ms. Marr was convicted after trial of assaulting a friend’s grandchildren while assisting with their care. The assaults occurred in the context of discipline for not doing chores or homework correctly and involved striking the children with hands and small objects. The court granted Ms. Marr a conditional discharge based on mitigating factors that are not present in this case, including the absence of injuries and the presence of Gladue factors, which reduced Ms. Marr’s moral blameworthiness.
44In R. v. Agra, 2018 NSPC 34, Mr. Agra was convicted after trial of assaulting his wife by threatening to cut her face with a knife during an argument. The court was unable to determine whether a scratch on the victim’s face was caused by the knife or Mr. Agra’s fingernail. In brief reasons, the court imposed a conditional discharge, relying on several mitigating factors including that Mr. Agra was a first-time offender, his expression of remorse, completion of anger management counselling, reconciliation with his wife, and the impulsive and out-of-character nature of the offence. There is no indication whether the discharge was the subject of a joint submission. The decision is not binding, and other courts may well have declined to impose a discharge in similar circumstances.
45Although not determinative, the presence of a guilty plea is a significant mitigating factor that frequently supports the imposition of a discharge and is absent in this case: see the recent decision of Justice McCracken in R. v. Khalifa, 2026 ONCJ 15 at para. 43; R. v. Ahmad, 2025 ONCJ 620; R. v. M.M., 2020 ONCJ 635; and R. v. Espina, 2020 ONSC 6342. I emphasize, however, that the absence of a guilty plea is properly treated as the absence of a mitigating factor, and not as an aggravating factor.
Application to V.K.’s Case
46As noted above, there are several mitigating factors present in this case.
47V.K. is a first-time offender. He has expressed genuine remorse, accepted full responsibility for his actions, and demonstrated insight into his offending behaviour. He is gainfully employed and benefits from strong community support. The pre-sentence report speaks positively to his character generally. These mitigating factors are most relevant to specific deterrence and rehabilitation.
48Given that V.K. is not a Canadian citizen, the Defence submits that a criminal record – as opposed to a discharge – may negatively affect his immigration status. Although no formal opinion from an immigration lawyer was tendered, I accept that a criminal record may present immigration-related challenges. I therefore consider this to be a relevant collateral consequence.
49The Defence also submits that V.K.’s employment may be adversely affected. I was advised by the Defence that a criminal record would not automatically preclude employment in V.K.’s field. However, incarceration could place his current employment at risk due to his physical absence from the workplace. This, too, is a relevant factor.
50Family separation is another relevant factor. Any period of incarceration, even a brief one, would result in continued separation between V.K. and, at least, his daughter. His family also relies on him financially.
51Balanced against these considerations are several significant aggravating factors.
52The offending conduct involved multiple incidents and multiple victims. Two of the victims were children under the age of 18, and the assaults constituted a serious breach of trust. The assaults occurred in the family home and resulted in injuries to the son. One assault was committed against an intimate partner. The assaults have had a continuing negative impact on the victims.
53Having weighed all of the relevant factors, I conclude that a discharge would be inappropriate, as it would be contrary to the public interest. A discharge would not adequately address the primary sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence. The cumulative criminal conduct in this case includes multiple incidents against multiple victims; a serious assault with a weapon committed against an intimate partner in the presence of a child, resulting in injury; assaults by a father against his children in the family home, resulting in injury to one child; and offences that have had a sustained and significant impact on the victims. There is also an absence of mitigating features that commonly support a discharge, such as a guilty plea, an absence of injury, an isolated incident, or a single victim.
54Although neither party advanced an alternative position, I will briefly address whether a conditional sentence would be appropriate in the circumstances.
55Pursuant to s. 742.1, a conditional sentence may be imposed where the sentence of imprisonment is less than two years; there is no minimum term of imprisonment; and serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code. No class of offence is excluded from consideration for a conditional sentence: see R. v. Walker, 2025 ABCA 29 at para. 16.
56In R. v. Ciobanu, 2025 ONCJ 92, Mr. Ciobanu was convicted after trial of assaulting his child, including slapping his face, on two separate occasions in the context of domestic violence involving his child and wife. He received 30 days’ jail for each assault. The court concluded that a conditional sentence would not adequately reflect Mr. Ciobanu’s degree of responsibility, the harm caused, or the values expressed in the Criminal Code regarding violence against women and children. The court further noted that jail sentences can typically be imposed even for isolated acts of abuse, and that collateral employment consequences applicable to Mr. Ciobanu did not justify reducing an otherwise fit jail sentence.
57In R. v. R.M, 2022 ONSC 6662, R.M. was convicted by a jury of assaults arising from an attempt to abduct his son, including grabbing his arms. Despite being sentenced as a first-time offender, the court concluded that a discharge would be contrary to the public interest. Jail sentences of 30 days for each assault were imposed and were upheld on appeal: R. v. R.M., 2023 ONCA 853.
58Similarly, in R. v. Ossetchkine, an unreported decision of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 18, 2019, Mr. Ossetchkine was convicted by a jury of assaulting his wife, and three children as a form of discipline in the family home, including hitting his children with his hand on their buttocks, back and thighs, in what was described as a “corrective” approach to discipline. . He was sentenced to 30 days jail for each assault. The court found that a conditional sentence would not satisfy the fundamental purposes and principles of sentencing in light of the seriousness of the offences and the absence of significant mitigating factors. The sentence appeal was dismissed: R. v. Ossetchkine, 2021 ONCA 698.
59I find a jail sentence is required to give effect to the primary sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence. It is also necessary to reflect V.K.’s high degree of responsibility, the seriousness of the assaults committed against his wife and children in the family home, and the physical, psychological, and emotional harm suffered by the victims.
60I am not persuaded that the mitigating factors in this case, together with the potential collateral consequences relating to employment or an unspecified negative impact on his immigration status, justify a reduction of an otherwise proportionate jail sentence. Given the deliberate infliction of violence against children and an intimate partner, and the presence of multiple aggravating factors – including statutory ones – neither a discharge nor a conditional sentence would adequately reflect V.K.’s responsibility or the harm caused. Put differently, discharging V.K. or permitting him to serve the sentence in the community would, respectively, be contrary to the public interest and inconsistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.
Sentence Imposed
61I impose a global sentence of 120 days jail. Each count will be attributed as follows:
(1) 120 days jail for the assault with a weapon against the wife
(2) 30 days jail for the assault against the son
(3) 30 days jail for the assault against the daughter
62All three counts are to be served concurrently.
63I decline the Crown’s request for consecutive sentences. In my view, a total jail sentence of 120 days is fit and appropriate for a first-time offender in light of the several mitigating factors and properly reflects the overall gravity of V.K.’s criminal conduct. The sentence also adequately addresses the sentencing objectives and is consistent with the fundamental principles of sentencing.
64Although V.K. is not a youthful offender, this sentence reflects the principle of restraint applicable to a first-time offender being sentenced to jail: see R. v. J.H., 1999 3710 (ON CA) at para. 22; R. v. Batisse, 2009 ONCA 114 at para. 32; R. v. Hoang, 2024 ONCA 361 at paras. 80; and R. v. K.L., 2026 ONCA 300 at paras. 54.
65Following the completion of his custodial sentence, V.K. will be subject to a probation order for a period of 18 months on the following terms:
i. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour
ii. Report in person to a probation officer within 48 hours of the completion of the custodial portion of your sentence and thereafter as required
iii. Do not contact or communicate, in any way, directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means with your wife, [name redacted], EXCEPT
a. Pursuant to a family court order made after today’s date
b. In the presence of or through legal counsel
c. Through a mutually agreed upon third party for the purposes of child access
iv. Do not contact or communicate, in any way, directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means with your son [name redacted], and daughter, [name redacted], EXCEPT
a. Pursuant to a family court order made after today’s date
b. In the presence of or through legal counsel
c. With the prior written consent of your son, [name redacted], or daughter, [name redacted], filed in advance by that person with probation. This may be revoked in any manner at any time
v. Do not attend within 50 metres of the place where you know your wife, [name redacted], to live, work, go to school, frequent or any other place you know her to be, EXCEPT
a. Pursuant to a family court order made after today’s date
b. In the presence of or through legal counsel
c. In the presence of a mutually agreed upon third party for the purpose of facilitating child access
vi. Do not attend within 50 metres of the place where you know your son, [name redacted], and your daughter [name redacted] to live, work, go to school, frequent or any other place you know them to be, EXCEPT
a. Pursuant to a family court order made after today’s date
b. In the presence of or through legal counsel
c. With the prior written consent of your son, [name redacted], or daughter, [name redacted], filed in advance by that person with probation. This may be revoked in any manner at any time
vii. To participate in any counselling as recommended to you by your probation officer
viii. To sign any releases to enable your probation officer to monitor your attendance and completion of such counselling
ix. Do not possess any weapons as defined in the Criminal Code
66I will impose a weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 110(1)(a) of the Criminal Code for a period of ten years.
67I will also impose a DNA order. Assault with a weapon and assault are, respectfully, primary and secondary designated offences pursuant to s. 487.051(1) and 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, the DNA order is mandatory in relation to the first offence and discretionary with respect to the other offences. Regarding the assault convictions, having weighed and balanced the relevant considerations, I find that making the order is in the best interests of the administration of justice. V.K. has a lesser expectation of privacy post-conviction, the intrusion and impact on his privacy and security interests is minimal, and the offending conduct involved serious acts of violence against his intimate partner and children.
68The victim fine surcharge applies. V.K. has 12 months to pay.
Released: May 13, 2026
Signed: Justice Tomovski