ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
D.E.P.
Before Justice A. Neil Singh
Sentencing Submissions: May 5, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on June 5, 2026
Hirra Gilani counsel for the Crown
Elliot Song counsel for the accused D.E.P.
SINGH J.:
Introduction
1D.P. appears before me for sentencing today. He was found guilty after a trial of various assaults against his two daughters as well as his wife. As against his daughters, he was also found guilty of using a weapon during some of the assaults.
2The Crown seeks a reformatory sentence of 18-24 months incarceration. The defence submits that the appropriate sentence is a conditional sentence order (CSO).
Facts
3D.P. is the father of S.Y.P. and M.Y.P. and was living with them and their mother, K.S.M., during the relevant period. While residing together as a family, D.P. engaged in repeated acts of physical violence against both children. These assaults occurred on multiple occasions and in recurring contexts within the home environment.
4The assaults against the children formed a pattern of conduct rather than isolated incidents. D.P. struck the children on the head, face, back, and thighs during morning greeting routines, before school after their mother had left the residence, and during periods of online schooling when they struggled with homework. On some occasions, he used a wooden spoon or spatula to strike them. The assaults were acts of excessive discipline and control, carried out by a parent against young children in his care.
5In February 2022, during an incident involving an argument between the children over a doll, D.P. struck S.Y.P. multiple times to the head and face. When K.S.M. attempted to intervene to protect the children, D.P. redirected his assaultive behaviour toward her. He struck her in the chest, causing her to fall to the ground, and while she was on the ground, he kicked and struck her, including to her abdomen and head. This assault occurred in the presence of the children.
6In summary, D.P. assaulted both of his daughters on multiple occasions, sometimes using a weapon, and assaulted K.S.M. on one occasion when she attempted to protect them. The offences involved a breach of parental trust, a pattern of violence within the family home, and the exposure of the children to further intimate partner violence during the assault on their mother. These are the facts upon which sentence must be based.
Victim Impact
7Both daughters submitted victim impact statements.
8In her victim impact statement, S.Y.P. described the ongoing emotional effects of the violence she experienced at the hands of her father. She spoke about feeling afraid and unsafe in the presence of her father and explained how the abuse affected her sense of security when she depended on him for care and protection. She described persistent feelings of fear, sadness, and distress, and expressed that the incidents have continued to affect how she feels about family relationships and trust. S.Y.P. conveyed that the abuse has had a lasting impact on her emotional well‑being and childhood.
9M.Y.P.’s victim impact statement described similar emotional consequences. She spoke about fear and confusion arising from the violence she experienced and witnessed in her home, and the lasting impact this has had on her sense of safety. She described feeling anxious and upset when thinking about the incidents and explained that the abuse has continued to affect her feelings and emotional health as she grows older. M.Y.P. emphasized the harm caused by being hurt by a parent and the difficulty of living with those memories.
10K.S.M. did not submit a victim impact statement. That being said, the impact of being assaulted by her spouse in front of her children for trying to protect them has certainly had a lasting and profound impact on her far beyond any pain or injury from physical assault she was subjected to.
D.P.
11D.P. is 48‑years‑old. He is a permanent resident having immigrated from South Korea. He has no prior criminal record.
12Prior to the offences, he lived with his family and was employed in positions reflecting a largely prosocial lifestyle. He has worked as a sushi chef for a number of years. He was also the head pastor in his community church. He remains gainfully employed, full-time, as a sushi chef.
13There is no evidence of any substance abuse issues, mental‑health diagnoses, or cognitive impairment. His upbringing was described as stable and positive, and he does not identify any childhood trauma or adversity that might contextualize his offending.
14Following the separation, D.P. relinquished ownership of the matrimonial home and has had no contact with K.S.M. or his children. He no longer has a relationship with the children and is permanently separated from them. He contributes financially to his children’s education funds and has complied with all court‑ordered conditions since his arrest, with no breaches. D.P. reports significant financial debt arising from these proceedings and associated consequences, and he has lost his marriage, his former position in the church, and his standing within that community.
15D.P. now resides in Thornhill and is in a supportive relationship with a new partner, who describes him as patient and caring and reports no observations of anger or aggression.
16D.P. has taken some steps toward counselling. He has attended weekly psychotherapy sessions since March 2026 and has been described as cooperative and engaged in that process. He has indicated a willingness to participate in further treatment or programming, including partner assault response services or other recommended interventions. These steps, however, were undertaken after conviction and in the shadow of sentencing, rather than as an early or proactive acceptance of responsibility.
17D.P. is described as presenting a low risk to the broader community. Multiple collateral sources attest to him being hardworking, reliable, and well-respected.
18At the same time, D.P. has not acknowledged responsibility for the offences for which he was convicted. He exercised his right to a trial and maintained throughout that process that the allegations were fabricated. In his allocution, he continued to deny having committed the assaults, stating that the events did not happen. While he expressed feeling sorry for his children and concern for their wellbeing, he framed his remorse in terms of regret for not having been a better parent, rather than acceptance of having engaged in criminal conduct.
19Overall, D.P. presents as a first‑time offender with many conventional stabilizing factors, including employment, housing, and community supports. Those considerations must, however, be weighed against the nature of the offences, the breach of parental trust involved, the pattern of conduct found at trial, and the fact that D.P. continues to deny responsibility for his actions despite findings of guilt.
Positions of the Parties
20The Crown submits that a custodial sentence in the range of 18 to 24 months is required to meet the primary objectives of denunciation and deterrence mandated in the circumstances. The Crown stresses that the offences involved repeated physical abuse of two young children by their father over an extended period of approximately two years, sometimes involving strikes to the head and the use of a weapon, and culminating in an assault on their mother when she attempted to protect them.
21The Crown emphasizes that the abuse occurred in the family home, that D.P. was in a clear position of trust, and that he took steps to isolate the children by telling them not to disclose the abuse to their mother.
22The Crown submits that moral culpability is very high, that the long‑term psychological impact on the children cannot yet be fully known, and that D.P.’s lack of remorse and continued denial of responsibility significantly undermine his rehabilitative prospects.
23While acknowledging the absence of a prior criminal record, the Crown argues that a community‑based sentence would inadequately reflect the gravity of the offences and fail to send a clear message that violence against children by those in positions of trust will not be tolerated.
24The defence submits that a conditional sentence of two years less a day, served in the community under strict conditions and followed by a lengthy probation order, is fit and proportionate. The defence emphasizes that D.P. is a first offender with no history of violence, substance abuse, or mental‑health issues, who has lived a largely prosocial and stable life. Since his arrest, D.P. has complied with all court orders, remained gainfully employed, engaged consistently in counselling, relinquished custody and contact with his children, and continued to contribute financially to their education.
25The defence argues that a restrictive conditional sentence, including house arrest and curfew, would provide meaningful denunciation and deterrence while allowing D.P. to continue working, accessing treatment, and meeting his financial obligations, particularly towards his children.
26While recognizing that D.P. did not plead guilty and maintains his innocence, the defence submits that he has expressed sorrow for the impact on his children, has taken initial rehabilitative steps, and poses a low risk to the community, such that when restraint is applied, a community‑based sentence would be appropriate.
Analysis and Discussion
Principles of Sentencing
27The goal of any criminal sentence is to protect society, contribute to respect for the law and help maintain a just, peaceful, and safe society.
28In 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.
29In this case, there are a number of factors that require that denunciation and deterrence (both general and specific) be given paramount consideration. This case involves intimate partner violence. There is also family violence surrounding the abuse of two young children that D.P. stood in a position of trust over. The offences also occurred under circumstances where the sanctity of the victim’s homes was breached. The Court must condemn this conduct and through its sentence, deter D.P. and the community from ever engaging again in this type of conduct.
30At the same time, D.P. is a first offender. For first offenders, rehabilitation and reintegration must also be considered in determining the appropriate sentence, 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.
31My sentence must also be proportionate to the gravity of the offences and D.P.’s degree of responsibility.
Case Law
Crown submitted Jurisprudence
32In R. v. Zaman, 2025 ONSC 5786, the first-time offender accused was sentenced after trial to 8 years imprisonment for prolonged and severe physical abuse of two young children over several months. There were repeated beatings with belts and a wooden plank. There was unlawful confinement of the children in a basement on one occasion. Their lives were threatened to prevent disclosure. There were some late rehabilitative steps taken, but no genuine remorse.
33In R v. J.B., 2024 O.J. No. 5512, the accused was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment after pleading guilty to violently shaking his infant child. He caused catastrophic injuries to the child. The accused entered an early guilty plea, had no prior record, and demonstrated genuine remorse.
34In R v. Viera-Paulino., 2024 ONCJ 563, the accused with no record plead guilty to multiple incidents of violence including intimate partner violence and physical abuse of three very young children using fists and causing visible injuries. The assaults occurred over a period of a period of 5 days. Although there was a guilty plea, remorse and insight were inconsistent. Justice Jones found that a sentence of 9-12 months for the intimate partner violence and child abuse offences was appropriate.
35The Crown also submitted a sentencing chart as part of its sentencing materials that referenced various sentencing authorities where children have been abused. The chart and the cases above demonstrate that in these types of cases, custody is the predominant outcome even for first-time offenders. Guilty pleas and genuine remorse moderate sentence but rarely eliminate incarceration especially where there is a pattern of abuse, multiple incidents or victims, the use of implements, striking of the head and face, or serious psychological or physical harm. The vulnerability of the children, the extreme breach of trust, efforts to silence the children are all highly aggravating circumstances.
36These cases require primary emphasis on denunciation and deterrence. Courts must impose exemplary sentences reflecting an understanding of the profound harm caused by child abuse. Patterned abuse is considered significantly more serious than isolated incidents. Moral culpability is very high where there is a parental breach of trust. In these cases, rehabilitation and reintegration are secondary considerations.
Defence Submitted Jurisprudence
37In R v. H.A., 2025 ONCJ 605, a mother plead guilty to abusing her two young sons over almost 2 years. There were over 50 incidents captured on home surveillance. She had no criminal record, showed genuine remorse, and had significant documented mental health issues linked to her offending behaviour. She undertook extensive post-offence rehabilitative efforts. She received a 2-year less-a-day conditional sentence followed by probation.
38In R v. R.H., 2025 ONCJ 163, the accused was convicted after trial of assaulting her son repeatedly over nearly three years from the time the child was approximately 18 months old. In some instances, she used kitchen utensils to abuse the child. She had no prior criminal record and had taken some rehabilitative steps prior to sentencing. She received an 18-month conditional sentence followed by probation. Interestingly, this sentence was the result of the Court rejecting a joint submission for a suspended sentence and probation.
39In R v. J.K., 2021 ONCJ 226, the accused mother was convicted after trial. She assaulted her 8–9-year-old son over approximately 18 months. She used a belt, slapped him, squeezed his chin and unlawfully confined him. She had no prior record, was employed and had family responsibilities. She showed some qualified remorse and demonstrated rehabilitative potential. She received a 2-year less-a-day conditional sentence followed by probation.
40Across the cases relied upon by the defence, they advance a number of principles.
(1) Conditional sentences remain available for serious child abuse cases, even post-Friesen, where the statutory prerequisites are met.
(2) Denunciation and deterrence are not synonymous with jail; they can be achieved through lengthy, restrictive CSO’s with house arrest, curfews, and treatment conditions.
(3) Individualization and restraint remain essential sentencing principles. There is no automatic custodial floor for non-sexual child abuse.
(4) Patterned abuse and breach of trust, while gravely aggravating do not preclude a CSO where the offender poses a low risk to the community, and the sentence meaningfully restricts liberty.
(5) Rehabilitation may meaningfully mitigate sentences particularly where there is counselling engagement, societal stability (for example housing and employment), and no prior criminal record.
(6) A CSO can, in appropriate cases, offer greater practical denunciation than a short custodial term by imposing sustained state supervision and intrusive conditions over time.
41The defence argues that even serious, repetitive physical abuse of children by a parent does not inevitably require institutional incarceration. A highly punitive CSO may better balance denunciation, deterrence, restraint and rehabilitation where community safety is not endangered.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
42There are many aggravating factors that I have considered.
(1) Intimate Partner Violence – Intimate partner violence is an aggravating factor because it exploits the very trust and vulnerability that give a relationship its meaning. The harm is not only physical or emotional, but relational: it destroys the victim’s sense of safety in the one place where the law expects protection, not peril. Violence committed behind the shield of intimacy is a grave breach of trust, and it warrants heightened denunciation and deterrence. Intimate partner violence often occurs out of public view, leaving its victims to suffer in isolation.
(2) Abuse of children under 18 – Abuse by a parent against young children is aggravating because it shatters the foundation of trust on which a child’s safety depends. These were elementary‑aged children, wholly reliant on their father for protection, guidance, and care. When the person charged with safeguarding them becomes the source of harm, the damage extends far beyond the immediate acts; it undermines their sense of security, distorts their understanding of trust, and inflicts lasting harm at a formative stage of life. Such a profound breach of parental duty calls for heightened denunciation and accountability.
(3) Breach of Trust – The breach of trust is particularly egregious because children are entirely dependent on a parent for safety and protection. When a child’s father becomes the source of harm, it violates the most fundamental duty owed to a child and strikes at the core of their sense of security at a formative and vulnerable stage of life.
(4) Exploitation of the Children’s Dependency – The children relied on their father for basic needs—safety, emotional security, and guidance—making the misuse of that dependency particularly serious
(5) Impact on the Victims – particularly as it relates to the children, as evidenced by their Victim Impact Statements, D.P.’s offences have had a profound, serious, and persistent impact on them. How profound and long-lasting the impact these offences had on them remains to be seen, but it has nevertheless imposed significant hardship on them and will continue to do so. Even where physical harm may not be extreme, abuse at this age carries a high risk of lasting emotional, psychological, and developmental consequences.
(6) Multiple Victims – This is aggravating because each child and K.S.M. represent a separate and distinct harm. The offender’s conduct multiplied the breach of trust and compounded the damage, demonstrating a broader disregard for the safety and wellbeing of his loved ones.
(7) Patterned and Lengthy Course of Conduct – A lengthy course of conduct is aggravating because it reflects persistence and choice, not a momentary loss of composure. Repeated offending over time shows a sustained misuse of power and a failure to correct behaviour, thereby deepening the harm and the breach of trust. The conduct formed a sustained pattern of coercion and brutality over many years. The trauma was compounded, and D.P. showed a persistent disregard for his victims’ safety, dignity and well-being.
(8) Violence Occurring in the Sanctity of the Home – The attacks occurred in the sanctuary of the victims’ own home, destroying their sense of refuge and permanently destabilizing their ability to feel safe in the place where they should have been, and felt, most protected.
43There are some mitigating factors as well.
(1) No prior criminal record – D.P. has no prior involvement in the criminal justice system.
(2) Prosocial Stability – D.P. is described as a person who, outside of his offending, has engaged pro-social pursuits. His pro-social stability contribute to him being a reduced risk to the community.
(3) Bail Compliance – Importantly, D.P. has been compliant with the terms of his release. He has left K.S.M. and the children alone. That he respects and complies with Court Orders also contributes to him being a reduced risk to the community.
(4) Employment and Responsibility – D.P. is gainfully employed and working full-time. He continues to contribute financially to his daughters’ RESPs even though he has no contact with them.
(5) Engagement in Counselling and Treatment – Since he was found guilty, D.P. has attended psychotherapy sessions weekly. He has engaged in counselling structured around Parter Assault Response principles, with a focus on accountability, anger management, emotional regulation, and healthy relationship skills. His therapist reports that he has been cooperative and engaged, has begun developing insight into emotional triggers and behaviour. Continued counselling is recommended to consolidate behavioural change and reduce risk.
(6) Supportive Relationship – D.P. is currently in a new, supportive intimate partner relationship. His partner has described him as patient and caring, having never witnessed anger or aggression from him.
(7) Significant Real-World Consequences Suffered – D.P. has already suffered significant consequences as a result of his actions. He has suffered a loss of marriage, loss of position in his church, loss of standing in the community, relinquishment of the matrimonial home, significant financial debt, and separation from the children.
Collateral Consequences
44D.P. is a source of financial support for his children. He contributes consistently to his daughters’ post-secondary school funds. Any jail sentence I impose on D.P. will have a devastating impact on him and his children. His daughters will be forced to continue suffering the consequences of his actions.
45I must keep in mind however, that I cannot let any factor, including collateral consequences, overwhelm my analysis. While collateral consequences may be significant, here they are largely the direct and foreseeable result of D.P.’s offending and therefore carry limited mitigating weight. I must still impose a fit sentence that properly considers and applies the relevant sentencing principles.
46If after considering all the factors, I determine a period of incarceration is the appropriate sentence for D.P., I must impose it.
Absence of Mitigating Factors
47D.P. plead not guilty and exercised his right to a trial. This is not an aggravating factor. It was his right to do so. He also disagrees with the verdict. That is also his right. He does not have to agree with my decision finding him guilty.
48This is a relevant consideration, however, when I consider D.P.’s rehabilitative prospects. Rehabilitative prospects are at their highest when offenders acknowledge their wrongdoing and show remorse and genuine insight into their actions. It also gives me pause with respect to the effect any of the counselling D.P. has engaged in has had or will have on him.
49D.P.’s lack of remorse and insight are a relevant consideration when assessing his rehabilitative prospects. That being said, he has no criminal record, has otherwise led a pro-social life. I also accept that the counselling, while not engaged in with insight and from a remorseful perspective, certainly will leave D.P. with more tools and strategies to mitigate any future risk than he had before.
50D.P. is not without concern. For the reasons above, I stop short of finding he has excellent rehabilitative prospects. D.P.’s rehabilitative prospects remain realistic and generally strong.
DECISION
51The primary sentencing considerations in these circumstances must be denunciation and deterrence. I recognize that D.P. is a first offender and his rehabilitation must be given proper consideration as well. I must also exercise restraint.
52When I consider all of the factors as mentioned above, I find that a custodial sentence of less than two years is appropriate. Applying restraint, I find that a custodial sentence of 12 months would be the minimum required to adequately account for the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence (specific and general). Such a sentence in conjunction with a period of probation would also give fair and proper consideration to D.P.’s rehabilitation. It would also promote a sense of responsibility in D.P. and an acknowledgment of the harm he’s caused the community, but more importantly the harm he’s caused K.S.M., S.Y.P., and M.Y.P. A conditional sentence, if appropriate, would necessarily be longer.
Is a Conditional Sentence Available?
53The prerequisites for a CSO as set out in the Criminal Code are:
(1) The sentence imposed is less than two years (s.742.1)
(2) The offence is not punishable by a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment (s.742.1(b)).
(3) The offence is not attempted murder, torture, or advocating genocide (s.742.1(c)); and
(4) The offence is not a terrorism offence, or criminal organization offence, prosecuted by indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more (s.742.1(d)).
54A CSO is available for D.E.P. None of the disqualifying factors in s.742.1 are at play. The question becomes whether a CSO is appropriate.
Is a Conditional Sentence Appropriate?
55For a CSO to be appropriate, I must be satisfied that
(1) Having D.P. serve his sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community; and
(2) A CSO would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in s.718.1 and 718.2 (s.742.1(a)).
Risk to the Community
56In assessing D.P.’s risk to the community, I must consider the threat posed by him were he to serve his sentence in the community. I must consider the risk of D.P. reoffending and the gravity of the damage that could ensue in the event of reoffending.1
57D.P. does not come without concern. His crimes show a considerable lack of self-control. He lacks insight into his offending behaviour. That D.P. does not have any underlying mental health or other issues that might have contributed to his offending underscores that his crimes were the result of deliberate choice rather than impaired thought processing. D.P.’s continued denial of responsibility undermines his rehabilitative prospects.
58D.P. has, however, shown that he can comply with Court orders. He has complied with his bail for a significant period of time. Additionally, he has recently undertaken counselling that has been focused on addressing some of the underlying issues that contributed to his criminality. He has no criminal record. He has otherwise been engaged in the community in a prosocial manner.
59When I consider all these factors, I accept that D.P. is at a low risk to reoffend.
60When I consider that D.P. has been effectively managed in the community while on bail for a significant period, his lack of criminal record, and modest rehabilitative efforts, I am satisfied that his risk to public safety can be adequately addressed through the imposition of appropriate conditions in a conditional sentence.
61Public safety is not a basis upon which a CSO should be rejected.
Purpose and Principles of Sentencing
62I must consider whether a jail sentence served in the community would better address all the relevant sentencing objectives while giving primacy to denunciation and deterrence.
63In the circumstances of this case, I am not satisfied that a CSO would appropriately address the principles of denunciation and deterrence.
64In coming to this determination, I have reminded myself of the following from Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Proulx2:
(1) A CSO can provide a significant amount of denunciation. This is particularly so when onerous conditions are imposed and the duration of the CSO is extended beyond the duration of the jail sentence that would ordinarily have been imposed in the circumstances.
(2) The conditions should have a punitive aspect. House arrest should be the norm, not the exception.
(3) While incarceration may provide more deterrence than a conditional sentence, judges should be careful not to place too much weight on deterrence when choosing between a CSO and incarceration.
(4) A CSO can provide significant deterrence if sufficiently punitive conditions are imposed and the public is made aware of the severity of these sentences.
(5) While incarceration may provide for more denunciation and deterrence than a conditional sentence, a CSO is generally better suited to achieving the restorative objectives of rehabilitation, reparations, and promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender. The importance of these goals is not to be underestimated, as they are primarily responsible for lowering the rate of recidivism.
(6) When the objectives of rehabilitation, reparation, and promotion of a sense of responsibility may realistically be achieved in the case of a particular offender, a CSO will likely be the appropriate sanction, subject to the denunciation and deterrence considerations outlined above.
(7) Where a combination of both punitive and restorative objectives may be achieved, a CSO will likely be more appropriate than incarceration.
65The cases submitted by the defence make a compelling argument for a conditional sentence order in this case. The cases submitted by the Crown similarly and forcefully argue against a conditional sentence. Ultimately, I have determined that a conditional sentence here would simply not appropriately address denunciation and deterrence. It would therefore be inconsistent with the goal and principles of criminal sentencing.
66In reaching this decision, I note the following factors that cumulatively operate to render a CSO inappropriate:
(1) Multiplicity of Victims – D.P. assaulted both of his daughters on a regular basis, for an extended period of time. The violence often occurred in the presence of one another. He also assaulted his spouse on one occasion. The children were witnesses to this as well. The harm inflicted was reinforced, replicated, and cumulative within the same household.
(2) Exposure of Children to Intimate Partner Violence – In assaulting their mother in front of them, the children were put in a position where protecting one another or their mother was impossible. D.P. normalized the use of violence to resolve conflict in the home. He undermined the children’s sense of safety in all of their caregiver relationships.
(3) Use of Secrecy and Instruction not to Disclose – While K.S.M. was aware of some of the violence in the home, she was not aware of the full extent. That is because D.P. instructed his children to not tell their mother about violence that occurred outside of her presence. This situational coercion was an abuse of D.P.’s position of trust that was designed to protect himself while prolonging the abuse the children were subject to.
(4) The Great Overreaction to the Situations – The abuse was triggered by minor, everyday events (bowing, homework difficulties, a dispute over a doll). This reflects that D.P. simply resorted to physical abuse to gain compliance from is children.
(5) Absence of Contextual Mitigators – Sentences are often moderated in light of mental health conditions causally linked to the offences, intergenerational trauma, remorse, genuine insight, engagement in rehabilitative programming. Aside from counselling that has occurred over the last few months, none of the other factors are present here. D.P. had a stable upbringing, and there are no mental health issues that might assist in understanding his terrible choices. The counselling is nice to see, but it has only started, and in light of D.P.’s continued denial of responsibility, it is only moderately mitigating.
(6) Compounded Breach of Trust – D.P. committed a grave and compounded breach of trust as a parent, a protector from harm, and as a co-parent.
67Collectively, D.P.’s conduct was broad, entrenched, and corrosive to the entire family unit. The harm extended to the structure of safety of everyone within the home. D.P.’s moral culpability remains very high. He made conscious and deliberate decisions regularly that had the effect of causing significant harm, fear, and distress to his family.
68In these circumstances, when I consider all the sentencing objectives and principles, I find that a conditional sentence order would fail to give appropriate weight to the purpose and principles of sentence. A CSO would not be proportionate to the moral culpability of D.P. and the gravity of the offences. A conditional sentence in these circumstances would fail to adequately reflect the gravity of the offences and would be inconsistent with the principles of denunciation and deterrence.
69While I accept that the risk to the community can be managed in a conditional sentence, that is not determinative. In this case, the gravity of the offences and D.P.’s moral culpability are such that only a sentence of actual incarceration can adequately meet the paramount sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence.
70D.P. has failed to establish that a CSO would be consistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing. A CSO is therefore not available.
SENTENCE
71When I consider all that I must, giving paramountcy to denunciation and deterrence, while also considering D.P.’s rehabilitative prospects, I find that a sentence of 12 months incarceration is appropriate. This is the most restrained sentence that adequately addresses and weighs the purpose and principles of sentencing in this manner.
72A sentence materially lower would insufficiently reflect the repeated nature of the abuse, the number of victims, and the added seriousness of the assault on K.S.M. in the children’s presence. A longer custodial term is not required given the absence of prior record and modest rehabilitative factors.
73D.P. you will be sentenced to a term of 12 months incarceration.
74Pursuant 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 K.S.M., S.Y.P., and M.Y.P.
Probation
75Following your incarceration, you will be placed on a Probation Order for a period of 2 years. The terms will be as follows:
(1) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
(2) Appear before the court when required to do so.
(3) Notify the court or probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify of any change of employment or occupation.
(4) Report to a probation officer by telephone within 2 working days of your release from custody and after that, at all times and places as directed.
(5) You are not to contact or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means, with K.S.M., S.Y.P., or M.Y.P., except
(a) Pursuant to a valid and in force family court order;
(b) Through legal counsel; or
(c) With the prior written consent of K.S.M., S.Y.P., or M.Y.P., filed in advance by that person with probation. This consent may be cancelled in any way at any time.
(6) You are not to be within 100m of the place where you know K.S.M., S.Y.P., or M.Y.P. to live, work, go to school, frequent or any place you know them to be, except
(a) Pursuant to a valid and in force family court order;
(b) Required Court appearances; or
(c) With the prior written consent of K.S.M., S.Y.P., or M.Y.P., filed in advance by that person with probation. This consent may be cancelled in any way at any time.
(7) You are not to possess any weapons as defined in the CC, which would include a firearm, imitation firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon or device, ammunition or explosive substance or anything designed to be used or intended for use to cause death or injury or to threaten or intimidate any person.
(8) You must attend and actively participate in all assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed and complete them to the satisfaction of your probation officer for:
(a) Anger management, domestic violence which may include the Partner Abuse Response (PAR) program, parenting, life skills, or as otherwise directed.
(9) You shall sign any release of information forms as will enable your probation officer to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed.
Ancillary Orders
DNA
76Assault with a weapon is a primary designated offence. The defence did not seek to establish that the impact to D.P.’s privacy and security of the person was grossly disproportionate to the public interest in the protection of society and the proper administration of justice. In these circumstances, the order is mandatory.
77I 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
78A weapons prohibition is discretionary pursuant to s.110 of the Criminal Code for these offences. Considering the use of a weapon by D.P. as against his children on the facts before me, it is entirely appropriate that I make such an order.
You 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 5 years commencing your release from custody.
Victim Fine Surcharge
79D.P. is about to step into custody for a significant period. He otherwise finds himself in a precarious financial position. 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
80D.P., the offences you committed are serious. You used violence against your own children, who relied on you for safety, guidance, and care. You did so in a way that created fear inside their home. It impacted them profoundly. That breach of trust is significant. It cannot be justified, and it must be clearly denounced. The sentence I impose reflects the gravity of what you did and the harm that flowed from it.
81At the same time, I recognize and firmly believe that people are more than their worst actions. While you are fully responsible for this conduct, this moment also represents a point of reckoning and, potentially, a point of change. Growth does not erase the past, but it can shape the future. That process begins with honest accountability, without minimization, and a willingness and commitment to learn safer, non‑violent ways of responding to frustration, stress, and conflict.
82You have the capacity to choose what kind of person you will be after today. If you take the work of counselling and self‑reflection seriously, I believe you will become a healthier individual, a better partner, a more responsible citizen, and, over time and only if circumstances permit, a safer and more trustworthy father. The Court does not impose sentence with the aim of extinguishing hope, but with the expectation that responsibility, accountability, and change must walk together. The path forward will require effort, humility, and patience, and that work now rests with you.
83K.S.M., S.Y.P., and M.Y.P., I want to now speak directly to you. I recognize the courage it took to come forward and to participate in this process. Speaking about what happened, and doing so in a public forum, is never easy especially when it involves matters within your own family. Your willingness to do so mattered, and it has been heard.
84The Court is mindful that legal proceedings cannot undo what you have experienced. What they can do, however, is acknowledge the harm, affirm that it should never have happened, and underscore that responsibility lies with the person who caused it. I cannot make this clearer: you did nothing wrong. I hope that today brings some measure of validation and closure, even if it cannot answer every question or ease every difficulty.
85I wish each of you strength and peace as you continue on your own paths toward healing. Recovery is not a single moment, but a process, and it looks different for everyone. The Court sincerely hopes that, over time, you are able to feel safe, supported, and free to move forward with your lives, guided by resilience and the care of those around you.
86My thanks to counsel for their professional approach to this very challenging matter. They did so in the highest tradition of the bar.
Released: June 5, 2026
Signed: Justice A. Neil Singh
Footnotes
- R v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 at paras 68-69
- 2000 SCC 5 at paras 102-113