ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Toronto
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
ROGER BOUZANE
SENTENCING JUDGMENT
Before Justice Brock Jones
Heard on July 10 and 17, 2026
Oral Judgment Provided on July 17, 2026
Written Reasons Provided on July 20, 2026
S. Capogreco, counsel for the Crown
Duty Counsel J. Goldglass, assisting Mr. Bouzane
Introduction
1Roger Bouzane pleaded guilty to three counts of violating court orders. These charges occurred in the context of a former intimate partner relationship. The victim of two of these offences was L.M., his former intimate partner. Mr. Bouzane continues to attend at her residential address despite being ordered by the courts to cease and desist this behaviour.
Facts In Support Of The Pleas
2On February 3, 2025, Mr. Bouzane was placed on a release order by Justice of the Peace Moniz. The order included a term prohibiting him from being within 100m of any place he knew L.M. to live, except once, with a uniformed police officer, to retrieve his personal belongings.
3On July 11, 2025, Mr. Bouzane was sentenced by Justice C. Moore of the Ontario Court of Justice for one count of assault and three counts of failing to comply with a release order. L.M. was the victim of that assault. Justice Moore sentenced Mr. Bouzane to a suspended sentence and 18 months’ probation. The probation order’s terms prohibited Mr. Bouzane from having any contact with L.M. or from being within 500m of any place he knew her to live or of two specific addresses, absent her prior written consent. L.M. was free to revoke that consent at any time.
4On August 16, 2025, while bound by both these orders, Mr. Bouzane attended [address redacted], one of the addresses L.M. had been known to reside at in the past. Officers responded to an unknown trouble call and located Mr. Bouzane outside the residence. He was arrested and then later released by another Justice of the Peace that same day. Again, he was placed on a release order with a condition requiring him to remain 500m away from L.M.
5On April 27, 2026, Mr. Bouzane failed to attend a scheduled court appearance and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest.
6On June 24, 2026, Mr. Bouzane attended [address redacted], L.M.’s residence. He repeatedly banged on L.M.’s door. On June 25, 2026, L.M. called the police. Officers attended and arrested Mr. Bouzane.
Victim Impact Information
7On July 10, 2026, when the guilty pleas were presented to the court, the Crown’s office had not sought victim impact information. I expressed concern about the absence of victim impact information in the case of a former intimate partner continually being harassed by a repeat offender. L.M. was entitled to have her voice heard. I ordered the Crown’s office to make reasonable efforts to obtain her victim input by the next court appearance.
8On July 17, 2026, Ms. Capogreco informed me that, despite the best efforts of her office and the Toronto Police Service, they were unable to obtain any input from the victim. I appreciate their efforts. It was important to make a reasonable attempt to obtain this information, given L.M.’s rights under the Canadian Victims’ Bill of Rights Act. Ms. Capogreco learned that the victim had previously indicated she wanted no contact with Mr. Bouzane.
Background of the Offender and Comments Uttered In Court
9Mr. Bouzane is 55 years old. He was described to me by duty counsel as a recovering addict.
10According to Mr. Bouzane, L.M. provided her consent for them to have contact in April 2026, but revoked it prior to the second incident on July 10, 2026, occurring. He attended there to retrieve his medication, which he claimed she possessed. He seemed to view this as diminishing his moral culpability for his offender behaviour, despite there being a multitude of lawful means by which he could have either retrieved this medication or obtained a new prescription.
11He had no “excuse” for the earlier breach of the release order on August 15, 2025.
12Mr. Bouzane was in segregation at the Toronto South Detention Centre (“TSDC”) following his arrest on June 24, 2026, due to an injury he sustained to his leg. While the conditions at the TSDC are notoriously difficult, being placed in segregation is especially hard for most inmates. He was released from segregation on July 10, 2026.
13Mr. Bouzane has a long criminal record. It began in 1989 as an adult (I have chosen to disregard any prior youth entries.) It is replete with property crimes, violent crimes, and failure to comply with court orders. He has a total of eight convictions for breaching court orders. His sentences have ranged from a suspended sentence (as recently as July 21, 2025) to minor jail sentences.1 There are some gaps in his record.
14On July 10, 2026, when I decided to adjourn the case for one week to obtain the victim's input, Mr. Bouzane responded with rude and inconsiderate remarks. He seemed to wish to convey that all that mattered was his plight in jail. I did not hear a single word about his remorse or the harm that may have befallen L.M. as a result of his conduct.
15On July 17, 2026, Mr. Bouzane stated that, because L.M. had given consent in the past, he wasn’t “sure” whether he could return to her address. He did not seek to withdraw his plea, however. He then told me that “she calls me all the time,” and that this case was about “nothing.”
Positions of the Parties
16On July 10, 2026, on behalf of the Crown, Ms. Capogreco explained that the Crown’s position was for a 30-day sentence. That would apply to all three charges globally.2
17Duty counsel, on Mr. Bouzane’s behalf, requested a “time served” disposition.
18I indicated my concern about the proposed range and that, after I received any victim input, I might impose something different.
Sentencing Law – Breach of Court Orders and Intimate Partners
19It is an aggravating factor that an offender, “in committing the offence, abused the offender’s intimate partner”: Criminal Code section 718.2(a)(ii). An “intimate partner” is defined as an offender’s “current, or former spouse, common law partner and dating partner”: see Criminal Code section 2.
20Intimate partner violence (“IPV”) is a national crisis. Its victims are overwhelmingly women. It demands emphatic responses from the courts and recognition of the risk to the safety of women across the country posed by its perpetrators: see Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16, at paras. 122-3, 250, and 291.
21General deterrence and denunciation are the primary sentencing principles in intimate partner violence cases: see R. v. Cunningham, 2023 ONCA 36, at para. 26. Mr. Bouzane has a lengthy prior criminal record for both substantive offences and crimes against the administration of justice. He is a mature man who has had many years to change his behaviour. He is not deterred by court orders or short jail sentences. These sentencing principles take on even greater weight for someone who is unable or unwilling to reform himself.
22L.M. is Mr. Bouzane’s former intimate partner. As noted by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Greer, 2026 ONCA 222, “abuse of a former partner may punish separation, undermine independence, and generate lasting fear and emotional harm, sometimes escalating unpredictably. Sentencing must protect former partners’ ability to live safely and independently after separation”: see para. 27.
23It is important to note the impact of Bill C-75, which came into force on December 18, 2019. The legislation introduced multiple amendments to the Criminal Code explicitly designed to strengthen the criminal justice system’s response to intimate partner violence and provide protection to victims: see Cunningham, supra. The legislation expanded the definition of “intimate partner” in section 2 of the Criminal Code to include current or former spouses or common-law partners. It created a reverse onus provision for bail hearings under section 515(6)(b.1), for an accused person, charged with an IPV offence, who had a previous conviction for such an offence. On January 4, 2024, Bill C-48 came into force, expanding this provision to include accused persons who had previously received a discharge for an IPV-related offence.3
24The intent of these bills is clear. They were passed to demonstrate that Parliament was responding to the rates of IPV offences across Canada and was communicating its intent that sentences for these offences should be adjusted upwards, accordingly: see Cunningham at para. 52.
25A sentence must be proportionate to “the gravity of the offence committed and the moral blameworthiness of the offender”: see Criminal Code section 718.1. Breaches of court orders are not always minor matters. A range of conduct can be captured by these offences, but their common denominator is that the offender has deliberately chosen to ignore or flaunt the authority of the court. Arriving at an appropriate sentence will require a balancing of competing values, and much will turn on the offender's character and background, as well as the reasons for the breach. That being said, when the court orders violated were intended to protect a victim of intimate partner violence from her abuser, breaches of them are never trivial. They strike at the core of our justice system and the protection that all victims of these crimes are entitled to expect. They must be met with a meaningful response.
26Mr. Bouzane’s moral culpability for these offences is extremely high. He was ordered by two different courts to stay away from L.M.’s residence. He has a long history with the criminal justice system. He knew what was expected of him and that violating a court order was an offence. He simply did not care. In part, I have concluded this because he has never received a significant jail sentence for violating a court order.4 In his mind, he would spend at most a few weeks in jail and then be released.
27That can no longer be the case.
28Justice Mossey addressed a similar situation in a recent decision, R. v Arreak, 2026 NUCJ 8. The offender had a history of domestic violence against the victim. He was arrested on January 19, 2026, for assaulting her again. He was released from custody on January 23, 2026, under a release order requiring no “direct or indirect contact” with the victim. The very next day, he attended her home and left after two minutes.
29Counsel presented a joint proposal for a 30-day jail sentence on this FTC charge. It was rejected. Instead, Justice Mossey imposed a sentence of 5 months' custody: see para. 79. Justice Mossey wrote, and I agree, that the “public needs to know that meaningful sanctions will flow when orders of the [Court] are not followed in order to ensure the safety of victims of crime and society”: see para. 71.
30Mr. Bouzane attended L.M.’s address on two separate occasions despite having been recently convicted of assaulting her. The probation order governing his conduct included a term designed to protect L.M. from him. He has many convictions for similar offences on his record. He banged on her door to her very home, where she should have been able to feel safe and protected. He was sending a message: I will always be able to find you. He wanted to shatter that sense of security and to attempt to control and dominate her.
31Mr. Bouzane pleaded guilty, which is a mitigating factor. Nevertheless, the cases against him were overwhelming. I put very little weight on this factor as his convictions were inevitable.
32On July 10, 2026, I made it very clear I thought the range of sentence was unacceptably low, and Mr. Bouzane would be extremely lucky if I even acceded to the Crown’s suggested sentence. At that time, Mr. Bouzane expressed anger and frustration when I would not complete his sentencing. He complained about the conditions of pre-sentence incarceration. He downplayed the offences, suggesting L.M. and her son may have been at fault. He took no personal responsibility for his offending behaviour at all. He made several disparaging remarks about the court and was visibly angry that he would not be released from custody. His conduct only amplified my concerns about his behaviour, the likelihood of him reoffending, and the fact that he is not deterred by minor jail sentences. He has little to no respect for the justice system.
Conclusion
33Court orders will be followed. Those who violate them will be held accountable. But men who seek to continue to dominate and terrorize their former domestic partners by blatantly disregarding multiple court orders will be treated as the uncontrollable recidivists they are.
34I am mindful of the jump principle, which “stands for the proposition that a subsequent sentence imposed on an offender should not be disproportionate to sentences imposed for prior offences, provided the subsequent offence is not significantly more serious than the prior offence: R. v. Green, 2021 ONCA 932, at para. 11”: see R. v. Simeunovich, 2023 ONCA 562, at para. 22. I find that these breaches, committed in an IPV context, are serious.
35I impose a global sentence of 5 months' jail time. It will be apportioned as three months in custody for the failure to comply with a probation order, followed by two months in jail for failing to comply with the release order. There will be a concurrent 30-day jail sentence for failing to attend the court date. I intend this judgment to serve as a warning to Mr. Bouzane. The global sentence I have issued for these breaches is a considerable increase over his past sentences for similar convictions, as well as the Crown's position in this case. Had he not entered a very early guilty plea, sparing L.M. from having to testify, a higher sentence would likely have been appropriate.
36Mr. Bouzane is entitled to a 38-day credit for the 25 days he has served. I will afford him another reduction due to his placement in segregation and the injury he has to care for while in jail, which may make his time there more difficult as he serves the sentence I impose. I sentence him to an additional 90 days in jail, followed by a year of probation on appropriate terms to protect L.M.
37I order that Mr. Bouzane is to have no contact, directly or indirectly, with L.M. while in custody: Criminal Code section 743.21.
38A DNA order is imposed for all offences as they are secondary designated offences
39I waive the imposition of the victim fine surcharge on all counts.
40If Mr. Bouzane violates yet another court order by contacting L.M. or attending her address in the future, he should expect far greater penalties.
Released: July 20, 2026
Signed: Justice Brock Jones
Footnotes
- He received 7 days in jail (in addition to 12 days of PSC) for failing to comply with a probation order in 2007, for example. Since then, it does not appear that he has received any jail time for these administration of justice offences.
- Ms. Capogreco did not personally arrive at this position. Another Assistant Crown Attorney did, and she was simply relaying it to the court.
- The Protecting Victims Act (Bill C-16) and Bailey’s Law (Bill C-225) contain yet more amendments to the Criminal Code meant to address IPV. However, they were not in force at the time of Mr. Bouzane’s offences and thus cannot be applied to this sentencing decision.
- There is one prior entry on his record from over 20 years ago when he was sentenced to a suspended sentence in addition to 88 days of pre-sentence custody. However, he was also found guilty of one count of breaking and entering at that time, and it is impossible for me to determine how the sentence was apportioned between the different counts from the evidence presented on this hearing.