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(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection 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(1), read as follows:
486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. — (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
(a) any of the following offences:
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 162.1, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or
(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).
(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
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.
Ontario Court of Justice
DATE: 2025 06 27
COURT FILE No.: Windsor 23-80200545
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
C.P.
Before Justice S. G. Pratt
Heard on 4, 5, 6, 9 June 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on 27 June 2025
Emile Carrington ................................................................................ Counsel for the Crown
Shane Miles .................................................................................. Counsel for the Defendant
Pratt J.:
[1]
On 4 June 2025, I began the trial of the Offender C.P. on a 17-count information. After two days of evidence, I was advised the matter had resolved. On the third day of trial, the Offender changed his pleas on counts 1, 5, and 15. These counts relate to breaching a release order, assault, and assault causing bodily harm. On the fourth day set for trial, I received sentencing submissions and victim impact.
[2]
These are my reasons for sentence.
Facts
[3]
At the time the guilty pleas were entered, the Crown read in supporting facts. I asked both counsel if they were content that I also rely on the evidence called at the trial to that point. Both said yes. I will therefore consider the evidence called on the trial, together with the facts as read in. I will not consider the evidence on the voir dire that had been in progress at the time the pleas were changed.
[4]
The Offender met the Victim D.M. in 2014. They began an intimate relationship. At the time, she was married to T.B. Their relationship continued, on and off, for several years. In 2021 the Victim separated from T.B. and continued her relationship with the Offender. T.B. moved out of the family home he had shared with the Victim and her daughter A.M.
[5]
On 24 July 2022, there was an incident that led the Victim to go to police. The Offender was subsequently arrested and released on conditions based on allegations related to both the Victim and T.B. I note the criminal record filed on consent included an entry from 2024 for two counts of uttering threats. I was advised this related to the July 2022 incident.
[6]
Relevant to the present case, the Offender breached the July undertaking almost immediately. He went to the Victim’s home and they resumed their relationship. The Victim testified that she didn’t think her house had a key at that point as she recalled installing an electronic keypad instead. She said the Offender knew the code and could therefore enter the home whenever he wished. Despite the order prohibiting contact, he went to her house at least every couple of days. By then, T.B. had moved out and the Victim thought she and the Offender could move forward with their lives.
[7]
Given the restrictions, the Victim felt they needed to sneak around. It appears their contact was primarily at her residence.
[8]
From his return to her residence in July until she went to police again in December, the Victim was assaulted on a regular basis by the Offender. He would punch her in the head and chest. He would slap her in the face. He would pull her hair. These assaults were often accompanied by vile and degrading insults. He would call her a whore and a bitch, and would say she was fat and ugly.
[9]
Much of the conflict in the relationship related to the Offender’s infidelity. The Victim testified to the Offender having multiple other women in his life, a fact she confirmed personally by looking through his phone messages and finding him at other women’s houses. She believed he had at least ten other women in his life. She testified that when it came to sexual activity, she was afraid that if she did not indulge him, he would go elsewhere. Sex, she said, “came with a lot of other feelings.”
[10]
The physical and emotional abuse came to a head when they went out for a friend’s birthday the night of 30 November 2023. The evening began at a restaurant and later continued at a bar. On the drive between locations, the Offender took exception to the Victim speaking with other men. An argument began. Jealousy, from both sides, was a constant feature of their relationship. The argument eventually turned physical with the Offender striking the Victim in her head, face, and chest. He struck her with enough force that he caused swelling to her head sufficient to make out the offence of assault causing bodily harm.
[11]
It was in the days following this last incident that the Victim went to police and the charges before me were laid.
[12]
I heard from the Victim that drugs were also a significant part of their relationship. While she had experimented with drugs as a teenager, her use at this point was entirely a function of her connection to the Offender. As she noted in her Victim Impact Statement, “C.’s addiction pulled us into a world I never wanted to be a part of…I found myself in places no one should ever be.” They consumed cocaine and methamphetamine. She testified that the drug use became quite heavy at one point, and confirmed they’d both taken methamphetamine the night of the birthday party.
Positions of the Parties
[13]
The Crown seeks a jail sentence of 12 months minus credit for pre-sentence custody. This would be followed by three years of probation. It also seeks a s. 109 weapons prohibition for life, a non-contact order while the Offender is in custody, and the provision of a DNA sample.
[14]
For the Offender, counsel seeks a sentence of time served. The Offender has 122 actual days of pre-sentence custody, which counsel urges me to enhance to 183 days. He seeks a sentence of one further day jail followed by probation. He does not take issue with the ancillary orders. I was also advised that the Offender would be resolving other matters on the conclusion of this case and that those matters would involve a joint submission for 60 days jail consecutive to whatever sentence he receives presently.
Victim Impact Statements
[15]
I received two Victim Impact Statements in this case: one from the Victim and one from her mother W.M. I am grateful for them.
W.M.
[16]
The statement filed by the Victim’s mother is striking for its grace and forgiveness. While describing in painstaking detail the toll the Offender’s actions have taken on her daughter, W.M. appears to harbour no anger or desire for harsh punishment. The ordeal she has been through, watching her child descend into addiction and shame and suicidal thoughts, is obvious. But she is focused on the future. I do not doubt that her resilience, her strength, and her faith will be key in helping her daughter recover from the damage she’s suffered.
D.M.
[17]
The Victim’s statement is similarly eloquent. It describes the deterioration of a relationship. The Victim was pulled into drug addiction and a cycle of abuse. It is through her own hard work, and the support of those around her, that she’s been able to emerge from this situation successfully. She hopes the Offender can get help to be the person she says he still is. Her concern also relates to the Offender’s son Cx. She further expressed the hope of possibly reuniting at some point.
[18]
I will have more to say about the Victim’s statement later in these reasons.
Principles of Sentencing
[19]
Parliament has enacted several sections in the Criminal Code that are relevant to the present case.
[20]
First, s. 718 sets out the fundamental purpose of sentencing. It states:
718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, 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:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.
[21]
A fit sentence must protect society and contribute to respect for the law. It must seek to maintain a just and peaceful society. These goals are achieved by imposing sentences that emphasize the objectives listed.
[22]
Several other sections relate specifically to cases like the matter before me.
[23]
Section 718.04 requires that I place primary importance on denunciation and deterrence in cases where offences are committed against vulnerable victims. I find as a fact the Victim was vulnerable for the purpose of this section. She referred in her testimony multiple times to the stresses she was under over the course of her relationship: her ongoing contentious separation from her husband, the effect that separation was having on her daughter’s daily life, and her attempts to maintain the household on her own all show the emotional difficulty she was experiencing. Against that backdrop, she was dealing with an abusive, unfaithful partner who brought drug addiction and violence into their lives. I am required, therefore, to emphasize denunciation and deterrence in the sentence I impose.
[24]
Section 718.2(a) lists several factors that a court must take to be aggravating when determining sentence. Three of those factors apply in the present case: paragraph (a)(ii) (abuse of an intimate partner), paragraph (a)(iii) (abusing a position of trust over a victim), and paragraph (a)(iii.1) (an offence having a “significant impact on the victim”).
[25]
Section 718.201 directs judges to consider the increased vulnerability of female victims of intimate partner violence.
[26]
Finally, s. 718.1 requires that any sentence be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
[27]
In general, Parliament and the courts have begun to recognize the seriousness of intimate partner violence to an extent not seen in the past. Myths and stereotypes have been identified and cast aside. The impact of trauma on victims is being given appropriate weight. The net effect of this evolution is the imposition of sentences that truly reflect the harm done to victims and the broader community. It is a positive change.
Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
[28]
The chief mitigating factor in this case is the Offender’s guilty plea. It came at a point in the trial where the Crown was facing obstacles. We had just embarked on an application under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act. Depending on how that application turned out, there may have been another application to follow. I was also advised that the Victim had provided what was called a recantation letter to the police. It was in the face of this uncertainty, with many of the possible outcomes being favourable to the Offender, that he agreed to change his plea. He spared the Victim from continuing her testimony and from having her statement played in open court. His guilty pleas are meaningful.
[29]
He has also taken steps since the offences to address his addictions. He has attended Narcotics Anonymous meetings while in custody, and has reached out to two local recovery facilities for help on his release from custody. Given the central role his addiction has played in his offences, this is an important step.
[30]
One aspect of this case that is most certainly not a mitigating factor is the contention that the Victim was an active participant in the couple’s arguments. That she yelled back, and that she may have called the Offender names, does nothing to absolve him of his responsibility.
[31]
The aggravating factors are clear. In addition to the statutory factors listed above, the nature of the offences is itself aggravating. In particular, the court order disallowing contact with the Victim was breached almost immediately, and then on a near-daily basis thereafter. It meant nothing to the Offender. Further, while he pleaded to just one count of assault, I heard that his physical abuse of the Victim continued for months. Repeated punches and slaps, combined with degrading insults, became a feature of the Victim’s daily life.
[32]
In my view, the overall context of the relationship is also important in this regard. In her testimony, the Victim spoke of the power the Offender exercised over her: his infidelity left her desperate to please him. His insults left her feeling hurt by the person she loved. As she stated in her Victim Impact Statement: “The emotional and verbal abuse became part of my daily life – constant criticism, jealousy, and isolation. Eventually, it escalated into moments of physical harm.”
[33]
In their research paper submitted to the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime entitled, “Understanding coercive control in the context of intimate partner violence in Canada: How to address the issue through the criminal justice system?”, Professor Carmen Gill and PhD candidate Mary Aspinall, both of the University of New Brunswick, noted the following:
There are four common domains of coercive controlling behaviours, which include controlling/proprietary behaviours, psychological abuse, sexual jealousy, and stalking (Dawson et al., 2019: 47). Perpetrators may make implicit or explicit threats, use physical or sexual violence, destroy the victim’s personal property, and isolate or intimidate the victim by closely monitoring their behaviours and interactions with other people (Crossman & Hardesty, 2017; Hamberger et al., 2017).
[34]
I find the behaviours of the Offender in the present case meet this definition of coercive control. The Victim testified to and wrote about the Offender’s jealousy. The simple act of speaking to another man at the birthday party started a serious and violent argument. The psychological abuse of the “constant criticism” and “isolation” clearly took a tremendous toll on the Victim. This is from W.M.’s Victim Impact Statement, describing the Victim when she was with the Offender:
She was broken, she was incredibly sad, she was suicidal, she was addicted to drugs, she was ashamed of her body and ashamed of her life. That broken woman in that video was the woman you created and after all that she was still my child.
[35]
Justice Richmond, of the Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench, said the following at paragraph 22 of S.C. v. N.C. [2024] S.J. No. 282:
Physical violence is easily identified and it can suffice to show an isolated incident. Coercive control is far more subtle and may be more damaging, its effects can be long lasting as it slowly strips away confidence and self-worth. One act alone may be innocuous and forgivable, but the cumulative effect may be devastating.
[36]
I agree with Justice Richmond. The physical assaults, serious as they are, were only one part of the abuse the Offender inflicted on the Victim.
Analysis
[37]
The actions of the Offender are very serious. Over a prolonged period, he violated the Victim physically and emotionally. He belittled her and assaulted her. In doing so, he also showed utter disregard for a court order.
[38]
On his behalf, counsel seeks a sentence of time served plus one day. As the Offender has slightly more than four months of pre-sentence custody, that would equate to a sentence of approximately 6 months if I grant the standard 1.5:1 credit.
[39]
The Crown seeks a sentence of roughly double that length. It agrees to pre-sentence credit but argues it should come off a sentence of 12 months’ duration.
[40]
Balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors, and taking into account the relevant legislation, I find the Crown’s position to be appropriate, if even perhaps somewhat lenient.
[41]
The Offender will be sentenced to 12 months custody on each count, to be served concurrently. To be specific, the sentence on each count will be 365 days. He will receive credit for 140 days of pre-sentence custody which I will enhance to 210 days. This means that on each count, he will have a further 155 days custody to be served concurrently.
[42]
On release from custody, the Offender will be bound by a probation order for three years. In addition to the statutory conditions of probation, the terms will be:
Report in person to a probation officer within two working days of your release from custody and thereafter as required by the probation officer or any person authorized by the probation officer to assist in your supervision.
Cooperate with your probation officer. You must sign any releases necessary for the probation officer to monitor your compliance and you must provide proof of compliance with any condition of this order to your probation officer on request.
Do not contact or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly by any physical, electronic or other means with D.M., A.M., or W.M.
Do not be within 100m of any place you know any of the persons named above to live, work, go to school, or any place you know them to be except for required court attendances.
Do not possess anything defined in the Criminal Code as a weapon.
Attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer and complete them to the satisfaction of the probation officer, including but not limited to counselling for substance abuse, anger management, and domestic violence, which may include the Partner Assault Response program.
[43]
The Offender is ordered on count 5, which is a primary designated offence, to provide a sample of his DNA to the Windsor Police for inclusion in the national DNA databank, forthwith. He is also ordered to provide a sample forthwith on counts 1 and 15, which are both secondary designated offences.
[44]
The Offender will be prohibited from possessing weapons pursuant to s. 109 for life on count 5.
[45]
There will be an order pursuant to s. 743.21 prohibiting the Offender from contacting D.M., A.M., or W.M. while in custody.
[46]
Given the custodial sentence, I will waive the Victim Surcharges on each count.
The No Contact and Not Attend Conditions
[47]
Counsel for the Offender has sought an exception to the no contact and non-attendance conditions in the probation order. The Victim herself has voiced a desire for contact with the Offender, and hasn’t ruled out possibly reuniting with him. Part of the Victim’s concern stems from the Offender’s son Cx. I have been told that Cx. is without a parental figure now that the Offender is in custody. He has been rendered effectively homeless and was recently the victim of a violent crime. The Victim wants to maintain contact with the Offender so that she can help care for Cx.
[48]
I have considered the idea of permitting any sort of contact between the Victim and Offender. In my view, any such permission is asking for violent and dangerous trouble. The relationship between the parties, to once again quote Ms. M., was toxic and cancerous. My duty in imposing sentence is to protect society. That society includes the Victim. I recognize the Victim is an adult who can make her own decisions. There will be times, however, when the justice system must override an individual’s independence because they appear unwilling or incapable of protecting themselves. This is one such time. There will be no exceptions to the terms. I remind both parties that any contact in violation of this order could result in both of them being charged and taken into custody.
[49]
There is nothing in the order that would prevent the Victim from helping Cx. as she sees fit. She is welcome to provide whatever assistance she wishes to give and he wishes to accept, so long as it does not involve any contact with the Offender.
[50]
Both parties have spoken about this dark chapter of their lives now being over. It is my sincere hope that is true. My wish for both families is that they are able to move forward in a positive way, but in very separate directions.
Released: 27 June 2025
Signed: Justice S. G. Pratt