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judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of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.

Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2025-10-24

Court File No.: Brampton 998 23 31112686

Between:

His Majesty the King

— AND —

J.K.

Before: Justice C. K. Assié

Heard on: June 9, 10, September 2, and October 2, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on: October 24, 2025

Counsel:

Nirbhay Rawal — counsel for the Crown

Navdeep Dhandsa — counsel for the accused J.K.

SENTENCING DECISION

ASSIÉ J.:

Convictions

[1] The defendant was convicted after trial of the following offences:

(1) Assaulting his wife on September 4, 2022,

(2) Failing to comply with an undertaking by communicating with his wife on October 17, 2022, and

(3) Distributing intimate images of his wife without consent on October 22, 2022.

[2] This is my decision on his sentence.

Charges of Assault

[3] On September 4, 2022, the victim and the defendant were in their bedroom when an argument arose regarding their marriage. The victim suggested the defendant go to sleep and defer the discussion until the morning. The defendant then got on top of her, grabbed her by the throat, and applied pressure. She was able to push him off and escaped to the washroom, where she called 911. She later described the pressure as a "7" on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being light and 10 being severe. She was not asked whether she experienced difficulty breathing. She sustained a scratch on the left side of her mouth during the assault, which she attributed to contact with the defendant's fingernail. When police arrived, she indicated she did not want her husband arrested but wanted the assault to stop. The defendant was nonetheless arrested and subsequently released on an undertaking.

Charges of Breaching an Undertaking

[4] One of the conditions of the undertaking imposed upon the defendant's release on the domestic assault charge was that he not communicate, directly or indirectly, with the victim.

[5] On October 17, 2022, the victim received a message from an Instagram account with the username "selffishloving". I found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was responsible for this account. Through it, the defendant posted photographs of the victim, her mother, her brother, and her sister-in-law. He also connected the account to other Instagram accounts associated with individuals from the victim's village in India and with businesses she frequented in Canada. In addition, the defendant sent a message stating that he wanted to "finish" the victim and that he would show people from her village intimate photos and videos of her. He was arrested for breaching the undertaking by communicating with her and released on bail.

Charges of Distributing Intimate Images without Consent

[6] In October 2022, the defendant began contacting the victim's brother, asking him to return his calls. On October 22, the victim's brother spoke with the defendant by telephone. During the conversation, the defendant stated that he intended to send him videos of the victim, upload them to pornography websites, and distribute them to chat groups involving people from her village in India. The victim's brother urged the defendant not to proceed with his threat and to attempt instead to resolve his differences with the victim.

[7] Shortly after this call, the victim's brother began receiving multiple text messages from the defendant, who was using a number intended to obscure his identity. The messages included hostile remarks directed at the victim and her family and were accompanied by an intimate video of the victim. In these messages, the defendant repeated that he had additional videos of the victim, that he intended to upload them to pornography websites, and circulate them among members of her village. He also urged the victim's brother to view the video and commit suicide. The victim's brother did not watch the video. He informed his wife (the victim's sister-in-law) about the call and the messages. The sister-in-law then viewed the video on his phone in another room. She confirmed the video depicted the victim and the defendant engaging in sexual activity. The victim's face was visible, but the defendant's was not.

[8] The sister-in-law forwarded the video to her own device and deleted it from her husband's phone to prevent him from inadvertently viewing it. She then informed the victim of what had occurred and sent her the video. At the victim's request, she also took screenshots of the text messages the victim's brother received and forwarded them to her.

[9] The victim testified that she viewed the video after her sister-in-law sent it to her. She confirmed that it was a recording created by the defendant and that he was the only person who possessed it. She expressed shock and distress at the fact that the video had been shared with her family. She testified that she had never consented to its distribution.

The Purposes and Principles of Sentencing

[10] The defendant has been convicted of three offences: domestic assault, failing to comply with a domestic release order, and distributing intimate images without consent. All three offences are hybrid offences. When prosecuted summarily, as in the case here, the maximum sentences are two years less a day. There are no mandatory minimums.

[11] Sentencing is an individualized process that takes into account the seriousness of the offence, the degree of responsibility of the offender, and the harm caused. The fundamental purposes of sentencing are set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code, namely, to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to the 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;

(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 acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community.

[12] A central principle in sentencing is proportionality: the sentence must match the seriousness of the crime and the offender's degree of responsibility. While it must be strong enough to denounce the conduct, it cannot go beyond what is fair given the offender's blameworthiness. A fair sentence balances both aspects of proportionality, without emphasizing one over the other. The relative significance of each sentencing objective is contingent upon the nature of the offence and the offender's personal circumstances. There exists no definitive algorithm or formula by which the justness of a sentence can be objectively determined. Parity gives meaning to proportionality. Parity means that offenders who commit similar crimes, under similar circumstances, should receive similar sentences. It is rooted in fairness and equality before the law, ensuring that sentencing does not become arbitrary or wildly inconsistent.

[13] A helpful starting point for a sentencing judge is to consider the range of sentences established by statute and caselaw. Ranges reflect accumulated judicial experience. Given the varied ways in which offences may be committed and the differing circumstances of offenders, judges may depart from established ranges where appropriate.

[14] The applicable range is informed by the aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case, which includes the personal circumstances of the offender. An aggravating factor is one that is not inherent in the offence itself. As the Court of Appeal observed in R. v. V.(M.), "It is helpful to think of the material aggravating factors as those that increase the gravity of the offence relative to other offences of the same kind, or that increase the degree of responsibility of the offender, relative to other offenders committing the same kind of offence."

[15] Parliament has also legislated factors that a court must consider as aggravating. In this case, the relevant statutory factors are that the defendant abused his intimate partner and that the abuse had a significant impact on the victim.

[16] The range of sentences for assault extends from absolute discharges to terms of custody. The fact that the defendant was subject to an undertaking at the time is inherent to the offence of failing to comply with a release order and does not constitute an additional aggravating factor. However, the manner in which an undertaking is breached may be aggravating–including whether the victim of the breach was a domestic partner. In this case, the defendant breached the order by directly communicating with the victim to threaten her. Compliance with non-communication orders imposed as a result of allegations of domestic assault is critical to ensure that complainants in domestic assault cases can rely on the protection of the criminal justice system. Breaches of such orders in this context require both specific and general deterrence to be given significant weight. There can be no greater sense of frustration and powerlessness when a complainant in a domestic assault case finally musters the courage to call the police, only to have the alleged perpetrator communicate with them with impunity. In appropriate cases, custodial sentences will be warranted for such breaches.

[17] Parliament created the offence of distributing intimate images without consent in 2014, and it came into force in 2015. A review of sentencing caselaw demonstrates that a wide range of sentences have been imposed–from conditional discharges to custodial terms. The Ontario Court of Appeal has not yet provided guidance on the appropriate range of sentences. However, in R. v. S.C.C., the Manitoba Court of Appeal observed:

Distribution of an intimate image without consent is a sexual offence as well as a privacy offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of five years upon indictable proceedings. Deterrence and denunciation are the primary sentencing objectives. Therefore, the focus on sentencing for this offence is more on the offence committed than on the circumstances of the accused.

[18] The offence of distributing intimate images applies irrespective of the relationship between the victim and the individual who distributes the material. It is not inherent in the offence that the victim is a domestic partner. Accordingly, where the victim is a domestic partner, that circumstance constitutes an aggravating factor. As Justice Gibson observed in R. v. Cole:

There is no doubt that the distribution of intimate images without consent is a form of intimate partner violence, and that it is a sexual and privacy offence that disproportionately impacts women: R. v. Ha, 2023 ONCJ 75. The phenomenon of intimate image publication without consent needs to be addressed in a serious and targeted manner: R. v. J.B., 2018 ONSC 4726.

[19] The offender's motive in distributing the images is a relevant consideration in assessing the gravity of the conduct. Motives may fall along a spectrum of seriousness. At the less aggravated end are circumstances where an individual shares a partner's intimate image with acquaintances in a misguided attempt at bragging. More serious are cases where images are disseminated online to strangers for purposes of sexual gratification. While such conduct is selfish and disregards the victim's dignity, it is not necessarily directed at causing harm. At the most aggravated end are situations where the distribution is motivated by a deliberate intention to humiliate, degrade, or extort the victim.

[20] By analogy, the factors applied in assessing the seriousness of child pornography offences may also assist in evaluating the seriousness of distributing intimate images. Certain features of the material increase its gravity. Videos are generally regarded as more aggravating than still photographs as they convey a greater sense of realism. The degree of intrusiveness in the acts depicted is also relevant, with a qualitative distinction between a simple nude image and a recording of sexual activity. The impact is further heightened where the victim is identifiable, whether by the exposure of their face, other distinguishing features such as tattoos, or by the disclosure of their name or contact information. Finally, the volume of images or videos distributed bears on the seriousness of the conduct, with greater quantities tending to increase its aggravating character. However, it must never be overlooked that even one image or video can have a profound impact on a victim.

[21] The relationship between the offender and the victim is also a relevant consideration. Breaches committed by an intimate partner are particularly aggravating as they undermine the trust inherent in such a relationship. The identity of the recipients of the material is also significant. Distribution to family members, friends, or colleagues is more aggravating than distribution to strangers. The permanence of the material is likewise relevant: the harm is heightened where the victim must live with the knowledge that the material may continue to exist online indefinitely. It is further aggravating if the offender received financial compensation for the material or if the victim was required to expend resources or time to have it removed.

[22] In summary, the following list of non-exhaustive factors are relevant in assessing the seriousness of the offence of distributing intimate images without consent:

(1) The relationship between the victim and the offender.

(2) Whether the images were obtained with consent or without the victim's knowledge. While images created with consent is a neutral factor, images created without consent is an aggravating factor.

(3) Whether the distribution was impulsive or premeditated.

(4) The offender's motive for distributing the material.

(5) Whether the material consisted of photographs or videos.

(6) The degree of intrusiveness of the acts depicted.

(7) The number of images or videos distributed.

(8) Whether the victim's identity was revealed.

(9) The extent of the distribution.

(10) Whether the material was shared with family members, friends, colleagues, or strangers.

(11) Whether the material could be deleted or was likely to remain online permanently.

(12) The financial and temporal costs incurred by the victim to have the material removed.

(13) Whether the offender derived a financial benefit.

(14) The overall impact on the victim.

Caselaw Review

[23] Prior to September 18, 2019, the maximum sentence for distributing an intimate image without consent when prosecuted summarily was six months of custody. Since that date, the maximum penalty has been increased to two years less a day. Accordingly, the caselaw considered here focuses on decisions rendered after the increase in maximum penalties.

[24] In R. v. C.S., the defendant pleaded guilty to distributing an intimate image without consent. He sent the victim's new partner a video of himself and the victim engaging in sexual activity. The video was accompanied by crude text messages to the new partner and taunting messages to the victim. The trial judge imposed a conditional discharge with a three-year probation order that included a period of house arrest resembling a conditional sentence order. The Crown appealed. A summary conviction appeal court deferred to the trial judge's exercise of discretion and upheld the sentence.

[25] In R. v. Cole, the defendant pleaded guilty to distributing an intimate image without consent and to breaching a release order. After learning that his wife had been unfaithful, he distributed 24 intimate images of her. While on bail, he was residing at a hotel where the complainant joined him. A physical altercation occurred, and the police were called. He was subsequently charged with breaching his release order by having contact with the complainant. The defendant was a first-time offender. The trial judge imposed a conditional discharge with a probation order that included a period of house arrest. The Crown appealed. A summary conviction appeal court deferred to the trial judge's decision and upheld the sentence.

[26] In R. v. Hunter, the defendant pleaded guilty to distributing an intimate image without consent and to harassment. Following the end of their relationship, he continued to attempt contact with the victim by telephone and text message. Acting out of anger, he distributed intimate images of her to two individuals through Facebook. The defendant was 28 years old and a first-time offender. The trial judge imposed a conditional discharge with a probation order that included a period of house arrest.

[27] In R. v. S.F., the defendant was found guilty after trial of distributing an intimate image without consent. He had uploaded two videos of himself and the victim engaging in sexual activity to a pornography website. Although the victim had consented to making the recordings, she had not consented to their distribution. A male acquaintance recognized her in one of the videos, leading to her discovery of their existence. Both the victim and the defendant contacted the website, and the videos were removed. However, they had been downloaded by an unknown individual and reposted. The defendant was a 26-year-old university student and first-time offender. The court suspended the passing of sentence and placed him on 14 months of probation.

[28] In R. v. Boucetta, the defendant pleaded guilty to distributing an intimate image without consent and to voyeurism. The defendant and the victim were university students who had sexual intercourse while the victim was severely intoxicated. The defendant recorded the activity without her knowledge and later distributed the recording to his friends. The defendant was 21 years old and a first-time offender. The Crown sought a custodial term of 12 to 18 months, while the defence sought a conditional sentence order. The court imposed a 24-month conditional sentence order.

[29] In R. v. Li, the defendant pleaded guilty to distributing an intimate image without consent. During sexual intercourse with the victim, he recorded her against her wishes while she attempted to cover her face. The following day, he sent her two photographs from the recording and stated that he would post the material to a pornography website. He subsequently distributed the video to one of her friends, her parents in China, and her father's co-worker. He also uploaded it to a website, falsely representing that the victim was offering sexual services. As a result, the victim received unsolicited messages from strangers. The defendant was 29 years old, a first-time offender, with a history of mental illness. At the time of sentencing, he was married with a child and the sole provider for his family. The court imposed a 22-month conditional sentence order, followed by probation.

[30] In R. v. Storing, the defendant pleaded guilty to distributing an intimate image without consent and to possessing a firearm without a licence. Following the breakdown of his relationship with the complainant, he sent images of her breasts and genitalia to her daughter through Facebook. The defendant was 46 years old, a first-time offender, and suffered from PTSD and depression arising from a severely deprived and abusive childhood. The court imposed a 10-month conditional sentence order followed by probation for the distribution charge.

[31] Defence counsel relied on R. v. Simpson. In that case, the defendant changed his plea from not guilty to guilty partway through trial on charges of distributing an intimate image without consent and assault. The Crown sought a six-month conditional sentence order, following 95 days of pre-sentence custody (enhanced). The defence sought a three-month conditional sentence order. The court imposed a seven-month conditional sentence order in addition to the pre-sentence custody he served. The judgment provided limited details of the circumstances concerning the distribution offence, indicating only that the defendant sent a single intimate image of the victim to her child's father following a heated text exchange. It is noteworthy that the offence occurred before the statutory increase in the maximum penalty for distribution of intimate images.

[32] In R. v. Labreche, the defendant was found guilty of distributing an intimate image without consent. He posted images of his former partner on the internet accompanied by derogatory comments. The defendant was a 26-year-old Métis first-time offender and had experienced a difficult upbringing. The court imposed a 90-day intermittent custodial sentence together with a term of probation.

[33] The defence relied on R. v. Newby. The defendant pleaded guilty to uploading intimate images without consent of his former partner nude and engaged in sexual activity to three websites. He also sent links to two of the victim's friends. The Crown sought a six-month custodial term, while the defence sought a conditional sentence order. The defendant had no prior criminal record, was employed, had engaged in counselling prior to his plea, and had completed over 67 hours of community service. The court imposed a 90-day intermittent custodial sentence together with two years of probation. Note the maximum penalty at the time of the offence was six months of custody.

[34] In R. v. S.A., the defendant pleaded guilty to distributing an intimate image without consent and voyeurism. The defendant and the victim had engaged in a casual sexual relationship. The defendant recorded the victim performing sexual acts without his knowledge and posted the video online to a monetized website. The victim's face was visible, and the material remained on a high-traffic website for two months. The defendant was a 44-year-old first-time offender. The court imposed four months of custody for the distribution offence and a suspended sentence for the voyeurism conviction.

[35] In R. v. Adubofuor, the defendant was convicted after trial of distributing an intimate image without consent and mischief but acquitted of harassment. Following the end of the relationship, he scratched the word "karma" into the victim's vehicle and sent a video of the victim performing a sexual act on him to her new partner. The victim was unaware that the recording had been made. The defendant was 31 years old and a first-time offender. The court imposed a four-month custodial sentence.

[36] In R. v. Sharma, the defendant was convicted by a jury of distributing intimate images without consent and acquitted of sexual assault, extortion, and other charges. He had threatened to release intimate videos, and when challenged to prove their existence, he texted a screenshot of one such video. He acknowledged this conduct while testifying at trial. The Crown proceeded by indictment, carrying a maximum penalty of five years. The defendant was a 36-year-old first-time offender on a work permit, for whom any conviction would result in deportation. Defence counsel sought a conditional discharge. The defendant had engaged in counselling, written a letter of apology, accepted responsibility, and demonstrated insight into the harm caused. The court imposed a five-month custodial sentence followed by probation.

[37] In R. v. R.B., the defendant was found guilty after trial of distributing an intimate image without consent. He had posted several consensually recorded videos of himself and the complainant to a pornography website, identifying her by her first name. The videos were uploaded to a section of the site accessible to "friends" and "subscribers." The defendant had eight friends and seven subscribers. He was a 36-years-old first-time offender, and of Indigenous heritage. The court imposed a nine-month custodial sentence followed by probation.

[38] In R. v. S.A., the defendant pleaded guilty to distributing an intimate image without consent and to breaching an undertaking. Following an argument, he posted 15 nude photographs of the victim on Twitter to an audience of 434 followers. After being charged, he immediately breached his bail by texting the victim and asking her to withdraw the charges. He was a young adult, a first-time offender, and confessed to police upon arrest. The court imposed nine months of custody for the distribution offence and a consecutive term of 15 days for the breach.

[39] In R. v. Parsons, the defendant pleaded guilty to distributing an intimate image without consent, harassment, mischief to property, and two breaches of a release order. After the breakdown of the relationship, he continued to contact the complainant, sent her intimate image to her mother, and, while on bail, went to her residence, seized her phone, and smashed it. The defendant was 36 years old and had substance abuse issues. The court imposed a global custodial sentence of 10 months, of which four months were attributed to the distribution offence.

[40] In R. v. G.M., the defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of distributing an intimate image without consent and three counts of breaching a release order. The Crown proceeded by indictment on the distribution count. The defendant was the victim's uncle. He paid his nephew to send him approximately 250 intimate images and videos of himself, which he then posted to several online platforms, sometimes including the victim's full name. The defendant was 74 years old and had a criminal record. The court imposed a global custodial sentence of 12 months.

[41] In R. v. Weedon, the defendant was convicted after trial of distributing an intimate image without consent, mischief to computer data, and harassment. He accessed the victim's Snapchat account, changed the password, and posted nude images and videos of her to the public section of her account, while also sending her harassing text messages. The victim acted quickly but the images remained available for part of the day and some of her friends reported having seen them. The defendant was 34 years old and a first-time offender. The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence followed by probation.

[42] In R. v. S.C.C., the defendant pleaded guilty to distributing an intimate image without consent and failing to comply with a recognizance. While on bail for offences involving the victim, the victim attended at the defendant's residence, and they made a sexually explicit video. Several months later, he posted clips to a pornography website, identifying her by name and showing her face in one video. He also uploaded explicit photographs of them engaged in sexual activity in which her distinctive tattoo was visible. The victim learned of the postings when an acquaintance discovered them. The videos had been viewed over 2,000 times before removal, although it was unknown whether copies had been downloaded. The defendant was 38 years old, had a criminal record for domestic violence against this and two prior partners, and convictions for possession of child pornography and voyeurism involving a 16-year-old girl. The trial judge imposed a 14-month custodial sentence for the distribution offence and 90 days concurrent for the breach. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that a penitentiary term would have been appropriate but declined to exceed the Crown's position at trial. A sentence of two years less a day was substituted.

[43] The case law demonstrates significant variation in sentencing outcomes. It is not uncommon for the vengeful distribution of identifiable intimate images to result in sentences in the mid to upper reformatory range. Justice Wadden observed in Weedon:

Principles of denunciation and deterrence are paramount. A clear message must be sent that society will not tolerate abuse of an intimate partner in this manner. It is a serious form of psychological violence causing almost incalculable long-term harm to the victim. In the modern world, almost any man in a dating relationship is capable to doing this act. As some of the cases make clear, there are entire websites devoted to such "revenge porn". Principles of general deterrence require a significant sentence that would deter others in a similar situation who would be tempted to commit this crime.

Sentencing for Multiple Offences

[44] As a general principle, where an offender is convicted of multiple offences that do not arise from the same transaction or series of events, and where there is no close nexus between them, consecutive sentences will ordinarily be imposed. This approach is particularly appropriate where the offences affect different legal interests. In imposing consecutive terms, the court must remain attentive to the totality principle to ensure that the overall sentence is not unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offender's overall culpability.

Circumstances of the Offender

[45] The defendant is currently 42 years old and was 39 at the time of the offences. He arrived in Canada in 2005 from India. He has been a permanent resident for the last 20 years. He is gainfully employed as a truck driver and has family support as evidenced by his parents attending court throughout the process.

[46] The defendant provided a letter dated August 30, 2025, which indicated he completed 12 sessions of counselling with the Partner Assault Response Program. It is unclear when counselling began. The author of the letter wrote:

[The defendant] participated well in his counselling sessions. He showed interest in the program and in gaining good knowledge and skills for managing his emotions, and maintaining and improving good relationships and being aware and mindful about sexual boundaries and other related issues. He learned the importance of strong boundaries, honesty, respect, integrity and trustworthiness.

[47] The defendant also provided a letter dated August 25, 2025, from an immigration lawyer outlining the potential immigration consequences of potential sentences. As a permanent resident, the defendant would be inadmissible to Canada on grounds of serious criminality if sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding six months. In other words, he would likely be deported. The defence highlighted the principles articulated in R. v. Pham that a sentencing judge may exercise discretion to consider collateral immigration consequences, provided that the sentence imposed remains proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[48] There is no evidence before the court of any remorse or insight on the part of the defendant. In addition, there is no evidence that the intimate images of the victim in the defendant's possession have been deleted.

Impact on the Victim

[49] The victim provided a Victim Impact Statement. I believe it is important to read the impact this offence has had on the victim in her own words:

I am writing this statement to express the deep and lasting emotional, psychological, and social impact that the offender's actions have had on me and my family. Since this situation began, I have experienced intense anxiety, stress, and fear that have become part of my daily life. I often feel overwhelmed and mentally exhausted. It has become difficult for me to concentrate, sleep, or go about normal daily routines... My sense of peace and stability has been shattered. Emotionally, I feel violated, humiliated, and betrayed. I carry a constant weight of shame, worry, and vulnerability. These feelings are not only about what happened, but about the fear of what could still happen. I often feel powerless and afraid to engage with the world, both online and in person. Simple things like answering the phone, checking messages, or going out in public now cause me fear and distress. The situation has affected my entire family… Our family now lives in a state of hyper vigilance. We avoid public gatherings, limit our interactions online, and constantly worry about being exposed, judged, or harmed. We feel like we have lost our basic sense of privacy and security. This fear has created a sense of isolation and powerlessness. It's heartbreaking to feel that we cannot even visit our home, our roots, or extended family without feeling threatened. The ongoing fear of being harassed, humiliated, or harmed again is paralyzing. The emotional damage has been severe, but even more than that, we no longer feel safe–either in our homes or in our community. We are scared that the damage could escalate at anytime, and this fear continues to control our lives.

[50] To say that the offender's actions have had a serious impact on the victim and her family is an understatement.

Position of the Parties

[51] The Crown submitted that a global custodial sentence in the range of six to eight months, together with a probation order of three years, would be appropriate. The Crown did not specify how the custodial term should be apportioned among the offences.

[52] The defence submitted that a 90-day intermittent custodial sentence, in addition to the eight days of pre-sentence custody already served, would be appropriate. Defence counsel did not make submissions regarding the length of probation. Counsel also noted that the defendant has been on bail for nearly 30 months without further allegations of contacting the victim.

[53] After considering submissions from counsel and conducting my own research, I advised counsel that I was considering a sentence higher than the Crown's position. I invited, and received, further submissions from both parties in accordance with the procedure endorsed in R. v. Nahanee.

[54] The Crown maintained that the range of six to eight months was appropriate and consistent with the principle of parity. The defence modified its position to suggest a range of three to six months.

Conclusion

[55] The defendant was convicted after trial of assaulting his wife, breaching an undertaking, and distributing an intimate video of his wife without her consent. There are limited mitigating features in this case. Although he is not a youthful offender, he is a first-time offender and completed some counselling before sentencing.

[56] The context of the defendant's offences places his conduct at the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness. The victim was his wife, making the conduct a form of domestic abuse and a statutorily aggravating factor. The breach of trust had a profound impact on her, leaving her in constant fear. The video depicted highly intrusive acts in which her identity was visible. It was sent to her brother in circumstances intended to cause harm. His actions were intended to degrade and humiliate the victim. Prior to sending the video, he texted that he would "finish" her and told her brother to watch the video and to kill himself.

[57] This conduct was not impulsive. Weeks before sending the video, he created a fake Instagram account using images of the victim and her family, linking it to individuals and businesses in the victim's community in Canada and in India. He threatened to release the videos and subsequently carried out that threat by sending the first video to her brother.

[58] The traditional mitigating features of an early guilty plea, expressions of insight, and remorse are absent. No evidence was presented that the intimate images have been deleted. It should be noted that the defendant is entitled to maintain his innocence and deny responsibility for distributing the images. However, maintaining his innocence is not inconsistent with providing assurances that any intimate images in his possession during the relationship have been destroyed. The absence of such assurances does not constitute an aggravating factor but reflects the lack of insight into the concerns of the victim and could have offered some limited measure of reassurance to the victim and the court.

[59] Having considered all the factors, I find that a fit sentence for the offence of distributing intimate images without consent is 12 months of custody, followed by three years of probation.

[60] Though counsel did not ask for a conditional sentence, given the mixed jurisprudence and the availability of a conditional sentence, I have considered whether a conditional sentence order could meet the objectives of sentencing for the offence of distributing intimate images without consent. Given the premeditated nature of the conduct, the targeted dissemination to a close family member, the complainant's identifiability and the explicit nature of the recording, and the profound, ongoing impact described in the Victim Impact Statement, I am satisfied that only real custody can adequately meet denunciation and general deterrence in these circumstances. A conditional sentence order would not be a proportionate or sufficient response.

[61] With respect to the breach of an undertaking, the manner of the breach is highly aggravating. The defendant communicated directly with the victim, a domestic partner, which is a statutory aggravating factor. Furthermore, the communication involved threats to "finish" her and threats to distribute her intimate images without her consent. I find that a fit sentence for this offence is two months of custody.

[62] With respect to the assault, the defendant was not on a release order at the time. The act was impulsive, there was no evidence that the victim's breathing was affected, and no non-trivial physical injuries were sustained. I find that a fit sentence is a suspended sentence with 12 months of probation.

[63] The breach of the undertaking did not arise during the same transaction as the distribution of intimate images. Given that there is no close nexus between the two offences, the sentences shall run consecutively. I've considered the principle of totality. I find that a global sentence of 14 months in custody followed by three years of probation is proportionate and not unduly harsh considering the offender's overall culpability.

[64] I am mindful of the reality that this sentence will likely lead to the defendant's deportation. I appreciate the serious collateral consequence that this sentence will have on the defendant. However, I am unable to conclude that a sentence of six months or less would be appropriate given the particular facts of this case and the vengeful, callous, and premeditated manner in which the defendant committed his offences and the lasting harm he caused the victim and her family.

Released: October 24, 2025

Signed: Justice Christopher K. Assié