Warning
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(2.1) of the Criminal Code. These subsections and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(2.1), read as follows:
486.4 (2.1) Victim under 18 — Other offences — Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.
(2.2) Mandatory order on application — In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order; and
(c) if an order is made, as soon as feasible, inform the victim of the existence of the order and of their right to apply to revoke or vary it.
486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under any of subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or subsection 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Ontario Court of Justice
Date: 2025-02-20
Court File No.: Toronto 23-48113597
Between:
His Majesty the King
— and —
Alexandru Ciobanu
Sentencing Judgment
Before Justice Brock Jones
Heard on January 27, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on February 20, 2025
Counsel:
M. Birsan — counsel for the Crown
A. Guglia — counsel for Alexandru Ciobanu
Introduction
[1] After a trial, I found Mr. Ciobanu guilty of five counts of assault against his wife and 13-year-old son. This is yet another case of entirely preventable family violence stemming from an angry and abusive man who simply could not control his rage.
Findings of Fact
[2] Mr. Ciobanu and Ms. L.C. were married in Romania in 1991. They have three sons, Trevor (13), Mark (18) and Robert (30).[^1] After many years of a turbulent marriage, the parties filed for divorce in Romania. In 2019, Mr. Ciobanu came to Canada by himself. He maintained contact with his children. In January 2022, Ms. L.C. and her children also emigrated to Canada.
[3] She lived with her sons in a two-bedroom apartment in Toronto. Despite being divorced, Mr. Ciobanu and Ms. L.C. maintained contact and attempted to co-parent their youngest children. When Mr. Ciobanu stayed with her, she shared a room with him. What remained of their relationship was tense, and Mr. Ciobanu continued to believe that she was unfaithful to him. He was controlling and persistently verbally abusive.
[4] Mr. Ciobanu pleaded guilty to count four, an assault that occurred on October 27, 2022. He argued with Ms. L.C. outside of Old Mill station that afternoon. She told him he was not Trevor or Mark's biological fathers. Mr. Ciobanu became angry and slapped her across her face. Witnesses saw this and contacted the police. Yet, out of fear of what he might do if she reported this assault, Ms. L.C. lied and told the officers that Mr. Ciobanu had tripped and fallen into her. The officers made their arrest based on independent witness statements.
[5] After October 27, 2022, Mr. Ciobanu was bound by conditions on a release order and could not contact Ms. L.C. He was also not allowed to return to Ms. L.C.’s home for approximately two months. During this period, he told his children that if Ms. L.C. did not withdraw the charges, he would leave them without a mother. Ms. L.C. learned what he said and contacted the authorities to obtain a bail variation for her husband that was in force by January 2023. That variation allowed Mr. Ciobanu to return home if Ms. L.C. consented. For this sentencing judgment, I note that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ciobanu’s statements constituted a threat to Ms. L.C.’s life and a blatant attempt to obstruct justice. These are aggravating factors.
[6] In February or March of 2023, one night, Mr. Ciobanu accused Ms. L.C. of being a “whore” or “prostitute.” Trevor told his father not to speak about his mother with such language. He asked his mother to leave the room so he could try to calm his father down. Mr. Ciobanu slapped Trevor once, with an open palm, across his face. Trevor screamed due to the pain.
[7] On May 1, 2023, Ms. L.C. was late returning home. In their bedroom, Mr. Ciobanu questioned her about where she had been. He accused her of being unfaithful to him. In a fit of jealous rage, he pulled her from the bed and then struck her on her lower abdomen with his knee. Ms. L.C. was recovering from surgery, and this caused her great pain. He apologized when he realized he had hurt her more than he intended.
[8] The most serious offences were the assaults on Ms. L.C. and Trevor on May 12, 2023. In their bedroom, Mr. Ciobanu struck Ms. L.C. in the head with his right hand clenched as a fist, with his left hand covering her mouth to prevent her from screaming for help. Trevor heard a commotion, entered the bedroom and tried to protect his mother by placing himself between her and his father. He witnessed his father punching his mother in the head. He begged his father to leave his mother alone. Mr. Ciobanu then tried to kick at Ms. L.C. but missed and struck Trevor instead in the testicles. Trevor screamed in pain. While he did not intend to harm Trevor, he did so regardless, and I found him guilty based on the doctrine of transferred intent. Trevor required treatment in the hospital later that month when the pain had not relented.
[9] Mark, then 18 years old, entered the bedroom after the assaults occurred and noticed blood on his mother’s lip and Trevor crying. Mr. Ciobanu was standing in front of his mother, holding his hand in the air over his head as if he was considering hitting her again. Trevor was trying to defend their mother.
[10] Before the assault, Ms. L.C. remembered her husband forcing her down to her knees to beg for his forgiveness for her purported infidelity. This was an act of coercive control meant to subjugate and humiliate Ms. L.C. It is also an aggravating factor.
Victim Input
[11] Ms. L.C. and Trevor declined to provide formal victim impact statements. Through Crown counsel, I was informed that Ms. L.C. wants nothing to do with Mr. Ciobanu. Trevor continues to reside with her. There are no family court proceedings in place at this time.
Background of Mr. Ciobanu
[12] Mr. Ciobanu was born on May 25, 1969, in Craiova, in the Dolj county of Romania. He is 55. During his childhood, Romania was under the communist reign of leader Nicolae Ceaușescu.
[13] His father was murdered at the age of 32 when he was approximately one year old. His mother raised him.
[14] He had an otherwise positive childhood. His family lived in a small two-bedroom house. His mother had difficulty supporting them, but they were well cared for. His mother passed away when he was in his 30s.
[15] Mr. Ciobanu did not finish high school. Instead, he completed mandatory military service. After leaving the military at age 21, he married Ms. L.C., who was only 15. They had three children together.
[16] On September 14, 2019, Mr. Ciobanu claimed refugee status in Canada. The Immigration and Refugee Board believed that he was being persecuted and his life was in danger in Romania because he was Roma. They granted him Convention Refugee status.
[17] Presently, he has a removal order, but it is unenforceable. He cannot be returned to Romania due to the threats to his life.[^2]
[18] Mr. Ciobanu has been employed with TransCanada Transformers & Switchgear for over a year. The company manufactures generators and transformers. His duties as a general labourer involve working with hand tools, cleaning machinery, loading and unloading, and other general cleaning work.
[19] He presently resides on his own in the eastern end of Toronto, while Ms. L.C. and their children reside at a separate residence in the city's western end.
Position of the Parties
[20] On behalf of the Crown, Ms. Birsan seeks a 12-month jail sentence followed by three years of probation. She emphasized this is a case of family violence, including assaults committed against Mr. Ciobanu’s wife and his son. The principles of deterrence and denunciation must be given great weight.
[21] Ms. Birsan noted that there were five assaults, and Mr. Ciobanu shows limited insight into his behaviour. While he pleaded guilty to the count of assault, where independent witnesses observed the offence, Ms. L.C. and Trevor had to relive all the incidents of abuse when they testified. While Mr. Ciobanu is not to be punished for having a trial, he is not entitled to the full weight of a comprehensive guilty plea as a mitigating factor. Ms. Birsan reminded me that Ms. L.C. collapsed during her testimony in the summer and had to be taken to the hospital as she became physically and emotionally overwhelmed when reliving the years of violence she had endured.
[22] While she was unable to obtain victim impact statements, Mr. Birsan invites me to conclude that the impact of these offences must have been severe for both victims. Trevor was only 13 years old when he had to bear witness to his father assaulting his mother and experience violence himself. Ms. L.C. was assaulted multiple times and threatened.
[23] Ms. Guglia submits a suspended sentence with probation satisfies the required sentencing principles. Mr. Ciobanu is a first-time offender who has complied with his bail conditions. He has not re-offended. He served five days in pre-sentence custody before being placed on a release order that required him to report regularly. He is employed and has a stable residence, which a jail sentence would jeopardize.
[24] Ms. Guglia submits that regarding the offences against Trevor, Mr. Ciobanu did not intend to strike and harm him on May 12, 2023. He expressed regret for that offence immediately after it happened and still wishes to be Trevor's supportive father.
[25] Mr. Ciobanu has had a difficult life. That does not excuse his conduct, but Ms. Guglia argues it diminishes his moral culpability. He is also a refugee and identifies as Roma, a traditionally vulnerable group of persons. He has medical concerns, and any jail sentence would be particularly difficult for him.
[26] In the alternative, should I find a suspended sentence fails to meet the required sentencing principles, Ms. Guglia asks me to consider a conditional sentence order (“CSO”) instead.
Intimate Partner Violence and Child Abuse
[27] Section 718.2(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code directs a sentencing court to treat as an aggravating factor “evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender's intimate partner or a member of the victim or the offender’s family.”
[28] In R. v. Cunningham, 2023 ONCA 36, the Court of Appeal described the effects of intimate partner violence as “heinous” and reiterated the importance of courts prioritizing general deterrence and denunciation in the sentencing process: see para. 26. Offenders who commit these offences abuse a position of trust concerning their victims, which is an additional aggravating factor: see Cunningham at para. 27; Criminal Code section 718.2(a)(iii).
[29] Parliament introduced Bill C-75 in 2019. This legislation contained provisions to address intimate partner violence. Criminal Code section 718.201 states a court “that imposes a sentence in respect of an offence that involved the abuse of an intimate partner shall consider the increased vulnerability of female persons who are victims, giving particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal female victims.” This section must be considered in cases of intimate partner violence: R. v. Pereira, 2019 ONSC 6751, para. 5. Similarly, Criminal Code section 718.04 requires a sentencing court to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence for an offence that “involved the abuse of a person who is vulnerable because of personal circumstances – including because the person is Aboriginal and female.”
[30] It is a sad observation that the victims of intimate partner violence are overwhelmingly women. Bill C-75 was meant, in part, to recognize the gendered nature of these crimes and provide direction to sentencing courts accordingly. Furthermore, where offences significantly impact a victim, particularly concerning her health and financial situation, that must be considered an aggravating factor: Criminal Code section 718.2(a)(iii.1).
[31] Intimate partner violence also affects children who are exposed to it. When Mr. Ciobanu chose to assault his wife in front of Trevor, he harmed Trevor and, to a lesser extent, Mark (who witnessed some of the events at the last minute) as well. Exposing children to an act of intimate partner violence is a stark aggravating factor: see R. c. B.F., 2022 QCCQ 1719, paras. 107-112. Trevor witnessed his father assaulting his mother, and despite his pleas for mercy, was then the victim of Mr. Ciobanu’s misdirected anger himself when Mr. Ciobanu tried to kick at Ms. L.C. Mark also had to see his mother in a terrible, injured state, as well as his brother screaming in pain.
[32] As Mr. Ciobanu is a first-time offender, I must consider the principle of restraint contained in sections 718.2(d) and (e) of the Criminal Code. In R. v. Romano, 2021 ONCA 211, para. 64, the Court of Appeal indicated that “a sentencing judge is required to consider all sanctions apart from incarceration and impose imprisonment only when there is no other reasonable punishment…It follows that where imprisonment is required, the term should be as short as is reasonable given the circumstances.”
[33] Though these provisions speak of restraint, it is vital to remember that section 718.2(e) requires a sentence to be “consistent with the harm done to victims or the community.” An assault “against an intimate partner is an offence against that victim, but also an offence against the community because of the long term and significant societal harm such offences cause”: see R. v. Smith, 2024 NLPC 53407, para. 42; R. v. Sylvie Marshall, 2023 ONSC 6948, paras. 32-33; Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2023 ONCA 476, para. 1.
[34] With these principles in mind, while the range of sentencing for intimate partner violence is broad, a period of incarceration may be entirely appropriate even for first-time offenders.
[35] In R. v. Rahanam, 2008 ONCA 1, the appellant was a first-time offender who pleaded guilty to unlawful confinement, assault, and carrying a concealed weapon. He awaited his former intimate partner as he stepped off a bus on her way to work. He escorted her to his car, parked a short distance away. Inside the car, he displayed a knife and began to question her about her private affairs. For several hours, he confined her in the car and assaulted her. The trial judge sentenced him to nine months in jail and two years probation.
[36] The appellant argued that the trial judge made an error by not imposing a conditional sentence. The Court of Appeal noted the trial judge’s findings that the appellant was remorseful, gainfully employed at the time of sentencing, had strong family support and represented no danger of re-offending: see para. 4. Nevertheless, the Court dismissed the appeal against sentence. The trial judge was entitled to conclude that a conditional sentence would insufficiently weigh the principles of deterrence and denunciation and would cause the community to lose confidence in the administration of justice.
[37] In R. v. Young, 2024 NLPC 35308, the offender and his former partner argued. She attempted to leave their residence with their two young children. Mr. Young held her down against a bed and forcefully took a set of car keys from her. This happened in the presence of one of their children.
[38] He was 39 years old, employed, and took responsibility for his actions. He did not have a prior criminal record. Yet the act of violence, in this context, demanded a sixty-day jail sentence: see para. 41.
[39] The fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be “proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”: see Criminal Code section 718.1. Even considering some of Mr. Ciobanu’s difficult life experiences and limited opportunities presented to him in his home country of Romania when he was younger, his degree of responsibility for these offences is extremely high.
[40] Mr. Ciobanu’s assaults on his wife and child occurred multiple times over more than half a year. They reflect significant moral culpability. He caused both physical and emotional bodily harm. Ms. L.C. was left injured by all the assaults she experienced and was visibly bloodied on May 12, 2023. When Mr. Ciobanu struck Trevor for defending his mother in early 2023, he did so without any justification, causing significant pain. When he kicked Trevor on May 12, 2023, he knew that Trevor was simply trying to protect his mother. As held by the SCC in Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76, at p. 111, “The criminal law will decisively condemn and punish force that harms children, is part of a pattern of abuse, or is simply the angry or frustrated imposition of violence against children.”
[41] In R. v. Vieira-Paulino, 2023 ONCJ 563, the offender was sentenced for assaulting his wife and three children. I reviewed several other reported decisions for crimes of this nature. Jail sentences are typical, even for single acts of abuse. Conditional sentences have been imposed only in cases where significant mitigating factors were present: see paras. 74 to 83.
[42] Mr. Ciobanu’s assaults were born out of his attitude that he could treat those dependent upon him however he wanted when they dared disrespect him. He should have loved and cared for his family and worked to solve their problems with civility and maturity. If he could not control his anger, he should have removed himself from their presence. Instead, he lashed out with violence and cruelty.
[43] Trevor impressed me during the trial. He was intelligent, articulate and surprisingly resilient. But he was still just a child. It is a trite observation that no child should ever have to witness the abuse of one parent at the hands of another or experience any assaults themselves. He came to his mother’s defence when she needed him, and his only mistake was to believe his father was a better man than he was.
[44] The degree of family violence experienced by Ms. L.C. and her children requires a strong response. As stated by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. A.D., 2024 ABCA 178, para. 57:
The Criminal Code provisions regarding domestic violence, abuse of trust positions, and the vulnerability of certain populations are reminders to sentencing courts to recalibrate and to overcome the underreaction to family violence cases that might result from familiarity. Family violence, like violence in any other context, should be shocking every time.
[45] The Criminal Code represents the codification of many of our collective values. There are some offences where the need for denunciation and deterrence is so overwhelming that the only suitable way to express society's condemnation of the offender's conduct is through a sentence of imprisonment: see R. v. Macintyre-Syrette, 2018 ONCA 706, para. 19. I agree with Ms. Guglia that Mr. Ciobanu meets the criteria for a CSO in section 742.1 of the Criminal Code. But to impose a CSO would not adequately reflect Mr. Ciobanu’s degree of personal responsibility, the harm done to his wife and child, and the values represented in the Criminal Code regarding violence against women and children more generally. Violence in intimate partner relationships and families remains one of the most pressing concerns facing criminal courts in Canada: see R. v. Begley, 2019 BCCA 331, para. 10.
[46] Ms. Guglia raised the potentially significant collateral consequences Mr. Ciobanu will face if sentenced to jail. He could lose his employment and his apartment. I was not provided with any specific evidence in this regard, but I accept these are plausible concerns. However, there is no requirement that the existence of collateral consequences must reduce an otherwise fit jail sentence. Nor will they necessarily justify the imposition of a CSO, especially in cases of personal violence: see R. v. Aiken, 2024 ONCA 326, para. 13. All sentences must respect the fundamental principle of proportionality and adequately reflect the gravity of the offences committed: see R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, paras. 47-49 and 56.
[47] I do not find these potential collateral consequences render the proposed jail sentence unfit. Specific detrimental outcomes may inevitably result for an offender who is convicted and sentenced. That does not mean they always justify reduced penalties: see R. v. Einollahi, 2021 ONSC 6048, paras. 51-55. Those who abuse their defenceless intimate partners and/or children must not be allowed to avoid meaningful accountability for their actions on this basis. Such an outcome would distort the sentencing process and fail to respect Parliament’s clear direction to sentencing courts regarding the devastating nature of intimate partner violence and child abuse.
[48] Fundamentally, I agree with and echo Justice Gorman's remarks in Young that merely acknowledging the principles of sentencing applicable to intimate partner violence is not sufficient. Courts must impose sentences that “actually reflect their application”: see para. 10.
[49] While the sentence proposed by the Crown is entirely appropriate, given Mr. Ciobanu’s status as a first-time offender, some limited expression of remorse, and the particular hardships he may face in custody due to his age and health concerns, I impose a global sentence of eight months jail. As explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Hills, 2023 SCC 2, para. 135 (citations removed):
Courts should consider the effect of a sentence on the particular offender. The principle of proportionality implies that where the impact of imprisonment is greater on a particular offender, a reduction in sentence may be appropriate… For this reason, courts have reduced sentences to reflect the comparatively harsher experience of imprisonment for certain offenders, like offenders in law enforcement, for those suffering disabilities… or for those whose experience of prison is harsher due to systemic racism…
[50] Mr. Ciobanu spent five days in pre-sentence custody and will be credited with eight days. That leaves him with a seven-month, 22-day sentence to serve (or 232 days).
Conclusion
[51] I will endorse the information as follows:
- Count 4, the October 27, 2022, assault against Ms. L.C. – 30 days jail (reduced to 22 days to reflect Summers credit).
- Count 2, the assault committed against Trevor in early 2023, 30 days jail, concurrent.
- Count 6, the May 1, 2023, assault committed against Ms. L.C. – 60 days jail, consecutive.
- Count 3, the May 12, 2023, assault committed against Ms. L.C. – 120 days jail, consecutive.
- Count 1, the May 12, 2023, assault committed against Trevor – 30 days jail, consecutive.
[52] Mr. Ciobanu will be placed on probation for 24 months following his jail sentence on appropriate terms.
[53] A DNA order will be issued for each assault count. It is in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the order. Assault is a secondary designated offence under Criminal Code section 487.051(3).
[54] A ten-year weapons prohibition order will be issued under Criminal Code section 110(2).
[55] I waive the victim fine surcharges as Mr. Ciobanu will be in custody.
Released: February 20, 2025
Signed: Justice Brock Jones
[^1]: These are not their real names. I am using different names to preserve their anonymity.
[^2]: Ms. Guglia did not argue that any sentence I impose should be adjusted due to collateral immigration concerns: see, for example, R. v. Pham, 2013 SCC 15.