Reasons for Sentence

Court File No.: CR-24-30000622-0000
Date: 2025-07-04
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King
and
Idriss Buni

Appearances:
B. Ververs, for the Crown
A. Wine, for Idriss Buni

Heard: June 30, 2025
Judge: J. M. Barrett

Introduction

[1] Following a two-day trial, on April 7, 2025, I found Mr. Buni guilty of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. The offences stemmed from a knife attack on his then intimate partner, Muna Riyaleh.

[2] Counsel agree that the charge of assault with a weapon should be stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle: Kienapple v. The Queen, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; R. v. Basilio (2003), 175 C.C.C. (3d) 440 (Ont. C.A.). I agree. The aggravated assault is based on the consequences of Mr. Buni’s use of a knife during his assault of Ms. Riyaleh.

[3] On the date set for the sentencing hearing, counsel for Mr. Buni requested an adjournment as he recently learned that Mr. Buni had an outstanding appeal against his 2022 conviction for aggravated assault against a non-intimate partner. Counsel for the Crown opposed the adjournment request. After hearing submissions and reviewing all materials, I denied the adjournment. In an oral ruling I found that the proposed adjournment was contrary to the statutory duty on the court to conduct a sentencing hearing “as soon as practicable” following a finding of guilt: s. 720(1) Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46. I further found the request to be contrary to the principles set out by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Charley, 2019 ONCA 726, 147 O.R. (3d) 497, paras. 87-88.

[4] Mr. Buni appears before me for sentencing. Counsel for the Crown submits that in the circumstances of this case, an appropriate sentence is nine years’ imprisonment. Counsel for Mr. Buni submits that the appropriate range is four to six years’ imprisonment. Both counsel agree that Mr. Buni should receive a credit of 1.5 days for each of his 572 real days spent in pre-sentence custody, pursuant to s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code, and the principles set out in R. v. Summers, 2013 ONCA 147, 114 O.R. (3d) 641, aff’d 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575. Applying that credit, Mr. Buni has spent the equivalent of 858 days. Counsel for Mr. Buni submits that some credit should also be given for the harsh conditions experienced by Mr. Buni while incarcerated, pursuant to R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, para. 6. I agree. As explained later in these reasons, I have considered this to be a mitigating factor.

[5] The ancillary orders sought by the Crown are not opposed and therefore will be granted, namely: a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and an order prohibiting Mr. Buni from communicating with Ms. Riyaleh while serving any further period of imprisonment.

[6] After having considered the facts of the case, Mr. Buni’s personal background, and the relevant legal principles, I find that the appropriate sentence is 7.5 years’ imprisonment. This means that Mr. Buni must serve a further 1,879 days (i.e., 5 years and 54 days).

[7] What follows are my reasons.

The Facts

The Offences

[8] The details of the offences are set out in R. v. Buni, 2025 ONSC 2159.

[9] The offences stem from an unprovoked knife attack that occurred during the early morning hours of December 11, 2023. Ms. Riyaleh was stabbed multiple times with a kitchen knife in her own home. After the stabbing, Mr. Buni ran to seek help from neighbours who called 911. Ms. Riyaleh was transported to Sunnybrook Hospital where she was intubated and underwent surgery. She discharged herself after one week.

[10] At trial, evidence of Ms. Riyaleh’s injuries was the subject of an Agreed Statement of Facts. It was an agreed fact that Ms. Riyaleh required stitches and/or staples for “penetrating wounds” to her face, neck, front and back shoulders and left hand. The penetrating wound to her neck was particularly serious. It was an agreed fact that the trauma caused by the stab wounds resulted in an injury to Ms. Riyaleh’s left external jugular vein and bruising to the left carotid sheath between the left common carotid artery and internal jugular vein. At trial, Ms. Riyaleh testified that she continues to suffer pain on her left side as a result of the attack.

[11] At the time of the offence, Mr. Buni was Ms. Riyaleh’s intimate partner.

The Offender

[12] Mr. Buni is currently 47 years old. He was born in Somalia on December 22, 1977. He came to Canada in 2005, arriving in Montreal as a refugee. He is now a permanent resident of Canada.

[13] Mr. Buni has a criminal record. It is as follows:

Date/Location	Offence	Sentence
2021-03-26 Toronto	Fail to Comply with Probation Order	$50 fine
2021-07-16 Toronto	(1) Fail to Comply with Undertaking (2) Fail to Comply with Probation Order	(1) 1 day and Probation 12 mos. (credit for the equivalent of 30 days Pre-Sentence Custody) (2) 1 day Concurrent and Probation 12 mos.
2022-03-15 Toronto	(1) Aggravated Assault (2) Assault with a Weapon (3) Assault Peace Officer	(1) 18 mos. and Probation 18 mos. and Mandatory Weapons Prohibition sec. 109 (2) 18 Mos Conc & Probation 18 mos. and Mandatory Weapons Prohibition sec. 109 (3) 1 Day Concurrent and Probation 18 mos.
2022-05-11 Toronto	Mischief Under $5000	Suspended Sentence and Probation 12 mos.

[14] Mr. Buni’s prior conviction for aggravated assault is under appeal. Mr. Buni was released from custody in March 2023.

[15] The Pre-Sentence Report prepared for Mr. Buni provides very helpful background information, including:

• (i) Mr. Buni had a good childhood until he was fourteen years of age when civil war in Somalia forced his family to flee to the Somalia-Ethiopia border where he joined a rebel faction “out of boredom”. He witnessed atrocities, including the torture of civilians by other factions.
• (ii) Mr. Buni has two younger siblings but has lost contact with them. His parents are both deceased.
• (iii) Mr. Buni has never married and has no children.
• (iv) Mr. Buni’s relationship with Ms. Riyaleh began in 2019. Prior to the index offences, Mr. Buni maintained contact with Ms. Riyaleh in violation of court orders. Police records show 14 incidents involving the couple, although Ms. Riyaleh reported no prior physical assaults.
• (v) Mr. Buni has been sober since his arrest.
• (vi) Mr. Buni has no housing. Mr. Buni lost access to his Toronto Community Housing unit after a violent attack on another resident.
• (vii) Since 2019, Ms. Elizabeth Toth has been Mr. Buni’s mental health case manager. Ms. Toth noted that before his relationship with Ms. Riyaleh, Mr. Buni was “kind and emotionally stable”. Mr. Buni’s alcohol abuse started around the same time as his relationship with Ms. Riyaleh. Ms. Toth is of the view that Mr. Buni’s alcohol abuse caused the “destruction” of his life.
• (viii) Mr. Buni graduated from high school and completed a 10-month college program in welding.
• (ix) While incarcerated, Mr. Buni completed the Corrections Literacy Initiative – a 14-week course offered by a local college. He also completed the Cocaine Anonymous 12-step program. The facilitator of this program – Jack Walton – has offered to sponsor Mr. Buni upon release. Mr. Buni also completed the Communication Skills and Healthy Relationships workshops totaling 20 hours. His instructor views Mr. Buni as eager and engaged.
• (x) Mr. Buni is described as having “long-standing mental health challenges”. Since April 11, 2024, Mr. Buni has been engaged in regular psychiatric care. Mr. Buni is currently taking prescribed medications for depression, insomnia, racing thoughts, and nightmares.
• (xi) In a clinical note dated April 30, 2025, psychologist Dr. Behzad Goodarzi reported that Mr. Buni has been actively working through Mind Over Mood, a Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (“CBT”) based self-help guide. Dr. Goodarzi recommended continued CBT and placement at the Ontario Correctional Institute if Mr. Buni receives a reformatory sentence.
• (xii) Since arriving in Canada, Mr. Buni has worked as a security guard, delivery driver, and grocery clerk. He has not worked since 2022 due to alcohol abuse, legal and “other personal difficulties”.
• (xiii) Mr. Buni has a history of illicit substance abuse. However, with Ms. Riyaleh’s encouragement, he significantly reduced his use of illicit substances, but increased his alcohol consumption. He also uses marijuana.
• (xiv) Mr. Buni was on probation for aggravated assault at the time of the index offences. The aggravated assault related to a knife attack on an acquaintance.
• (xv) Mr. Buni was discharged from the Partner Assault Response Program due to poor attendance.

Pre-Sentence Custody

[16] Mr. Buni has been incarcerated since his arrest on December 11, 2023. The parties agree that Mr. Buni is entitled to the standard “Summers” credit of 1.5 days for each of his 572 days spent in pre-sentence custody. Applying this credit, he has now served the equivalent of 858 days.

[17] Counsel for Mr. Buni argued that some additional credit is warranted given the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody. At the sentencing hearing, counsel for Mr. Buni filed lockdown records from the Toronto East Detention Centre (“TEDC”) and the Toronto South Detention Centre. The records cover the period of Mr. Buni’s pre-sentence custody to the end of June 2025.

[18] Of the 482 nights spent at the TEDC, Mr. Buni was triple bunked for 142 nights. He was also in protective custody for two periods: February 29, 2024, to April 19, 2024; and April 30, 2024 to June 24, 2025. Lockdowns occurred on 48 days, three of which were all-day lockdowns. Mr. Buni incurred no misconducts while at the TEDC.

Victim Impact

[19] Ms. Riyaleh testified at trial. Ms. Riyaleh testified that after one week at Sunnybrook Hospital she discharged herself. She has no memory of the two-day period between the assault and when she awoke in hospital. It was an agreed fact that during her hospitalization, Ms. Riyaleh was intubated and underwent surgery. Ms. Riyaleh testified that she still suffers from ringing in her ear. To this day, Ms. Riyaleh is unable to sleep on her left side due to pain and discomfort.

[20] Ms. Riyaleh declined the opportunity to present a Victim Impact Statement. The absence of a Victim Impact Statement does not diminish the obvious physical harm she suffered as a result of the attack.

Positions of the Parties

[21] The Crown seeks a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment. The Crown also seeks a DNA order, pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code; a lifetime weapons prohibition, pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code; and a non-communication order, pursuant to s. 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code.

[22] In support of this position, the Crown relies on the following cases: R. v. Fulton, 2012 ONCA 781; R. v. Langford, 2007 CarswellOnt 11881 (S.C.), aff’d 2010 CarswellOnt 4280 (C.A.); R. v. Onyeachonam, 2021 ONSC 6893, aff’d 2023 ONCA 485; R. v. Bananish, 2024 ONSC 1218, aff’d 2025 ONCA 364; and R. v. Seerattan, 2019 ONSC 4340. All involve offences of intimate partner violence with sentences in the range of six-and-a-half years’ imprisonment to nine years’ imprisonment.

[23] Counsel for Mr. Buni argues that the appropriate range of sentence is four to six years’ imprisonment as set out by Code J. in R. v. Tourville, 2011 ONSC 1677. Applying that range to the circumstances of this case, counsel for Mr. Buni submits that five years’ imprisonment is appropriate. Counsel for Mr. Buni also relies on the decisions of R. v. Navarathinam, 2021 ONSC 4241, R. v. Fortune, 2024 ONCA 269, and R. v. Joseph, 2024 ONCJ 207. None of these cases, however, involved intimate partner violence.

Analysis

[24] The “fundamental purpose” of sentencing is to “protect society and to contribute […] 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” as set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code:

• (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 the rehabilitation of 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 or to the community.

[25] In crafting an appropriate sentence, regard must also be given to the fundamental principle of sentencing: proportionality. Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code directs that any sentence I impose must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Imposing a proportionate sentence is a highly individualized exercise, tailored to the gravity of the offence, the blameworthiness of the offender, and the harm caused by the crime: see R. v. M. (C.A.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at pp. 557-59. In other words, proportionality is determined both on an individual basis and by comparison with sentences imposed for similar offences committed in similar circumstances: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, para. 53.

[26] Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code directs sentencing courts to consider a number of other statutory principles, including: a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any mitigating or aggravating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender (s. 718.2(a)); a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances (also known as the principle of parity contained in s. 718.2(b)); and, courts should exercise restraint in imposing imprisonment (ss. 718.2(d) and (e)). In other words, all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders.

[27] The offence of aggravated assault is punishable by a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment: s. 268(2), Criminal Code. There is no minimum prescribed sentence.

[28] The gravity of the offence and Mr. Buni’s blameworthiness are both significant. Mr. Buni viciously attacked his intimate partner, Ms. Riyaleh, in the sanctity of her own home. Ms. Riyaleh was hospitalized. She has lasting injuries. The victim impact is significant.

[29] There are mitigating factors in this case. The Pre-Sentence Report details Mr. Buni’s rehabilitative efforts since his arrest, including participation in educational programs; psychiatric care; therapy; and abstinence from alcohol. At the time of the offence, Mr. Buni was struggling with alcohol abuse. He was also exposed to extreme violence as a teenager before immigrating to Canada. As a permanent resident, Mr. Buni is likely to suffer immigration consequences. Further, the fact that Mr. Buni was subject to triple-bunking for almost a third of his time at the TEDC is a mitigating factor: R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, paras. 50, 52; R. v. Kumi, 2025 ONCA 3, paras. 11-14.

[30] Mr. Buni, of course, is entitled to maintain his innocence. However, there is no evidence of any remorse. This is not an aggravating factor, but the absence of a potential mitigating factor: R. v. Reeve, 2020 ONCA 381, 151 O.R. (3d) 65, para. 12; R. v. F.A., 2022 ONSC 5696, para. 48, citing R. v. Kozy, 74 O.R. (2d) 545 (C.A.), at pp. 505-506.

[31] The aggravating factors are many. First, there are the statutory aggravating factors. As the offences involve intimate partner violence, this is a mandated aggravating factor pursuant to s. 718.2(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code. Section 718.201 of the Criminal Code further directs that in imposing a sentence in respect of an offence involving the abuse of an intimate partner, the court “shall consider the increased vulnerability of female persons who are victims”. Mr. Buni is not a first offender. In fact, he was released from custody only months earlier and was on probation at the time he assaulted Ms. Riyaleh.

[32] For decades, the Court of Appeal for Ontario has spoken of the need for sentences that give paramountcy to the objectives of deterrence and denunciation for intimate partner violence: see R. v. Inwood, 69 C.R. (3d) 181 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Bates, 35 C.R. (5th) 327 (Ont. C.A.), para. 30; R. v. Cunningham, 2023 ONCA 36, 166 O.R. (3d) 147, paras. 2, 32. Deterrence is required to address the prevalence of intimate partner violence. Denunciation is warranted because offenders exploit the vulnerability of an intimate partner and violate the inherent trust in the relationship: Cunningham, at paras. 27-28, 34.

[33] In terms of parity, the applicable range of sentence is disputed. The Crown argues that the appropriate range for offences of this nature committed on an intimate partner is 6.5 to 9 years’ imprisonment. Counsel for Mr. Buni relies on Tourville, in which the “high end of the range” was described as four to six years’ imprisonment: at paras. 27-30. Tourville, however, did not involve intimate partner violence. Further, I note that two other cases relied on by counsel for Mr. Buni involved guilty pleas (i.e., Fortune and Joseph).

[34] In my view, Tourville did not purport to set the applicable range of sentence for an aggravated assault involving intimate partner violence. In so finding, I recognize that Code J. applied the range set out in Tourville in his subsequent decision of Seerattan, which did involve intimate partner violence. However, in Seerattan, Code J. increased the upper end of the range from six years to eight years’ imprisonment. Further, as Seerattan involved a guilty plea and a joint submission, the decision did not address the application of the Tourville range to cases involving intimate partner violence. More importantly, Tourville was decided in 2011, several years before the 2019 amendments enacted under Bill C-75, S.C. 2019, c. 25. These amendments introduced the statutory aggravating factors that are present in this case and signal a clear intent by Parliament for increased penalties to address intimate partner violence. These amendments necessarily impact the sentencing range for offences committed against an intimate partner.

[35] Indeed, in the recent decision of Cunningham, Benotto J.A., for the Court of Appeal for Ontario, at para. 52, stated:

Thus, the intention of Parliament clearly supports enhanced penalties for perpetrators of domestic violence and denunciation and deterrence as the primary sentencing objectives. It also supports changes in sentencing ranges to reflect societal awareness and knowledge of the damage to society, as well as victims, caused by domestic violence. [Emphasis added.]

[36] The range of sentence set out in Tourville did not have the benefit of considering the 2019 amendments which enhanced the penalties available for intimate partner violence. Counsel for Mr. Buni argued that the range in Tourville remains applicable subject to aggravating and mitigating factors, such as the abuse of an intimate partner which is statutorily aggravating. I disagree.

[37] In my view, cases involving intimate partner violence are subject to their own range of sentence. For purposes of sentencing Mr. Buni, I need not determine the scope of that range. However, I note that at the upper end, s. 718.3(8) of the Criminal Code provides sentencing judges with discretion to exceed the prescribed maximum sentence for recidivists. In this case, I agree with the Crown that the appropriate range is 6.5 to 9 years’ imprisonment.

[38] In Fulton, the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed the sentence of nine years’ imprisonment. In that case, the accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault on a former intimate partner. Mr. Fulton “invaded” his former partner’s apartment, and stabbed her three times in the chest and twice in the back. The victim suffered life-threatening injuries, including a collapsed lung. After the victim escaped, Mr. Fulton barricaded himself in her apartment, resulting in his arrest by the Emergency Task Force. Mr. Fulton had a prior criminal record which included intimate partner violence on a different partner after she ended the relationship.

[39] In Langford, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment for a first offender who was found guilty of several offences, including aggravated assault against his common-law partner after she returned her engagement ring. The unprovoked attack involved the accused punching the victim in the nose, dragging her by her hair, placing his booted foot on her throat, and hitting her with his steel toed boots. The victim was hospitalized for seven days and suffered broken bones, broken teeth, and a “split” face which left a scar. While the accused had a history of verbal abuse in the relationship, he had never before been physically abusive.

[40] In Onyeachonam, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment for the offender who was convicted after trial of aggravated assault on his deaf and mute pregnant partner. The victim was left lying on the floor naked and unconscious after being kicked down a flight of stairs, stomped on, punched and dragged into a corridor. The victim was hospitalized for ten days for life-threatening injuries. The accused had a prior record for property offences, utter threats and offences against the administration of justice. He had one prior conviction for an offence of violence (i.e., assault with intent to resist arrest). The sentencing judge found that the accused’s substance abuse and the offences were “inextricably linked” and because the accused showed insight into his substance abuse, he had rehabilitative potential. The accused also had the support of his mother and sister. The accused was subject to deportation and was subject to harsh conditions while awaiting trial. The sentencing judge found that absent mitigating factors, a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment was appropriate.

[41] The decision of Bananish is the most recent decision relied on by counsel for the Crown. In Bananish, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a sentence of 6.5 years’ imprisonment for an Indigenous offender who pleaded guilty to aggravated assault in relation to a stabbing attack on his former partner. He was on probation as well as other court orders at the time of the attack. The victim had 11 stab wounds to the head, face, neck, back and finger and required hospitalization for 21 days. The offender had an extensive criminal record that included a history of violence against four intimate partners. The offender was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, possible schizophrenia, and antisocial personality disorder.

[42] The principle of restraint is found in s. 718.2(d) of the Criminal Code. It requires that a sentencing judge consider all sanctions apart from incarceration. It also requires that when incarceration is found to be necessary, a court must impose the shortest sentence of imprisonment that will achieve the various sentencing objectives applicable in the circumstances of each case. In other words, the restraint principle operates both when deciding whether incarceration is appropriate and, if so, determining its length. The principle of restraint is evident in the decision of R. v. Borde, 63 O.R. (3d) 417 (C.A.), para. 3, wherein at para. 3, Rosenberg J.A. stated that a “first penitentiary sentence should be as short as possible”. The principle of restraint must be balanced with the primary need for general deterrence, and denunciation. The principle of restraint must also operate within the boundaries set by the fundamental principle of proportionality: R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680, 159 O.R. (3d) 641, para. 112.

[43] This will be Mr. Buni’s first penitentiary sentence. Mr. Buni is not youthful. Nor is he a first offender. That said, Mr. Buni has made real efforts at rehabilitation while incarcerated. He is not without hope. With regard to the collateral immigration consequences, this “cannot be used to reduce a sentence to a point where the sentence becomes disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the moral blameworthiness of the offender”: R. v. Suter, 2018 SCC 34, [2018] 2 S.C.R. 496, para. 56; R. v. Pham, 2013 SCC 15, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 739, paras. 11-14.

[44] I recognize that a sentence of 7.5 years’ imprisonment is a significant jump from Mr. Buni’s last sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment. However, in Fortune, at para. 20, the Court of Appeal for Ontario relied on Borde, at para. 39 to explain that “the jump principle has little application where the severity of the offender’s crimes shows a dramatic increase in violence and seriousness”.

Disposition

[45] For all the reasons set out above, on Count 1 – the charge of Aggravated Assault – Mr. Buni is sentenced to 7.5 years’ imprisonment less credit for the equivalent of 858 days, leaving an additional 1,879 days to serve of his sentence.

[46] There will be a mandatory weapons prohibition order, pursuant to s. 109(3) of the Criminal Code for life.

[47] Pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code, Mr. Buni is ordered to provide samples of bodily substances as reasonably required for purposes of forensic DNA analysis.

[48] Pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code, I order that while in custody, Mr. Buni is not to communicate, directly or indirectly, with Muna Riyaleh.

J. M. Barrett

Released: July 4, 2025