Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 8746/23 Date: 2025-09-15 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty the King and D.N., Defendant

Counsel:

• Trent Wilson, for the Crown
• Kenneth G. Walker, for the Defendant

Heard: September 8, 2025

Before: Rasaiah J.

Reasons for Sentence

Overview

[1] Based on the reasons outlined in my reasons for decision (where all 22 charges are listed) after trial:

1. On counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 15, 16 and 22, I found D.N. guilty.

2. On count 6, I found D.N. guilty of the lesser offence of assault causing bodily harm pursuant to s. 267(b) of the Code.

3. On count 11, I found D.N. guilty of the offence of mischief, pursuant to s. 430(4) of the Code.

[2] This matter was eventually set to September 8, 2025, for sentencing hearing. Submissions were heard; my decision reserved.

[3] These are the written reasons for my decision on sentence.

Analysis

Sentence Issue Raised by Crown: Single Transaction Rule

[4] The Crown raised this given the number of incidents that were disclosed at trial and given that certain counts encompassed a lengthy period with a single charge. The Crown states all incidents should be used for sentencing. The defence did not raise a complaint about the form of the indictment before trial. On sentencing, other than to state that there were two incidents of sexual assault, and either one could be used in sentencing either/or, defence made limited submissions.

[5] As pointed out in R. v. Sandhu, 2009 ONCA 102, multiple incidents to be included in a single count does not require the complainant to be a child. To me this case was one of a consistent pattern of spousal abuse against C.B. There was more than ample evidence concerning D.N.'s pattern of conduct, fueled often by alcohol use, anger, lack of control and jealousy. D.N. committed multiple successive offences against C.B. over a period of 6 years. This case presented unfortunately as a classic case of prolonged domestic abuse, with break-ups and reconciliations, and with a victim that despite her background, covered it up and even lied about it over the relationship. Despite his own statements to police, D.N. at trial incredibly denied having ongoing jealousy issues concerning C.B. (although he seems prepared to acknowledge same today).

[6] Accordingly, I find the single transaction rule is not offended in this case for the offences that encompass more than one incident, and all may be considered for sentencing. Over an extended period, in this case six years, against the same complainant, C.B. his partner, primarily in the family home or when they were alone, D.N. engaged in a pattern of perpetrating multiple instances of physical assault, sexual assault and uttering threats to cause death primarily fueled by alcohol use, anger, control issues, and jealousy.

Legal Principles

[7] In accordance with s. 718 of the Code, the fundamental purpose of sentencing is 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;

(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 and to the community.

[8] A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender: s. 718.1 of the Code.

[9] There is more than one offence for which D.N. was found guilty, drawing considerations of cumulative punishments; and totality principle.

[10] A sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh; an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders: s. 718.2(b)-(e) of the Code.

[11] It is acknowledged that the measurement of a just sanction is a highly individualized process.

Applicable Legal Parameters

[12] Count 1: s. 266 liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years; s.110 discretionary firearms prohibition; s. 491 mandatory weapon forfeiture order; s. 487.04 DNA secondary. Note: becomes sixth entry on record for this offence, last one 2010, 10 months (66 days pre-sentence custody) plus 2 years probation, s. 110 ten years.

[13] Count 2: s. 267(c): liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; mandatory s. 109 firearms order; s. 491 mandatory weapon forfeiture order; s. 487.04 DNA primary compulsory. Note: becomes first entry on record for this offence.

[14] Count 3: s. 267(a): liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; mandatory s. 109 firearms order; s. 491 mandatory weapon forfeiture order; s. 487.04 DNA primary compulsory. Note: becomes second entry on record for this offence, last one 1996, youth, 2 months secured custody.

[15] Count 4: s. 276(a): liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; mandatory s. 109 firearms order; s. 491 mandatory weapon forfeiture order; s. 487.04 DNA primary compulsory. Note: becomes third entry on record for this offence, last one 1996, youth, 2 months secured custody.

[16] Count 6: s. 267(b): liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; mandatory s. 109 firearms order; s. 491 mandatory weapon forfeiture order; s. 487.04 DNA primary compulsory. Note: becomes first entry on record for this offence.

[17] Count 7: s. 264.1(1)(a) liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years; s.110 discretionary firearms prohibition; s. 491 mandatory weapon forfeiture order; s. 487.04 DNA secondary. Note: becomes second entry on record for this offence, last one 2010, 10 months (66 days pre-sentence custody) plus 2 years probation, s. 110 ten years.

[18] Count 10: s. 279(2) liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years; mandatory s. 109 firearms order; s. 491 mandatory weapon forfeiture order; s. 487.04 DNA primary compulsory. Note: becomes first entry on record for this offence.

[19] Count 11: s. 430(4) liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years; s.110 discretionary firearms prohibition; s. 491 mandatory weapon forfeiture order. Note: becomes third entry on record for this offence, last one 2010, 10 months (66 days pre-sentence custody) plus 2 years probation.

[20] Count 15: s. 271 liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years mandatory s. 109 firearms order; s. 491 mandatory weapon forfeiture order; s. 487.04 DNA primary compulsory; SOIRA for life s. 490.013 (under obligation to comply at time). Note: becomes first entry on record for this offence; two previous convictions for sexual interference 2018, effectively 12 months with 3 years probation and ancillary orders for one and 12 months for other.

[21] Count 16: s. 117.01(1) liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years; mandatory s. 109 firearms order; s. 491 mandatory weapon forfeiture order; s. 487.04 DNA secondary. Note: becomes first entry on record for this offence.

[22] Count 22: s. 266 liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years; s.110 discretionary firearms prohibition; s. 491 mandatory weapon forfeiture order; s. 487.04 DNA secondary. Note: becomes seventh entry on record for this offence, last one 2010, 10 months (66 days pre-sentence custody) plus 2 years probation, s. 110 ten years.

Circumstances of the Offences

[23] I have set out all my findings including circumstances of the offences in my decision released December 5, 2024. I will not repeat them here but clarify I have considered same in respect of Sentence.

[24] C.B. was in a relationship with D.N. from 2016 to 2022. The acts occurred over a period of 6 years and began in 2016 ("Bailey Incident His Mother's Home": violence with resulting injuries while he was intoxicated). The evidence at trial disclosed there were multiple incidents over the time frame. There was open hand hitting; kicking, on all parts of C.B.'s body, D.N. using a broom over her head, breaking her glasses, D.N. throwing a chair at her, punching her in the face, punching her in the legs, throwing ash trays and one time her cell phone cutting her face, slamming an axe on a counter and rubbing it down the side of her face, throwing a lamp at her (use of weapon), punching her in the ribs and side of leg and holding a steak knife to her cutting her ear (use of weapon). There were instances of choking. C.B. suffered injuries over the years, bruises, cuts drawing blood, swelling of various parts of her body and a twisted ankle. Witnesses testified to black eyes, cuts on C.B.'s face, lips, arms and ear that were observed. On one occasion, due to injury inflicted by D.N., C.B. could not walk for several weeks (the twisted ankle). The children were exposed to the violence on occasion. J.H. was involved in one such occasion of violence against C.B., getting assaulted himself, for trying to go get help. There were instances of forcible confinement holding her down on the couch with his elbow and knee repeatedly and times he precluded her from leaving the home. There were instances of sexual assault (one including attempting to force his penis in C.B.'s mouth while pulling her hair and one where D.N. put his fingers in C.B.'s vagina). D.N. uttered threats of death to C.B. C.B. feared for her life during the time frame of the relationship. At one point, she had bars installed on her front door, which did not seem to deter D.N. In my view, it is fair to say that there was a reign of terror, C.B. was a victim of a prolonged period of serious ongoing violence feeling powerless. D.N. had issues with alcohol consumption. D.N. possessed firearms when he was prohibited from doing so. All the details of the foregoing are set out in my trial decision. The whole of the circumstances of the offences without question paints a picture of a pattern of intimate partner violence by D.N. related to anger, control, jealousy and/or intoxication over a protracted duration.

[25] At trial I found that D.N. presented as downplaying his anger and/or his behaviours/reactions.

[26] Evidence that the offences had a significant impact on a victim considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation should be taken into consideration by the court: s. 718.2(a)(iii.1). There is no question with respect to the victim impact statements that both complainants were significantly and deeply impacted emotionally.

[27] With respect to the sexual assault incidents, I disagree with defence that one can be classified as less egregious than the other. One involved attempting to force his penis in C.B.'s mouth, erect penis touching her lips, while pulling her hair and one involved ripping off her jeans and inserting his fingers in her vagina (not long) and telling her she smelled of dirty Jamali cock. In my view, there is no distinction of meaning regarding the invasiveness between each incident.

Pre-sentence Report ("PSR")

[28] The court received a PSR with respect to D.N.

[29] The author of the PSR set out the sources of information considered.

[30] The PSR reports that D.N. is a 47-year-old male offender born in Elliot Lake, Ontario. His parents were married for over 25 years and only parted after the death of his father in 2013, following a battle with stomach cancer. D.N. reported having two older brothers which whom he shares a positive relationship with, granted ministry file information indicated that they both are involved in the criminal justice system. He has three additional siblings, however one of his brothers passed away and his only sister resides in Germany.

[31] He described his childhood as "good", however recalled his father being extremely physically abusive towards his mother, himself, and his siblings while intoxicated. He received strict punishments as a child. As the Crown concedes, I agree there is no question that D.N.'s history is a consideration. I agree with defence that D.N. appears to have followed in his father's footsteps with alcohol and domestic abuse.

[32] D.N. is stated to have surrounded himself with negative peer groups throughout his teenage years and young adulthood. This I agree is a consideration to understanding D.N. as an individual aligning same with his father's behaviours and what D.N. witnessed. More recently, D.N. is reported as having a friend who offers prosocial support and does not condone criminal behaviour.

[33] The subject's ex-partner was in a romantic relationship with the subject for 11 years, beginning the relationship when she was 19 years old, and the subject was 27 years old. They share two children together, ages 13 and 18. They have been co-parenting amicably since they separated over ten years ago. D.N. noted that there were instances of physical abuse throughout the relationship for which he was convicted of, and divulged that there were frequent arguments because of his alcohol abuse. The subject articulated that he misses his children and agreed that he has missed out on quality time due to the length of time he has spent in remand.

[34] D.N. raised that his mother was hospitalized recently twice, and that if he is released, she requires his assistance. She is 85. Defence counsel also raised that D.N.'s brother recently had a stroke that would leave long lasting impact, his brother will be requiring care as well.

[35] D.N. also spoke about one child graduating soon and one going through puberty.

Education and Employment

Education

[36] D.N. obtained his Grade 12 diploma and finished on the honour roll. Ministry file information from 2019 indicated D.N. was suspended on multiple occasions for missing school. He did not pursue any post secondary education.

Employment

[37] D.N. has worked in the shipping/receiving industry as a general labourer until 2013, at which time he moved back to Elliot Lake, Ontario following the death of his father. Ministry file information confirmed that throughout his previous period of community supervision from 2019 to 2022, he had sporadic employment and often spoke about returning to work but lacked motivation and follow through in doing so. He was primarily supported by Ontario Works throughout this time, prior to his incarceration. The subject expressed wanting to return to work if his previous employer would allow him to do so and discussed potential job opportunities in Western Canada. At the hearing, D.N. indicated that he spoke to a former employer and can return to work for him, Mr. Koke. No letter was received from Mr. Koke.

Substance Use and Addictions

[38] D.N. spoke about his alcohol use very pragmatically and reportedly began his alcohol use in his teenage years. Others believe he becomes more aggressive when intoxicated. He too believes alcohol makes him more aggressive. Ministry records corroborate that D.N. was more aggressive when intoxicated, and detailed that the level of aggression was contingent on the peers he was with, as well as the type of alcohol he was consuming. In contrast, the PSR writer noted that D.N. denied his alcohol use ever being problematic while being interviewed and denies any dependency issues. The defence raised that perhaps it was the word "dependency". I reject this suggestion. It is quite clear from looking at D.N.'s record that he has had struggles with alcohol for many years. The PSR writer, wrote Ministry file information indicated that nearly all the subject's involvement in the criminal justice system can be attributed to his struggles with alcohol abuse.

[39] D.N. was noted as denying any problematic drug use and advised that he used marijuana recreationally throughout his life.

[40] D.N. confessed that he was intoxicated at the time of the more serious offences pertaining to sexual offending and intimate partner violence. However, D.N. admitted to his alcohol use contributing to other instances of criminal involvement as well.

[41] It is good that D.N. is admitting issues with alcohol. He states that he did all programing available to him when he was in jail, but that there was no programing for him after he was transferred to Penetanguishene, Central North Correctional Center. He filed a letter of confirmation.

Character, Behaviour and Attitude

[42] Records from the Children's Aid Society, were considered by the PSR writer, hereinafter referred to as CAS, and noted to have revealed that: The subject was involved with their agency from February 23, 2015, until April 6, 2021. His children had previously been removed from his care due to concerns related to his alcohol use and risk of emotional harm due to exposure of intimate partner violence. In March 2015, CAS records reported that the subject continued to abuse alcohol and demonstrated a lack of control in his behaviours when he was using alcohol. The subject began to work cooperatively with CAS; however, the subject did not continue working cooperatively with CAS and they were unable to maintain regular contact with him. Upon the closure of the subject's file in April 2019, it was documented that he was unwilling to engage in any therapeutic intervention as he stated he completed the necessary work in jail. The closing notes indicate that D.N. did not seek out employment or engage in any educational programming, did not meet with CAS regularly, and his access with his children remained full supervised through the children's mother.

[43] D.N.'s has many entries related to breaches of orders and/or recognizances. D.N. was on probation and subject to a SOIRA order when he committed offences against C.B. In respect of the offence, he was on probation for and subject to the order for involved a 13-year-old complainant, and D.N. was noted to have blamed the said complainant for his behaviour, speaking to insight.

[44] D.N. has expressed that he has taken time to reflect on his past behaviours – indicating that the most problematic areas of concern are anger management and alcohol abuse. D.N. stated that he completed the Partner Assault Response program in the past and acknowledged that the program helped him to identify triggers within relationships, noting he would be willing to complete the program again upon his release.

[45] The history and attitudes demonstrated to date, as set out above, does not promote confidence in respect of rehabilitative capacity and/or true insight. I believe D.N. can change his life if he chooses to, but his demonstrated continuous lack of insight is troubling. He has had many opportunities to address his issues over many years and be productive, but he has not. It is the court's hope that he does change his life and can finally break the pattern he has established.

Response to Community Supervision

[46] The subject was granted a period of community supervision in the past. He has displayed a pattern of sexual offending behaviours in the past. Records provided that the subject had deeply entrenched antisocial beliefs, and although he expressed wanting to make positive changes throughout supervision, he often lacked motivation in doing so. The offences before the court occurred between May 1, 2016 and April 2, 2022, which overlapped the subject's period of community supervision, and illustrates a disregard for the requirements of his then probation order. Ministry file information indicated the subject reported as directed and completed rehabilitative programs, including the sexual offending relapse prevention program and counselling through an agency in Elliot Lake, Ontario where it was noted that the subject "addressed everything to completion". Additionally, ministry file information disclosed that by the end of the period of community supervision, he admitted fault in his actions and did not condone his behaviour as it related to sexual offending and was deemed a suitable candidate for future community supervision.

[47] The subject stated that he noticed significant improvements following the completion of programs and counselling while on community supervision in the past. He also expressed willingness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Writer's Summary

[48] D.N. is a 47-year-old found guilty of a wide variety of serious offences pertaining to intimate partner violence – including sexual assault. Historically, he has demonstrated a pattern of power and control issues within his intimate relationship, and it is well documented that these problems have been exacerbated due to his lifelong struggles with alcohol abuse.

[49] D.N. did not have a healthy home environment as a child and was witness to intimate partner violence and substance use from an early age. D.N. was negatively impacted by the lack of support during his formative years.

[50] D.N. has consistently reoffended throughout his previous term of community supervision – which includes the offences before the courts – despite positive changes he has implemented at the time. The subject has demonstrated disregard for rules that apply to him. The subject poses a safety risk to future intimate partners if the concern areas are not addressed to completion.

[51] D.N. was noted as having expressed remorse towards the victim and identified the deficit areas linked to his incessant reoffending, including alcohol abuse, anger management/self-management deficits, and power and control issues within intimate partner relationships.

[52] At the sentencing hearing he reiterated his remorse and stated if released he would never appear before a court again. He stated that he was sorry and takes full responsibility. While certainly not aggravating, in my view, the expression of remorse at this stage is not as mitigating as presented. It comes long after the fact and the expressions to the PSR writer in my view continue to cause me concern regarding his insight into his actions.

Criminal Record

[53] D.N. has a record. The offences span the timeframe of 1998 to 2017 (adult record). Many of the entries relate to driving while ability impaired or disqualified (12 entries) indicating a serious issue with alcohol. In 2018, D.N. was convicted of two counts of sexual interference.

[54] D.N. has a youth record April 1995 to January 30, 1996, with failures to comply, theft and assaults. The youth record supports longstanding aggression.

[55] D.N. at the hearing told the court he was not proud of this record and suggests that there are gaps.

[56] D.N.'s record, however, contains several entries for breaching orders as a youth and as an adult, time and time again over a protracted period (1998 to 2018). He has been incarcerated several times, one that was 30 months in duration (2003).

[57] I question rehabilitation candidacy. Currently, it presents as low to me. The record indicates a longstanding issue with alcohol and non-compliance with orders.

[58] He is a repeat offender when it comes to intimate partner violence and sexual offences.

C.B. and J.H.

[59] The court received a victim impact statement from C.B. and J.H.

[60] C.B. expresses a significant impact on her emotionally, in all aspects of her life. She is in counselling and expects this will be lifelong. She continues to feel anxiety and fear. She feels she suffered financially as a result in terms of missed work. She fears significantly for her safety.

[61] J.H. outlined the emotional impact, loss of trust, feelings of guilt, and including loss of relationships (son of D.N.). He also fears for his mother, sister and brother's safety.

[62] There is no question that impact has been severe with respect to D.N.'s conduct.

[63] Abuse against a common-law partner or a member of their family is an enumerated deemed aggravating circumstance under s. 718.2(a)(ii) of the Code. C.B. was D.N.'s partner, and J.H. her son.

[64] Abuse of a person under the age of 18 years is a factor for consideration: s. 718.2(a)(ii.1), an enumerated deemed aggravating circumstance. J.H. was well under age 18 in respect of the offence concerning him.

[65] J.H. viewed D.N. as the only dad he knew, s. 718.2(a)(iii), an enumerated deemed aggravating circumstance - in a position of trust with respect to J.H.

Other

Vulnerable Group Member

[66] D.N. is a visible minority and states that he has faced racism, including while being incarcerated. I accept this. I have considered this, in addition to his difficult personal family background struggles.

Duncan Credit

[67] No documents were filed by defence. To find that D.N. was subject to harsh conditions as outlined by defence, making his presentence custody conditions particularly difficult and punitive is difficult as a result. On the one hand, I accept it is fair to say that D.N. has likely been subjected to lockdowns and/or overcrowded conditions, spending over 1,106 days in custody, and the places at which he has been held without viewing any documents (not ignoring common sense) but analyzing the extent is something I cannot do without documents/records to give it the effect that is suggested and/or even give it a specific value. But I have considered same generally in arriving at the appropriate sentence, as fair.

Appropriate Sentence

[68] I do not find, and no counsel submitted for that matter that any sentence other than incarceration was appropriate in this case for any of the offences.

[69] The defence suggests and seeks a global sentence of time served, approximately 4.5 years (1,659 days is the calculation when Summers credit is added; formula used is division by value 365).

[70] The Crown suggests and seeks a global sentence of 10 years.

[71] In this case, based on the circumstances set out herein and the considerations outlined, after reviewing them all, I find that general deterrence, specific deterrence, denunciation and separating D.N. from society are at the forefront in this case of the sentencing principles and purposes. There are several aggravating circumstances in this case. Overall, D.N. presents a long history of lacking insight despite opportunities to consider and address his issues (past treatment, past courses [PAR], past working with CAS) even having spent time in custody before, for significant periods. D.N. is not a youthful offender. I am not satisfied that D.N. no longer remains a risk to the safety of the public.

[72] The sentence imposed for these types of cases must promote a sense of responsibility among abusers and an acknowledgement of the harm done not only to their immediate victims but equally to the community at large: R. v. Fraser, 2016 ONCA 745, para. 31.

[73] D.N.'s blameworthiness and responsibility are at the high end and his acts a disturbing pattern of violence for which a message must be sent, that same will not be tolerated.

[74] R. v. Fraser, 2016 ONCA 745: 7 years global sentence was imposed on sentencing and upheld, the court noting that they had upheld higher sentences (8-11 years, "higher end").

[75] R. v. D.S., 2013 ONCA 244: 6 years was imposed on sentencing (32 offences; 10-year period; "reign of terror that had destroyed lives"), not upheld, 12 years imposed.

[76] R. v. Martin, 2009 ONCA 62: effective sentence of 10 years 4 months (14 offences; 8 discrete events, violence witnessed by children), sentence appeal dismissed.

[77] R. v. F.(D.) (2003), 2003 CarswellOnt 5067 (Ont. CA): 14 years 2 months (plus 22 months pretrial custody) was imposed (egregious facts; spouse of 15 years; "reign of terror" over 8 months; medical treatment required; parole ineligibility varied, but otherwise sentence appeal dismissed.

[78] R. v. Young, [2003] O.J. No. 5124 (CA): 11 years was imposed (spouse abused and terrorized on almost daily basis for almost two years; unspeakable cruelty and horror [sexual abuse; throwing off a balcony; locking in a freezer]; criminal record; prone to acts of violence when intoxicated; no steps to deal with problem; no real appreciation for danger he poses when drinking), appeal was dismissed. D.N.'s acts were not daily.

[79] R. v. Allen 2017 ONCJ 405 relates to a single act; forced felatio; a 33 year old ("relatively young") offender; having 8 prior convictions including sexual assault one year prior; for which fit sentence was stated to be 3 years; noting the distinction in seriousness of oral and vaginal penetration was not engaged; full picture of assault and aggravating factors considered/violent and invasive with some degree of planning; the offender having a supportive family; demonstrating some hope of rehabilitation but specific deterrence required; separation from society required ("repeat offender"). D.N.'s case involves 2 instances of sexual assault, and other charges to consider. D.N. is not "relatively young". D.N.'s record is more significant. Both instances involving D.N., full picture, were violent and invasive.

[80] In R. v. P.M., 2020 ONSC 3325 3.5 years global imposed; offender having no record; age 37; range being placed at 3 to 5 years for sexual assault; the case was one incident of sexual assault, one of assault and one of utter threat to cause death; single incidents considered. The incidents of violence perpetrated by D.N. were more violent, C.B. suffering injuries protracted over 6 years. The number of incidents involving D.N. were greater than in the said case, both with respect to assault and sexual assault.

[81] I do agree with defence that there is some factual distinguishment between the acts perpetrated by D.N. and those offenders in the cases relied on by the Crown. Equally, the same applies to those submitted by defence, D.N.'s behaviour was more egregious and over a protracted period.

[82] I have considered step principles and D.N.'s record and the totality principles in my decision.

[83] The following are the sentences I deem fit and appropriate before application of pre-trial custody having regard to all the factors I have considered and set out in this decision.

[84] In respect of count 15, 1,277 days imprisonment. There again were two instances of sexual assault of a violent and invasive nature against D.N.'s intimate partner. D.N. is a repeat sexual offender. C.B.'s sexual dignity was violated, and choice removed from her unilaterally by D.N. - who, when and how. The level of disrespect during the course of the acts was very high - by someone who she loved and trusted, her partner.

[85] In respect of count 1, 913 days imprisonment. There were several physical assaults over the six-year relationship. D.N.'s record has 5 other assault related offences, and some are related to intimate partner violence of a previous partner, the last offence effectively attracting a 12 month-sentence. D.N. terrorized C.B. leaving her often with injuries, in some of the incidents, drawing blood. Again, C.B. is the second intimate partner victim per D.N.'s record. This sentence will be consecutive to count 15. They are separate distinct incidents from the sexual assault incidents and a different category of intimate partner violence in this case, in my view, arising from events outside of the sexual assault incidents.

[86] In respect of counts 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 11 based on all the circumstances, 365 days imprisonment each, and all will run concurrent with count 1 and with each other, in keeping with totality principles and consecutive versus concurrent considerations.

[87] In respect of count 22, based on all the circumstances, 365 days imprisonment for this offence, and it will run consecutive to counts 15, 1 and 16. This offence is violence against a child, a different, second victim to his conduct. It is especially aggravating in the circumstances. J.H. was a young child, a member of the family, D.N. in a position of trust and authority. Again, D.N. has 5 other assault related offences on his record. D.N. has escalated his history of violent behaviour to a child which in my view makes this offence distinct.

[88] In respect of count 16, based on all the circumstances, 184 days should be apportioned to this weapons' offence, and it should run consecutive to counts 15 and 1. D.N. has a serious history of disrespecting court orders and this offence encompasses different society interests.

[89] Based on the above, and all the considerations I have considered, including case authorities, I am effectively imposing a global sentence of 7.5 years, rounded down to 2,729 days (formula 365) as the fit and appropriate sentence as appropriate for his overall culpability.

Pretrial Custody (Summers)

[90] In this case, it is not disputed that D.N. has spent 1,106 days in custody at September 8, 2025. Both counsel agree the application of credit (Summers) is at 1.5 arrives at credit of 1,659 days. A further 6 days credit have been earned (actual days of 1,665 with 1.5 to 1 credit applied) since September 8, 2025, the hearing date.

Ancillary Orders

[91] None of the mandatory/discretionary ancillary orders were opposed by defence, conceding all mandatory orders should be made and the circumstances of the offences and D.N.'s record support the exercise of the court's discretion to make the discretionary orders, save and except, D.N. asks that the victim fine surcharge be waived. D.N. has clearly been in custody for some time. He has no assets of any kind. He will continue to remain in custody based on my decision. I am satisfied that his financial circumstances are such that ordering same would cause undue hardship. I have set out under legal parameters where a conviction for the applicable offence would be a first or further conviction for it in respect of duration of orders to be made.

Conclusion/Orders

[92] The Registrar is directed to enter convictions for all offences for which D.N. was found guilty.

[93] In respect of count 15, I sentence D.N. to time served, (1,277 days less pre-trial custody credit of 1,277 days from 1,665 days).

[94] In respect of count 1, I sentence D.N. to 525 days (913 days less remaining pre-trial custody credit of 388 days) consecutive to count 15.

[95] In respect of count 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 11, I sentence D.N. to 365 days imprisonment on each to run concurrent with count 1 and each other.

[96] In respect of count 22, I sentence D.N. to 365 days imprisonment to run consecutive to counts 15 and 1.

[97] In respect of count 16, 184 days to run consecutive to counts 15, 1 and 22.

[98] In respect of counts 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 15, all being primary compulsory designated offences and in respect of counts 1, 7, 16, and 22, all being secondary designated offences, I order that an order shall issue pursuant to s. 487.04 of the Criminal Code of Canada, in the prescribed form, authorizing the taking of from D.N. the number of samples of bodily substances that is reasonably required for forensic DNA analysis, today if possible or within 2 working days.

[99] In respect of counts 2, 6, 10, 15, and 16, pursuant to s. 109(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, I order that:

a. D.N. shall be prohibited from possessing any firearm other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, and any cross-bow, any prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance beginning today and ending not earlier than ten years after D.N.'s release from imprisonment; and

b. any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, and prohibited ammunition for life.

[100] In respect of counts 3 and 4, pursuant to s. 109(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada, I order that D.N. shall be prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance for life.

[101] In respect of counts 1, 7 and 22, pursuant to s. 110(2.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, an order shall issue in prescribed form providing that D.N. shall be prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance for life.

[102] In respect of all counts, pursuant to s. 491 of the Criminal Code of Canada, I order that the gun and ammunition seized and detained are forfeited to His Majesty the King in right of the Province of Ontario and shall be disposed of as the Attorney General for the Province directs.

[103] Pursuant to ss. 490.013 of the Criminal Code of Canada, I order that an Order shall issue requiring the D.N. to comply with the Sexual Offender Information Registration Act for life.

[104] Pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code of Canada, a non-communication order shall issue prohibiting D.N. from communicating, directly or indirectly, with C.B., and J.H.

[105] In respect of all counts, pursuant to s. 737 of the Criminal Code of Canada, I order that the victim fine surcharge is waived.

[106] D.N. is hereby directed to read or have read to him, all orders made herein forthwith.

[107] For clarity, after pre-trial custody to the global sentence of 7.5 years is applied, D.N. has a remaining 1,074 days imprisonment to serve as set out above.

Rasaiah J.

Released: September 15, 2025