CITATION: R. v. Jampies, 2026 ONSC 2051
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
His Majesty The King
Crown
– and –
Jonathan Jampies
Accused
Heather Lischak, Counsel for the Crown
Mellington Godoy, Counsel for the Accused
HEARD: March 30 and 31, 2026
(Ottawa)
TRIAL DECISION
DOYLE, J.
Overview
1The accused, Jonathan Jampies, has been charged with five counts: unlawful confinement, uttering death threat, assault, aggravated assault and breach of probation, all relating to the same intimate partner, Ayane Abdourahman.
2Mr. Jampies plead guilty to the following charges:
Count 3: From June 29, 2024 to July 1, 2024, he assaulted Ms. Ayane Abdourahman by choking, suffocating or strangling her contrary to s. 267 (c) of the Criminal Code of Canada R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (Code);
Count 4: in the same time period, he committed an assault on the same complainant: wound, maim, disfigure or endanger her life contrary to s. 268 (1) of the Code; and
Count 5: in the same time period, failed to comply with a probation order contrary to s. 733.1 of the Code.
3Based on the facts set out in the agreed statement of facts (ASF), the court entered convictions on the above counts.
4The court embarked on a Gardiner hearing for the Crown to lead evidence to prove aggravating facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
5Mr. Jampies plead not guilty to:
Count 1: during the same time period, did without lawful authority confine the same complainant contrary to s. 279 (2) of the Code.
Count 2 during the same time period, did, by word of mouth knowingly utter a threat to cause death to the same complainant contrary to s. 264.1 (1) (a) of the Code.
6The Crown called one witness, the complainant, Ms. Abdourahman and relies on the ASF along with the appendices which include:
Transcripts of the accused’s previous sentences for prior domestic violence;
Three separate probation orders of the accused;
Transcripts from the 911 call from the complainant’s neighbour;
Photographs of the complainant’s unit and surrounding area;
The complainant’s medical records; and
Photographs of the complainant’s injuries.
7The court considered prior discreditable conduct that had been admitted on consent after pre-trial motions.
8The Crown relies on the following prior discreditable conduct which consist of three prior guilty pleas by the accused on the same victim, the complainant, involving domestic violence:
- Transcript of June 9, 2023: he plead guilty to assault, theft and two counts of breach of probation based on the following facts:
o On May 21, 2023, Mr. Jampies pushed the complainant to the ground, went on top of her trying to grab her phone and she suffered scratches to her face;
o The police removed him from her apartment;
o She was 19 weeks pregnant and suffered from some nausea and pain to her right side after the incident; and
o He received the following sentence;
-45 days of custody;
-keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
-not to communicate with the complainant; and
-not be within 250 metres of any place she may be present.
- Transcript of October 18, 2023: on convictions of domestic violence against the complainant and mischief and resisting a peace officer, he received the following sentence:
o Suspended sentence reflecting 38 days pre-trial custody and 12 months’ probation;
o Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
o Not contact the complainant; and
o Not be within 50 metres of any place she may be present.
- Transcript of May 24, 2024: Mr. Jampies plead guilty to domestic violence against the complainant, including two counts of breach of probation and assault by choking based on the following facts:
o On January 10-11, 2024, he went to the complainant’s residence and threw food at her and grabbed her arm to take her phone;
o He grabbed her by the neck and took her to the bedroom and continued to choke her;
o He hit her and she suffered from a bleeding split lip; and
o The police had to remove him.
He received the following sentence:
o 9 months custody (minus pre-sentence custody);
o Two years probation with the following conditions:
-Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
-Not contact the complainant; and
-Not be within 100 metres of the complainant.
9This prior discreditable conduct is being admitted for the sole purpose of providing:
Context of the relationship and narrative;
Credibility of the complainant; and
Motive and animus of the accused.
10On June 29, 2024, on the day of his release from the last conviction, Mr. Jampies met the complainant on Rideau Street near the bus stop. He told her that he had just been released from jail. They both went to the complainant’s apartment on Rideau Street.
11The ASF set out the following admitted facts.
12Mr. Jampies admits that:
He hit the complainant on the face, throat, lips, ribs and other areas; and
Choked the complainant by placing his hand around her neck and applying force.
13On July 1, 2024 when Mr. Jampies went to the kitchen to smoke a cigarette, the complainant ran to the front door, unlocked it and ran out of the apartment screaming.
14Mr. Jampies chased Ms. Abdourahman down the hallway. She went to a neighbour’s apartment and the neighbour called 911. The 911 call transcript of July 1, 2024 at approximately 3:00 a.m., confirms that the neighbour indicated that “the lady came out of the apartment running. And, uh, somebody was running after her”. The neighbour barricaded the front door as she was afraid.
15By the time the officers arrived, Mr. Jampies had fled. They observed an empty alcohol container in the hall next to a white shirt with blood on it.
16Mr. Jampies sustained a cut to his left forearm in the early hours of July 1, 2024. A significant amount of blood was spilled and there was a blood trail leading away from the apartment.
17The officers found the following in Ms. Abdouraham’s apartment:
Large amount of blood splatter covering the entire entryway floor into the kitchen, bathroom and first bedroom;
Mix of dried blood and wet blood; and
Drag marks extending from the bedroom into the main room where more blood splatter was present on the floor with concentrated pools on the kitchen floor near the sink.
18Ms. Abdourahman suffered from the following injuries:
Two eyes were swollen shut;
Her face was covered with blood;
Both eye sockets were badly bruised and discoloured;
A 2-3 inch gash to her forehead that was no longer bleeding;
Left eye was actively bleeding almost as if she had a constant stream of blood tearing from the inside of her eye;
Significant bruising to the left side of her face;
Her lips were swollen with numerous cuts;
Her jaw and neck were very swollen with visible bruising along her left jawline;
Dried and fresh blood on her mouth and lips; and
Laboured breathing difficulty speaking which appeared to cause her pain and appeared to have the effect of slowing and slurring her speech.
19In addition to the visibly documented injuries, she also suffered from the following:
Headaches;
Blurry vision;
Muscle pain to her lower extremities around bruising;
Pain in her face, neck, shoulders, chest, abdomen and upper arms;
Bruising on her neck;
Developed tachycardia at the hospital and elevated blood cells and fever;
Nausea and vomiting;
Undisplaced left nasal facture;
Soft tissue hematoma over the left cheekbone region and left temple region;
Soft tissue swelling and hematoma over the left cheek and left eye region; and
Bilateral subgaleal hematomas over the high parietal convexities.
20Her forehead laceration was initially glued and steri-stripped but these measures failed and they resorted to sutures.
21Ms. Abdourahman was discharged after 5 days in the hospital.
22On July 1, 2024 a second emergency call was made and Mr. Jampies was found in the apartment and he was transported to the hospital with respect to a cut to his arm which was closed with stitches.
Position of the parties
23The Crown alleges Mr. Jampies committed the offences that are before the court. He held the complainant in her apartment for three days and repeatedly assaulted her until July 1st when she managed to escape. He also choked her using two hands to the point that she became unconscious. He also threatened to kill her.
24The defence submits that the complainant had a motive to exaggerate the assaults and in fact there were only two assaults that occurred that weekend. He alleges that she stabbed him and that she was not confined as she was free to leave: e.g. when he was sleeping. The Crown has failed to prove the aggravating facts of counts 3 to 5 and the counts 1 and 2 beyond a reasonable doubt.
Counts 1 and 2
Legal framework
25The issue that this court must decide is whether the Crown has proven each of the elements of counts 1 and 2 beyond a reasonable doubt.
26Mr. Jampies is presumed to be innocent, unless and until the Crown proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
27The obligation never shifts. Mr. Jampies did not have to present evidence nor is he required to prove anything.
28A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, far-fetched or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based on sympathy for or prejudice against anyone involved in this trial. It is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It is a doubt that logically arises from the evidence, or the absence or lack of evidence.
29It is nearly impossible to prove anything to an absolute certainty. Crown counsel is not required to do so. Absolute certainty is a standard of proof that is impossibly high. In R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144, at para. 242, the Supreme Court stated that the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt “falls much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities.”
Assessment of the complainant’s evidence
30The court must assess the complainant’s credibility and reliability.
31Credibility has to do with the honesty or veracity of the testimony of a witness, whereas reliability has to do with the accuracy of the testimony of the witness. The reliability of the testimony of a witness is often gauged by the ability of the witness to observe, recall, and recount the events at issue: see R. v. Sanichar, 2012 ONCA 117, 92 C.R. (6th) 303, at para. 70, citing R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56, 244 O.A.C. 288, at para. 41.
32My focus will be on the complainant’s accounts of the events of that weekend from June 29, 2024 to July 1, 2024 and look at consistencies and inconsistencies.
33The complainant has known the accused since 2021 and describes their relationship of one where they drink followed by screaming, crying and then it becomes physical. He would become frustrated and his patience was short. She admitted that her patience became short. He had alcohol with him at most times.
34They have a child together who was born October 19, 2023 and who is in the custody of the paternal grandmother. She testified that the physical abuse started when she was pregnant.
35The complainant was consistent in examination in chief and cross examination with respect to the core details of the events that weekend.
36She admitted being nauseous and anxious about her testimony against “someone you love” and that “we still have a child together”.
37She testified that:
She met up with Mr. Jampies on Rideau Street;
They went to her apartment and initially their discussion was friendly;
They were both happy to see each other;
He wanted to take a shower and relax;
She showed him the Play Station 5 that she had purchased for him;
He had a 46 oz bottle of rum that he started drinking;
He did not leave the apartment to buy more alcohol at the LCBO;
He got upset and angry with her and blamed her that he had to spend time in prison;
She does not recall how the argument started;
He was concerned of how she had money to buy the play station and that she had obtained the money for the wrong reasons;
He was arguing that while he was in jail she had been with other men;
In the kitchen, he pulled her dress and she tried to sit down and he hit her;
It started with a push and “then honestly, so many hits, I don’t remember”;
She could not count the number of hits on her face, on her arms and back and the hits were mostly to her face using his closed fist;
While he was hitting her he would say that she had “messed up his life” and that she was a waste of time and she was a “whore” and “garbage”;
He said that he was waiting for revenge when he got out;
She was angry and had not been drinking;
The assaults went on that day and the next day and to early July 1st morning;
There were breaks from the assaults from a few minutes to a couple of hours;
She was first hit in the kitchen but then after that in her room and then the bathroom;
She did not expect this to happen as he had just been released from jail and they had not seen each for 6 months and they had a baby together;
She believed he was frustrated and kept saying that someone in jail told him he could do better than her;
She was not able to leave the house and he told her she was not allowed to leave because of her bruises to her face;
She was scared for her life if she tried to leave;
He would follow her to the balcony if she was trying to open the balcony door as he was afraid she was going to scream and the neighbors would hear;
He would push her back and drag her;
He would pull her back when she went to the front door;
He would say “are you trying to get me arrested again, you stupid bitch?”;
She would apologize and go to the bathroom;
She said the hits were mostly to her head, back of her head, forehead, lip, ribs and arms;
He would throw things around the house and would remove clothes and throw them on the floor;
When he threw a fan, it touched her body but there were no injuries;
She told him she wanted to get out and he said she was not allowed and could do so when her bruising on her face healed;
He would keep an eye on her, for example, he would follow her to the bathroom and watch her urinate;
When asked how many times he assaulted her, she could not count;
During the beating that weekend, he repeatedly would say that she messed up his life and regretted meeting her and called her a ‘whore’ and ‘bitch’ and accused of her lying and cheating on him;
He would then apologize when he saw her bleeding and say he would not do it again and said he loved her;
This cycle of beating and repenting occurred a few times;
She thought that maybe he would change but the beating resumed;
He choked her on two occasions when she was screaming;
The first time he cupped one hand around her neck;
Second time, he choked her with two hands and she lost consciousness;
She was lying on the bed on her back when he choked her to unconsciousness;
She woke up seeing him performing some “weird CPR” on her with his mouth on her nose and administering compressions on her chest and asked if she was ok and told her she had to stop screaming; she denied that he was kissing her;
Her head was hurting really bad;
She felt empty and could not feel anything and she was not able to breath and she was “scared out of myself”;
She could not eat properly and it was painful to drink fluids;
It was a roller coaster and she wanted to leave and had a phone but it beeped and she was afraid that he would hear it so she hid it somewhere and turned it off ;
She was so afraid if he heard it he would hurt her again;
He was drinking the bottle of rum the whole weekend;
He gave her a couple of shots, “maybe 5 or 6” from his bottle because she was in pain and it eased her pain a bit; She denied that she had alcohol in the house;
She was crying frequently as she was in pain physically and mentally and scared;
He said that he did not care if she died and that she was walking on broken stuff in the bathroom”;
The assault that stands out for her was in the bathroom as she was facing the sink and he hit her on the face and there was blood on her face and her eyes were bruised and she could not see. He grabbed a towel to wrap around her head as there was a lot of blood and she went to her room and tried to lay down and then he came and hit her again on the face in the right part of her forehead above her right eye;
She had two bleeding eyes and she could not open them for a couple of days.
She testified that 90% of the blood in the apartment belonged to her;
She pushed him off her when he was hitting her while she was on her bed and he fell back wards and he accused her of stabbing him;
She believes he fell on some glass that was on the floor but she was not able to see it as her eyes were swollen and her vision was impaired;
After that push, he got up after a few seconds and said he needed a cigarette and walked to the kitchen to light it by using the toaster;
She took that opportunity to leave the apartment;
He ran after her down the hallway and she was screaming and a neighbor came and let her into her apartment
He tried to grab her from behind on the back of the neck trying to pull her inside the apartment;
the whole time on that weekend felt like a day and she had a hard time with the concept of time and the order of the hits and assaults;
she would cry and apologize to him as she wanted him to stop, he would also apologize;
he was upset with her because he said that she lied to him;
it would be tranquil for a while and they would maybe watch TV; and
he would become angry when talking about another man that she may have been involved with.
38The court finds that the complainant was consistent on core details, that is:
That the assaults were continuous and cyclical;
He would punch her with his fist on her face, head and body;
That most of the beatings occurred in the bedroom;
He would then apologize and then resume hitting her;
One time he choked her with two hands when she was on her bed and she was rendered unconscious;
One time when she was sitting on her bed, he was inebriated and although he was bigger and heavier and stronger than her she pushed him and he fell to the ground on the bedroom floor; and
She maintained that she did not stab him but rather he fell on some glass on the floor.
39The evidence of this traumatic weekend is supported by the photos of her apartment which shows the following:
Blood splattered throughout the apartment;
Clothes strewn around; and
Drag marks of blood along the floor
40I will now deal with the defence argument that that there were major inconsistencies in her evidence and she had animus against the accused which led her to exaggerate the events of that weekend.
41For the reasons that follow, I find that the inconsistencies are not significant and do not diminish her testimony of the repeated assaults on her. She did not demonstrate any animus against the accused and she did not exaggerate the weekend events.
Inconsistencies
42The Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Williams, 2018 ONCA 138, adopted the following statement from R. v. M.(A), 2014 ONCA 769, about inconsistencies, at para. 33:
… [O]ne of the most valuable means of assessing witness credibility is to examine the consistency between what the witness said in the witness box and what she has said on other occasions, whether or not under oath: R. v. G.(M.)(1994), 1994 CanLII 8733 (ON CA), 93 C.C.C. (3d) 347 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 354, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [1994] S.C.C.A. No. 390. Inconsistencies may emerge in a witness’ testimony at trial, or between their trial testimony and statements previously given. Inconsistencies may also emerge from things said differently at different times, or from omitting to refer to certain events at one time while referring to them on other occasions.
43Inconsistencies vary in their nature and importance. Some are minor, others are not. Some concern material issues, others peripheral subjects. Where an inconsistency involves something material about which an honest witness is unlikely to be mistaken, the inconsistency may demonstrate a carelessness with the truth about which the trier of fact should be concerned: R. v. G. (M.) (1994), 1994 CanLII 8733 (ON CA), 93 C.C.C. (3d) 347 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 354.
44There were gaps in the complainant’s evidence regarding the sequence of events and time of the events. The court finds that these minor gaps are of no consequence as the weekend in that apartment was marked with repeated assaults as she had no concept of the time. As he was beating her more, she could not see with her two eyes which were swollen shut.
45I did not find her evasive but rather she attempted to answer questions to the best of her ability.
46There were some inconsistencies in that in her first statement to the police which she dictated she said that after they met up on Rideau Street on June 29, 2024, they went to her house it was raining and five minutes later after talking he hit her. But at trial, she said it was more like 2 hours.
47This difference of timing does not diminish her evidence. The statement to the police was made after a week of horrific brutal assaults and she testified that she was in shock and upset and traumatized. Her timing of that weekend and when events occurred do not weigh heavily in my assessment of the complainant’s evidence. The core details of that weekend did not change.
48In the statement to the officer when she was in the hospital, she described him grabbing her and “ push not a choke but did probably faint twice, choking no, punching to the face” then, she said he was “pushing her down” and “I guess choking” and then blowing on her face like a ‘weird CPR”. Again, this occurred after the traumatic events of the weekend. She did not confirm that that he choked her to unconsciousness in that statement but did say that he was performing CPR which would suggest that she did indeed lose consciousness.
49I find that these are minor inconsistencies and do not diminish her credibility and do not establish that she had an animus towards the accused.
50Although demeanor is not necessarily an indication of credibility or reliability, she did not show any animosity or anger towards the accused.
51I did not find that she changed her attitude when the defence cross-examined. She was consistent in answering questions in a direct and polite manner.
Count 1 : Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Jampies did without lawful authority confine the complainant?
52The elements of the offence are : did the accused intentionally confine the complainant and was the confinement without lawful authority?
53To intentionally confine another person is to physically restrain that person contrary to their wishes, thereby depriving that person of their liberty to move from one place to another. It is an unlawful restriction on their liberty for a period of time
54The confinement must be without lawful authority which is meant it is done by someone in circumstances that the law does not permit.
55In R v. Gratton, 1985 CarswellOnt 1386, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated at para. 29, that the confinement need not be by way of physical application of bindings.
56In R. v. Kematch 2010 MBCA 18, the Manitoba Court of Appeal, at para 24, quoted with approval the trial judge’s instructions to the jury in the requirement of physical restraint: “ Physical restraint simply means that a person is deprived of his or her freedom to go where he or she pleases. It is not necessary for the Crown counsel to prove that Mr. McKay used physical force against Phoenix. It would be open to you to find that Mr. McKay used fear or intimidation in order to physically restrain Phoenix without actually using any physical force. The Crown has proven physical restraint if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Phoenix was deprived of her freedom to go where she pleased.”
57This court finds that the complainant gave her evidence in a matter of fact manner. I do not agree with the defence position that she had a motive to exaggerate and that she embellished her evidence.
58As per my above findings, I find the complainant to be credible and reliable. She described her restraint in the apartment and was consistent in both in chief and cross-examination that the accused was overseeing her and would not let her open the balcony door for fear that she would scream. He would not let her leave until her bruises on her face healed.
59The neighbour’s 911 call confirms that the complainant was running from her apartment with Mr. Jampies running behind her. This is evidence of the complainant making her escape from this confinement.
60Although there was evidence that he might have fallen asleep, the court finds that as in Kematch, based on the findings of facts, the complainant was deprived of her freedom to go where she pleases.
61She described that weekend and the number of assaults inflicted by the accused on her. The amount of blood in the apartment, the items thrown about including at her all demonstrate is evidence that it was not just two assaults.
62Although there was no expert to opine on her injuries, the photos of her injuries corroborate the complainant’s evidence that she was repeatedly assaulted that weekend.
63The court accepts her evidence that she attempted to leave by approaching the balcony door or the front door but was pulled back by the accused. I accept that the accused told her she was not allowed to leave until her bruises subsided.
64She denied the defence suggestion that they both decided that she would not go to the hospital right away as otherwise Mr. Jampies would return to jail.
65Accordingly, a conviction will be entered on count 1 as the Crown has proven the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Count 2: Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Jampies did, by word of mouth knowingly utter a threat to cause death to the complainant?
66The elements of the offence are:
That the accused made a threat;
That the threat was to cause harm;
Was the threat to cause death to the complainant; and
Did the accused make the threat knowingly
67At para. 26 in R. v. McCraw 1991 CanLII 29 (SCC), [1991] CanLII 29 (SCC), [1991] 3 SCR 72 1991 CarswellOnt 113, the Supreme Court of Canada, held that the “Crown is required to establish that the accused intended to threaten the victim with serious bodily harm. However, the determination as to whether there was such a subjective intent will often have to be based to a large extent upon a consideration of the words used by the accused. In those cases where the accused does not testify or call evidence, the determination must be made on the basis of the words used.”
68Further, the court must consider that the “nature of the threat must be looked at objectively; that, as it would be by the ordinary reasonable person. (para 27)
69In summary at para 28, the Supreme Court stated that:
The question to be resolved may be put in the following way. Looked at objectively, in the context of all the words written or spoken and having regard to the person to whom they were directed, would the questioned words convey a threat of serious bodily harm to a reasonable person?
70I find that the Crown has not made out this offence beyond a reasonable doubt because:
The complainant was very careful in how she repeated his words;
He said “I don’t care if you die”
He did not threaten to kill her but rather he showed a callous, dispassionate and ambivalent attitude as to the consequences of her injuries;
He did not use words telling her that he is going to kill her but rather remarking that he was not going to help her or care for her;
The words used by the accused were more of an expression of inhumane feeling towards the complainant rather than a threat to kill her;
Despite a number of suggestions and questions from the Crown, the complainant would not agree that he said that he would kill her;
She testified when asked whether if she thought he was to going to do something to her she stated that “he did not care that I was feeling pain and I deserved it”;
When probed further in examination in chief, and asked if he threatened to kill her she said “everyday”;
Again the Crown asked her if he said that he wanted to kill her and she responded: “I don’t care if you die or you are hurt”
In a further follow up question in chief, she was asked if he used the word “kill” and she said he used it the last day;
She explained that the tone of his voice was that “it felt pity” and he said that he did not care if he killed her and did not care
His unsympathetic attitude continued during the weekend. For example, she testified that he did not care that she was vomiting and walking over a broken container on the bathroom floor; and
Looking at the circumstances objectively, the words in my view do not a convey of a threat of seriously bodily harm or death to a reasonable person.
71In one of her responses to the Crown’s many questions regarding whether there was a threat to kill, she said “he probably said it, he said so many stuff and that was part of it”,
72That is not enough to convict Mr. Jampies on this count.
73Therefore, the court dismisses count 2 as the Crown has failed to provide beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Jampies threatened to kill the complainant.
Count 3 – 5
74The Crown proceeded to call evidence on a Gardiner hearing, seeking to prove the aggravating facts.
75At a Gardiner hearing, the Crown bears the burden to prove the disputed facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
76At a Gardiner hearing, disputed facts can be proved by any evidence including hearsay that is “credible and trustworthy”. See R. v. Gardiner, 1982 CanLII 30 (SCC), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368; R. v. Albright, 1987 CanLII 26 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 383.
77As discussed above, I find that the evidence of the complainant credible and reliable.
78She did not embellish her evidence. She did not appear to have an animus towards the accused. Rather she was consistent in the core details of the assaults that weekend:
Initially when they arrived at her apartment, they were friendly and chatting;
He had a bottle of rum with him that he drank over the course of that weekend except for a few shots that he gave her;
As he drank he got frustrated and blamed her for him spending time in jail;
He called her names including “whore” and “bitch”;
She describes the first incident in chief and in cross as having occurred in the kitchen and then most of the hits in the bedroom;
She also describes another major incident on the last day when she was in the bathroom; and
One in the bedroom where he placed both hands on her neck and choked her and she recalls waking up with him giving her “weird CPR”.
79The Crown has proven the aggravating facts as set above beyond a reasonable doubt.
80Based on my findings set out above, I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the following aggravating facts:
Frequent and continuous assaults which were inflicted by the accused on the complainant;
Cyclical nature in that he would assault her, apologize and then assault her again;
The words he spoke during the domestic violence that weekend; and
That the assaults occurred, that there was choking on two occasions and on one occasion she was rendered unconscious.
81Accordingly, convictions are entered on counts 1, 3, 4 and 5.
Date: April 7, 2026
Justice A. Doyle
CITATION: R. v. Jampies, 2026 ONSC 2051
COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-11404457
DATE: 2026/04/07
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
His Majesty The King
Crown
– and –
Jonathan Jampies
Accused
TRIAL DECISION
A. DOYLE J.
Released: April 7, 2026