R. v. Hounsome, 2026 ONSC 586

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-00000109-00AP

DATE: 2026Jan30

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

CHRISTOPHER HOUNSOME

Applicant/Appellant

Counsel: R. Makasare, for the Respondent A. Zaitsev, for the Applicant/Appellant

HEARD at Kingston: October 3, 2025

cAREY j.

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Summary Convicton appeal

1I have no hesitation in dismissing this appeal which I find to be without any merit.

2Throughout the entire period of Mr. Hounsome’s involvement with the criminal justice system on this charge of domestic assault, he has shown absolutely no ability to be accountable for his drunken assault on his then domestic partner. Rather, he has both blamed her referring to her as “a lying bitch”, and attempted to blame previous counsel for his jail sentence following a “no contest” resolution of his charge.

3I have concluded that his counsel acted competently and indeed showed considerable patience, describing Mr. Hounsome as difficult. I accept completely his counsel’s account of the steps he took, including seeking and obtaining written instructions. He was clearly aware that he was dealing with an individual who already had his plea struck on an earlier occasion before a different judge and he was aware that his client had no memory of the events and regarded his behaviour as so out of character that he was completely incapable of having committed the assault.

4I accept counsel’s evidence completely and reject entirely Mr. Hounsome’s evidence that he was guaranteed a non-custodial result. The facts of this case deserved a custodial sentence, certainly following a trial, possibly not on a resolution that should have spared the victim of testifying and showed insight and remorse on the part of the defendant.

5On the suggestion of Mr. Hounsome’s belief that even while intoxicated and with no memory of what occurred, he nonetheless is innocent because he knows he is not the type of person to do this, is clearly no defence at all.

6There was no one else in the residence at the time of the incident. The victim’s injuries were not self-inflicted and I reject on the facts admitted that there was any element of self-defence on the appellant’s part. There might be some who would suggest this elongated process and delay in Mr. Hounsome serving his sentence should result in a longer sentence that would reflect more accurately Mr. Hounsome’s total lack of insight and taking of its responsibility. However, the Crown has not cross appealed and it would be inappropriate to exact further punishment for pursuing what is even in a case such as this, Mr. Hounsome’s legal right to appeal.

7The appeal is dismissed and the sentence is confirmed. His health situation may be relevant to parole or early release.

Honourable Mr. Justice Thomas Carey

Released: January 30, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Hounsome, 2026 ONSC 586