2022 QCCQ 1172, 2022 QCCQ 1172

R. c. J.K. 2022 QCCQ 1172 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL "Criminal and Penal Division" No.: 500-01-198691-195 500-01-199064-194 DATE: March 23, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE ALEXANDRE DALMAU, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Prosecutrix v. J. K.

Offender ______________________________________________________________________ SENTENCING JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ THIS JUDGMENT IS SUBJECT TO AN ORDER DIRECTING THAT ANY INFORMATION THAT COULD IDENTIFY THE VICTIM WHO IS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS MUST NOT BE PUBLISHED IN ANY DOCUMENT OR BROADCAST OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY WAY (s. 486.4(2.1) Cr.

C. ). [ 1 ] In file 500-01-199064-194, the offender pleaded guilty to having committed simple assault, armed assault, and assault causing bodily harm to his spouse at the time, as well as to having threatened and harassed her. [ 2 ] In file 500-01-198691-195, he pleaded guilty to having committed assault against their child and to having uttered death threats against the child and the child’s mother. [ 3 ] The Court must now determine the appropriate sentence that should be imposed on him. [ 4 ] The prosecution seeks a sentence of imprisonment of more than 12 months without specifying the quantum. [ 5 ] Essentially because of his rehabilitation, counsel for the offender asks for a non-custodial sentence.

BACKGROUND Relevant facts [ 6 ] The offender and the victim started their relationship in 2016. They married on July 22, 2018. A child was born of their union on [...], 2018. The child is the other victim in this case. [ 7 ] When the guilty pleas were entered in file 500-01-199064-194, the parties filed an agreed statement of facts, which the Court has reproduced in a

schedule to this judgment. [ 8 ] The agreed statement of facts describes 14 incidents of violence committed by the offender against the victim between July 5, 2018, and January 27, 2019, a period of just under seven months.

It should be noted that for much of that period, the victim was pregnant with their child. [ 9 ] During these incidents, the offender punched the victim in the knees, hit her on the head and on her ears, pushed her, dragged her on the ground, slapped her, bit her, spat in her face, head-butted her, shook her, pulled her hair, and grabbed her by the shoulders while threatening to throw her off a balcony. [ 10 ] During one incident, he threw various objects at her. During another, he took a knife and threatened to remove the baby she was carrying in her womb.

He also threatened to kill her with the knife. [ 11 ] The victim’s nose was fractured during an incident when the offender head-butted her. [ 12 ] During this period, the offender threatened to kill the victim several times. He also said that he wished she would commit suicide. When they were in the car, he threatened to cause an accident to kill them both.

[ 13 ] He also threatened several times to kill the victim and the members of her family if she reported his violence against her. [ 14 ] In file 500-01-198691-195, the offender acknowledged being responsible for bite marks found on his child’s body. He said that he had “played rough” with the child. [ 15 ] He also admitted that during an argument with the victim, while he had the baby in his arms, he dropped him over an ottoman.

The child fell on the ottoman without getting hurt. [ 16 ] It should be noted that the child was barely a few months old at the time of these events. [ 17 ] In this file, the offender also acknowledged having uttered death threats against the victim and their child. Again, when they were in the car, he threatened to cause an accident to kill all three of them. The impact of the offences committed on the victim and her child [ 18 ] During submissions on sentencing, the victim read a letter describing the impact the offender’s violence has had on her. [ 19 ] No

summary can do this moving 16-page letter justice. [ 20 ] In her letter, she describes the portrait of a woman who is a prisoner of the cycle of conjugal violence: the isolation, the control exercised by the offender over several aspects of her life, the manipulation, the loss of self-esteem, the shame, and the difficulty she now has trusting others. [ 21 ] The offender’s violence has caused her intense and chronic stress, leading her to suffer from panic attacks, hair loss, rashes, eating disorders, sleep disorders, nightmares, flashbacks, and hypervigilance.

Still today, she fears for her safety and that of her child. [ 22 ] The victim suffered the following injuries as a result of the acts of violence described in the agreed statement of facts: bruises, bite marks, and a fractured nose. [ 23 ] In this case, the physical injuries are perhaps not the most serious the courts have seen. They did not require lengthy, specialized treatment, for example. They do not appear to have left permanent sequelae. [ 24 ] However, the Court is convinced that the psychological sequelae experienced by the victim are significant. This is apparent from her statement.

The Court believes her. It is undeniable that the process of healing from such psychological injuries is long and difficult. In cases like this, it is much harder for the mind to heal than the body. [ 25 ] As for the child, given his young age at the time of the events, he does not appear to be experiencing any sequelae as a result of his father’s violent acts. [ 26 ] However, he had to undergo a battery of invasive tests to determine whether he had been the victim of other violent acts in addition to those described above. Those examinations, which are highly unpleasant for a child, revealed no other injuries.

The offender’s profile [ 27 ] He is 47 years old. [ 28 ] He has no prior criminal record. [ 29 ] He has two children from a previous relationship. His former spouse has custody of the two children. He has contact with only one of them. [ 30 ] During the divorce proceedings with the victim, he gave her full custody of their child without visitation rights for five years. [ 31 ] He has a minor in philosophy and a major in journalism from Concordia University. [ 32 ] At the time of the events, he was pursuing a prolific career [...].

He had an excellent reputation throughout North America. [...]. [ 33 ] He estimates his income at that time to have been $250,000 a year. [ 34 ] His career fell apart further to his arrest in this case and its media coverage. [ 35 ] A period of unstable income and financial difficulties ensued. [ 36 ] Today, he has relinquished his career in journalism and holds a stable and rewarding job in the field of marketing and business development, for which he earns income of approximately $70,000 a year. [ 37 ] Following his arrest and his detention, which lasted a few days, the offender was hospitalized in the psychiatric ward from July 22 to August 5, 2019, due to suicidal thoughts. [ 38 ] He subsequently underwent an eight-week intensive psychiatric treatment program, from September to November 2019. [ 39 ] He then continued with psychological follow-up care and weekly psychotherapy sessions from December 2019 to June 2020.

He resumed that follow-up care in January 2021. [ 40 ] In October 2019, he successfully completed the YMCA’s 30-hour Living without violence program.

[ 41 ] He does not appear to suffer from problems related to alcohol or drug consumption. [ 42 ] Following the events, he became involved in a first intimate relationship with a woman that started in October 2019 and lasted about one year. In February 2021, he started a relationship with another woman, with whom he was still with at the time of submissions on sentencing.

There is no indication of any violence in these relationships. [ 43 ] The criminologist and probation officer who prepared the presentence report came to the following conclusions with respect to the offender: [ translation ] The objective seriousness of the charges and the persistence of the wrongful acts over a significant period in this case cannot be ignored.

Nevertheless, despite the offender’s potential for aggressiveness, the therapeutic supervision he has received since his arrest, like the understanding of his criminal patterns, leads us to believe that he does not represent a significant risk in the short term. Indeed, he says he has learned concrete skills to counter his tendency for avoidance, which leads to the accumulation of frustrations, and these skills act as protective factors against the risk of re-offending. In fact, his current spouse confirms the progress he has made in terms of expressing his unhappiness and his emotions.

In addition, we note that Mr. K. has a value system that is consistent with societal norms, as his criminal behaviour later in life shows. Resorting to violence was a circumstantial result of psychological overload caused by growing distress at the time of the events. To maintain the positive trajectory taken since his arrest, it is imperative that the accused continue to participate in therapy and that he comply with the recommendations of his physician with respect to all relevant medication.

Finally, everything indicates that the offender is able to comply with imposed legal supervision. [ 44 ] The offender testified during submissions on sentencing and read an apology letter addressed to the victim. [ 45 ] He seemed sincerely devastated by the victim impact statement concerning the offences. He is aware of the irreparable harm caused to her and to their child. [ 46 ] He expresses remorse that also appears sincere. He takes full responsibility for his actions. [ 47 ] He testified that at the time of the events, he lacked the tools necessary to manage his anger and aggressiveness.

He says he now has those tools. [ 48 ] During submissions on sentencing, the offender submitted 14 “character letters” written by friends, colleagues, and family members. [ 49 ] These letters have little impact on this judgment.

The only relevant aspect found in the letters is already well documented in the evidence presented and in the presentence report, that is, the description of the efforts made by the offender to rehabilitate himself and learn to control his violent temper. [ 50 ] Other passages from these letters are rather perplexing. [ 51 ] Several describe how they were shocked when they found out about the charges because they did not believe the offender was capable of such violent behaviour towards a spouse. That statement leads to three troubling observations.

First, it shows how the offender is able to construct an image of himself that is very different from reality. Next, one wonders who would have believed the victim if she had not carefully documented the violent incidents.

Finally, this statement is also a perfect illustration of the insidious nature of conjugal violence; it is a tragedy experienced in private by women from all walks of life that is unfortunately all too infrequently reported. [ 52 ] Several also express empathy or sympathy for the offender and note his courage because following his arrest, he fell into a depression and lost his professional status, his income, and his prestige. He then bounced back through therapy and by reorienting his professional life more modestly.

Those efforts are indeed commendable, and the Court certainly takes them into account in its decision- making process. [ 53 ] However, it should be remembered that all of this genuine self-reflection and sincere self-improvement work occurred only after the offender’s arrest and indictment, once his image and his personal and professional reputation were tarnished by the media coverage of the case. It was not his courage that put an end to the violence against the victim, quite the contrary.

Moreover, the offender himself acknowledges that he is the only one responsible for all the suffering caused by his behaviour. [ 54 ] In the circumstances, the only courage worth highlighting is the victim’s. She had the courage to report the incessant violence she suffered despite the immense pressure on her to remain quiet. That pressure was caused precisely by her spouse’s excellent reputation, his social circle, and the income he earned for the family.

In fact, the greatest source of pressure came from the offender himself, who threatened to kill her and members of her family if she reported his violence against her. [ 55 ] The quantity and content of these letters indicate that the offender has solid social and family networks to support him. [ 56 ] The Court can only hope that the victim has an equally strong support network as the offender. A network that, among other things, provides her the empathy and sympathy she deserves, which are absent from these letters.

Mitigating circumstances [ 57 ] First, the Court notes the absence of prior convictions. [ 58 ] The offender pleaded guilty before a trial was held. He thus spared the victim the ordeal of having to testify in Court. He also spared society the cost of holding a trial. [ 59 ] He expresses sincere remorse.

[ 60 ] He acknowledges the physical and psychological harm caused to the victim and to his child. [ 61 ] The offender’s sustained efforts in therapy are evidence of genuine self-reflection on his behaviour and sincere self- improvement work for the purpose of avoiding re-offending. His rehabilitation is clearly underway.

The Court refrains from saying that his rehabilitation is complete because, as the probation officer who prepared the presentence report noted, to maintain his new skills, and incidentally, keep the risk of re-offending low, [ translation ] “it is imperative that the accused continue to participate in therapy and that he comply with the recommendations of his physician with respect to all relevant medication”. [ 62 ] The offender’s mental state at the time he committed the offences is not a mitigating circumstance.

During that period, he was fully aware of his problem and the unacceptable nature of his violent behaviour. He says that he sought help, but it was clearly not enough. The violent acts multiplied.

The behaviour stopped only once the victim reported it, and only after his arrest did he take genuine steps that allowed him to reduce his risk of re-offending. [ 63 ] The Court does not accept the “social” consequences for the offender (loss of employment, income, prestige, contact with certain friends and family members, etc.) as mitigating circumstances in this case. [ 64 ] [ translation ] “Although social punishment has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada as a mitigating factor, its value must be weighed carefully.

While it is clear that this factor must be given particular consideration in the presence of a single offence, a spontaneous act, or a mistake, in contrast, its effect appears much more limited in cases of offences characterized by continuity and repetition.

In such cases, it is not a question of [ translation ] “mitigating circumstances, but the inevitable consequences to which those who expose themselves in such circumstances must be ready to face and must have been able to assess””. [1] Aggravating circumstances [ 65 ] “[E]vidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s intimate partner” is specifically considered to be an aggravating circumstance (s. 718.2(a)(ii) Cr.

C. ). [ 66 ] In addition, the victim was pregnant at the time of several of the violent incidents. [ 67 ] The relative seriousness of the physical and especially psychological injuries to the victim and the repetitive nature of the violent acts committed against her must also be accepted as aggravating factors. [ 68 ] In the case of the offences concerning the child, the fact that in committing the offence, the offender “abused a person under the age of eighteen years” (s. 718.2(a)(ii.1) Cr.

C. ) is also considered an aggravating circumstance. [ 69 ] The child’s very young age at the time the offences were committed against him must also be taken into account. ANALYSIS The purposes and principles of sentencing [ 70 ] A sentence must be aimed at fulfilling all the objectives set out by Parliament in

section 718 Cr. C. , that is: - Denouncing unlawful conduct; - Deterring offenders and others from committing offences (specific and general deterrence); - Separating offenders from society, where necessary ; - Assisting in rehabilitating offenders; - Providing reparations for harm done; and - Promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to the victims and to the community. [ 71 ] The sentencing judge must consider the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the circumstances related to the commission of the offence, and the circumstances concerning the offender’s personal situation (s. 718.2(

a) Cr. C. ). [ 72 ] The sentence must be “proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender” (s. 718.1 Cr. C. ). [ 73 ] The principle of parity in sentencing requires the imposition of a sentence similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances (s. 718.2(

b) Cr. C. ). However, a judge may depart from or set aside a sentencing range identified by the courts, so long as the sentence imposed nevertheless complies with the principles and purposes of sentencing determined by Parliament. [ 74 ] Before imposing a sentence that deprives the offender of liberty, the judge must consider whether less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate (s. 718.2 (

d) Cr. C. ). [ 75 ] A judge who imposes consecutive sentences must ensure that the combined sentence is not unduly long or harsh (s. 718.2(

c) Cr. C. ). [ 76 ] Applying the principles set out by the Court of Appeal of Quebec in this regard, [2] the Court must first establish the appropriate sentence for each count on which the offender was convicted. Next, the Court must determine whether the sentences should be served concurrently or consecutively. Finally, the Court may adjust the sentences to ensure that when taken together, they comply with the

principles of totality (s. 718.2(

c) Cr. C. ) and proportionality (s. 718.1 Cr. C. ). The just and appropriate sentence in file 500-01-199064-194 [ 77 ] The range of sentences imposed for crimes of the same nature as those the offender was convicted of is generally large. This is because such crimes may be committed in a wide variety of circumstances by offenders whose profiles are just as varied. [ 78 ] The most objectively serious offences the offender was convicted of are assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and harassment.

These indictable offences are punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. [ 79 ] For cases [ translation ] “involving a mix of mitigating and aggravating factors”, authors Hugues Parent and Julie Desrosiers [3] have identified a range of custodial sentences that varies from a few months to approximately 18 months for the offence of assault causing bodily harm prosecuted by way of indictment.

It should be noted that they do not necessarily make a distinction between offences committed against an intimate partner and those committed against others. [ 80 ] In regard to assault causing bodily harm, the Court of Appeal of Quebec has also recognized that the range is [ translation ] “wide”, while specifying, however, that [ translation ] “generally speaking, a custodial sentence is warranted”. [4] [ 81 ] The harshest sentences are usually imposed on individuals with prior convictions for similar offences or in situations involving particularly serious aggravating circumstances, for example when the injuries inflicted are significant or result in permanent sequelae. [ 82 ] The more lenient sentences are usually reserved for individuals whose rehabilitation process is well under way, if not complete, individuals for whom the judicial process has led to genuine self-reflection on their behaviour, acknowledgment of the harm caused, and self-improvement work, through therapy for example. [ 83 ] These last two conclusions are noted especially in cases where the sentence is imposed for a single act of assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm committed in a conjugal context. [ 84 ] Of course, when the sentencing judgment concerns a series of violent incidents, the “total” sentence is usually more severe.

In this regard, the prosecution provided a few examples where sentences equal to or greater than 12 months’ imprisonment were imposed. [5] There are also cases where offenders have been sentenced to serve several years in the penitentiary for a series of violent acts committed against an intimate partner. [6] [ 85 ] Although the Court must determine the appropriate sentence on each count, it is of the view that it must nevertheless analyze all the relevant facts as a whole – not to determine an “overall” sentence for all of the offences, but rather to emphasize the connection between them and to establish their actual seriousness. [ 86 ] The commission of each offence is indeed related to the others.

They fall within a continuum in which the victim was a prisoner of the cycle of conjugal violence. [ 87 ] The incidents during which a simple assault was committed are more frequent. Those involving an assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm are less so. However, they are objectively more serious. [ 88 ] Analyzing each incident separately to determine the appropriate sentences would distort the circumstances in which the offences were committed. [ 89 ] Here, the repetitive nature of the violent acts is an aggravating circumstance.

This is not a case involving an isolated act, but rather recurrent conduct by the offender over a long period. This observation must absolutely be taken into consideration in sentencing. [ 90 ] The Court is therefore in the delicate situation where the appropriate balance must be struck between the objectives of denunciation and deterrence and those related to the rehabilitation of the offender. [ 91 ] It is true that all the mitigating circumstances weigh in favour of a lenient sentence. The offender pleaded guilty.

He expresses remorse, acknowledges the harm caused to the victims, and has undertaken serious self-improvement work to avoid re-offending. [ 92 ] But for these mitigating circumstances, the Court would not have hesitated to impose a sentence significantly exceeding two years’ imprisonment. [ 93 ] That said, is the counterbalance of the mitigating circumstances sufficient to result in a non-custodial sentence? [ 94 ] The answer is no. The seriousness of the acts committed by the offender is too significant. The aggravating circumstances are too numerous. It was not an isolated act.

This is a case of repeated acts of violence against a pregnant spouse. [ 95 ] Allowing the offender to avoid imprisonment would not meet the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. [ 96 ] “The gravity, indeed, the tragedy of domestic violence can hardly be overstated. Greater media attention to this phenomenon in recent years has revealed both its prevalence and its horrific impact on women from all walks of life.” [ 97 ] It is hard to believe that these words, which remain so relevant, were written 32 years ago by Wilson, J. of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v.

Lavallée . [7] [ 98 ] Since then, courts of all jurisdictions and levels have not ceased to reiterate the fact that violence against intimate partners is a serious social problem and that the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence are of great importance in such cases. [ 99 ] In this case, the appropriate sentence is a term of imprisonment that is sufficiently long to meet the objectives of denunciation

and deterrence, but not so long that it puts the offender’s rehabilitation in jeopardy.

In the circumstances, the addition of a probation order is necessary to ensure that the skills he has acquired to reduce the risk of re-offending are maintained. [ 100 ] In short, considering the circumstances in which the offences were committed, the offender’s profile, and the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the Court is of the view that the following sentences should be imposed in file 500-01-199064-194: - Count 1 – Simple assault: 18 months; - Count 2 – Assault with a weapon: 18 months; - Count 3 – Uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm: 6 months; - Count 4 – Assault causing bodily harm: 18 months; - Count 5 – Criminal harassment: 18 months.

The just and appropriate sentence in file 500-01-198691-195 [ 101 ] Crimes of physical abuse against children also require that emphasis be placed on the objectives of denunciation and deterrence at the time of sentencing. [ 102 ] “Time and time again, the judgments in this area refer to the particular vulnerability of the child by a parent or a caretaker, the very person to whom the child must look for care and protection”. [8] [ 103 ] In addition, this case involves a baby who was barely a few months old.

It is difficult to imagine a more vulnerable category of human beings. [ 104 ] Regarding the incident that left bite marks, the Court fails to see what type of reasonable and acceptable game could leave such marks on a baby who obviously could not consent to such aggressive play. [ 105 ] The context in which the incident where the offender deliberately let the baby fall onto an ottoman increases the seriousness of that act. It occurred in the context of an argument with his spouse, when he ordered her to take the baby from him.

The offender did not limit himself to being violent with his spouse during these disputes; he also involved his child. [ 106 ] The same observation must be made for the offence of uttering death threats against the child and his mother in this case.

The offender threatened to kill the whole family by causing a car accident. [ 107 ] Taking into account the mitigating circumstances described above, the fact that this is a case of simple assault, not assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, and that the degree of repetition of the violent acts is not as high as in the file where the victim is the spouse, the Court is of the view that the following sentences should be imposed in file 500-01-198691-195: - Count 1 – Simple assault: 3 months; - Count 2 – Uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm: 3 months.

Concurrent sentences, consecutive sentences, and the totality of the sentence [ 108 ] The sentences imposed in file 500-01-199064-194 are to be served concurrently. The incidents are all part of the same dynamic of conjugal violence. The offences are closely connected and concern the same victim. Moreover, the Court considers the repetitive nature of the violent acts committed by the offender to be an aggravating circumstance, which explains in part the term of imprisonment that it imposes. [ 109 ] The sentences imposed in file 500-01-198691-195 are to be served concurrently.

The offences concern the same victim (the child), in addition to having a close temporal connection. [ 110 ] However, the Court is of the view that the totality of the sentence in the file where the child is the victim must be served consecutively to the sentence imposed in the file concerning the mother. To do otherwise would have the effect of distorting the sentencing process and would not fully meet the objective of denunciation. The violence against an intimate partner inflicted by the offender must be denounced independently of that inflicted on the child and vice versa.

The total sentence must necessarily reflect the fact that the offender assaulted his child, in addition to assaulting his spouse. Concurrent sentences would obscure that fact and limit the offender’s responsibility. [ 111 ] These conclusions result in a total sentence of imprisonment of 21 months. [ 112 ] In view of all the circumstances of this case, a total sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment complies with the principles of totality (s. 718.2(

c) Cr. C. ) and proportionality (s. 718.1 Cr. C. ). [ 113 ] As mentioned above, this prison sentence should be followed by a period of probation to ensure that the skills acquired by the offender to reduce the risk of re-offending are maintained, in addition to imposing conditions intended to protect the victims. [ 114 ] It is also appropriate to prohibit the offender from communicating directly or indirectly with the victims during the custodial period of the sentence (s. 743.21(1) Cr. C. ). Other orders in file 500-01-199064-194

[ 115 ] Because the offences described in counts 2 and 4 are “primary designated offences”, an order authorizing the taking of samples of bodily substances for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis (s. 487.051(1) and

(2) Cr. C. ) is warranted. [ 116 ] Because the offences described in counts 2 and 4 are offences in the commission of which violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted and for which the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for ten years or more, an order under subsection 109(1) Cr. C . prohibiting the offender from possessing weapons for the periods set out in subsection 109(2) Cr. C . is warranted.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: SENTENCES the offender to serve the following terms of imprisonment: File 500-01-199064-194 - Count 1: 18 months - Count 2: 18 months - Count 3: 6 months - Count 4: 18 months - Count 5: 18 months The sentences on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are to be served concurrently, for a total of 18 months in file 500-01-199064-194; File 500-01-198691-195 - Count 1: 3 months - Count 2: 3 months The sentences on counts 1 and 2 are to be served concurrently, for a total of 3 months in file 500-01-198691-195; This sentence of 3 months is to be served consecutively to the sentence of 18 months imposed in file 500-01-199064-194; Total sentence for files 500-01-199064-194 and 500-01-198691-195: 21 months’ imprisonment.

ORDERS the offender to subsequently comply with the conditions set out in a probation order of two years, namely: - comply with the compulsory conditions set out in subsection 732.1(2) of the Criminal Code ; - report to a probation officer within five days of his release, and thereafter, when required and in the manner directed by the probation officer for the duration of the probation order; - follow the instructions of the probation officer or any other person designated by the probation officer in regard to any therapy related to anger management, the use of violence, or mental health (psychological care/psychotherapy); - take the medication prescribed by his physician; - abstain from communicating or attempting to communicate in any way with the victims, A.

Ka. and X; - abstain from being in the physical presence of the victims, A. Ka. and X, or within a 50-metre radius of them; - abstain from being within a 500-metre radius of the domicile, place of work, place of study or daycare of the victims, A. Ka. and X; - formally abstain from possessing or carrying, in any capacity whatsoever, offensive weapons, including knives (except in restaurants and for a legitimate purpose); PROHIBITS the offender from communicating directly or indirectly with the victims, A. Ka. and X, during the custodial period of the sentence (s. 743.21 Cr.

C. ); IN FILE 500-01-199064-194 ONLY: ORDERS that the taking of the number of samples of bodily substances of the offender that is reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis be authorized (s. 487.051 Cr. C. ); PROHIBITS the offender from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance for a period of 10 years, and from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, and prohibited ammunition for life (s. 109 Cr. C. ).

__________________________________ ALEXANDRE DALMAU, J.C.Q. Mtre Bruno Ménard Counsel for the prosecution Mtre Jeffrey Boro Mtre Victoria Nix Counsel for the offender Date of hearing: January 20, 2022

Schedule “Agreed statement of facts” CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC COUR DU QUÉBEC DISTRICT DE MONTRÉAL ( Chambre criminelle et pénale) No.: 500-01-199064-194 Sa Majesté la Reine c. J… K… ______________________________________________________________________ Agreed statement of facts ______________________________________________________________________

July 5, 2018: on the way to a funeral for Ms. Ka.'s mother's friend, an argument between Mr. K. and Ms. Ka. erupted, and Mr. K. hit her several times with his first on her knees. Later that day, after a baby shower for the couple that took place at 6pm, another argument between Mr. K. and Ms. Ka. erupted, and he threw a metal bowl as well as other objects received as gifts. Mr. K. then began to cry, and asked her to return to his home to spend the night with him, and Ms. Ka. refused. He then hit her in the head and pushed her to the ground. July 18, 2018: While Ms. Ka. was asleep, Mr.

K. pulled her to the ground by her legs. She went to sit on the couch and said she was afraid of him. He then pulled her again to the ground by her legs, and slapped her in the face with an open hand. July 25, 2018: While the couple was driving to visit a home for sale in Mont-Royal, Mr. K. began to yell at Ms. Ka., and threatened to hit her in the face. He hit her at the knee-level with his fist. August 2-3, 2018: Mr. K. and Ms. Ka. had an argument. Ms. Ka. was pregnant. Mr. K. grabbed a kitchen knife and threatened to remove the baby from her stomach. He headbutted Ms. Ka. twice.

She went to a different room and he followed her with the knife. He headbutts her again. In the vehicle later, he threated to stab her. Upon returning to the apartment, Mr. K. whispered to Ms. Ka. that he would kill her. Later Ms. Ka. went to bed, and Mr. K. joined her, shook her, and headbutted her. They then discussed the violence that he is inflicted, and Mr. K. picked up the knife and said that if she didn't leave he would kill her. 13-15 August, 2018: While they were having breakfast at a restaurant, Mr. K. sent threatening text messages to Ms. Ka. while she was in front of him.

He also mumbled that he would kill her. While leaving the restaurant, Mr. K. pushed Ms. Ka. various times. 23-26 of August, 2018 Ms. Ka. and Mr. K. are at an apartment North of Town A. They have an argument. Mr. K. pulls Ms. Ka. by her legs to remove her from the bed, and pushes her against the wall. While they are returning to Town A, Mr. K. threatened to get into a car accident and kill them both. While at the house, they watch the movie [...], in which the husband kills his wife. Mr. K. compares Ms. Ka. to the character because they are both named A..

He threatens to kill her, pushes her to the ground, and states that the relationship is over. He left and then came back later to apologize. 12-13 September 2018 On September 12, Ms. Ka. goes to her brother D.'s house and tells him that Mr. K. is acting strangely but does not talk to him about the violence. She returns home and her and Mr. K. have an argument about her not wanting to sleep in the same room as Mr. K.. Mr. K. tells her that he hopes that she commits suicide, and he pushes her to the ground. He pulled her hair. Mr. K. then speaks to her about her

conversation with her brother D., and states that he believes she told him about the violence. Mr. K. then states that he will kill them both, and her father, and anyone that she speaks to about the violence. On September 13, Mr. K. and Ms. Ka. have a discussion. Ms. Ka. is sitting on a sofa next to the patio door. Mr. K. grabs her by the shoulders and states that he will throw her off the balcony behind her. September 23-24, 2018 Mr. K. and Ms. Ka. have an argument about a guys' trip that Mr. K. wants to have, and Mr. K. bites Ms Ka. in the face. October 6-8, 2018 Mr. K. and Ms.

Ka. have an argument about a guys' trip that Mr. K. wants to have. Ms. Ka. does not want him to go. Mr. K. spits in her face. He threatens to hit her in the stomach (while she is pregnant). He then hits her with two open hands at ear​ level. The next day, on the way home from an appointment that Ms. Ka. had, an argument erupts over thanksgiving dinner that evening. While driving Mr. K. weaves between lanes, and threatens to push Ms. Ka. out the door, as well as crash the vehicle and kill bath of them. En route to the dinner, Mr. K. tells Ms.

Ka. that he will kill her if she tells his mother about what is happening. During the dinner, he mumbles that he will kill her. October 17-18, 2018 Mr. K. and Ms. Ka. have an argument in the kitchen - she states that she is afraid of him and explains why. Mr. K. bites her in the face, headbutts her. Mr. K. then holds Ms. Ka. by the head and headbutts her in the nose. They hear a crack and Ms. Ka. yells that he has broken her nose. Mr. K. states that he hopes that her and the baby die. He then states that there are knives in the apartment and she won't survive her pregnancy. Ms.

Ka. then runs and sits on the sofa near the patio door. Mr. K. grabs her by the shoulders and threatens to throw her off of the balcony. November 1-3, 2018 After moving into their current home, Mr. K. and Ms. Ka. head to an appointment with their psychologist. While in the car, Mr. K. punches Ms. Ka. on her legs while she is seated next to him. January 24, 2019 Following an appointment Ms. Ka. had with a physiotherapist, Mr. K. threats to kill her as he believes that she will call the police and ruin his life. In returning to the house, she leaves the baby with the nanny at leaves with her friend R..

January 25, 2019 Ms. Ka. mentions to Mr. K. that she had a discussion with her father. Mr. K. threatens to kill her and her father, the baby, and all the people that she speaks to (about the situation). January 26-27, 2019 Mr. K. threatened to kill Ms. Ka. if she doesn't leave the house. Ms. Ka. then leaves with a friend (T.) for a little while. When she returns to the house, Mr. K. is having a tantrum and pushes her and threatens to kill her and her friend T..