r v. H. W., 2022 QCCQ 10345

R. c. H.W. 2022 QCCQ 10345 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF GATINEAU CITY OF GATINEAU Criminal and Penal Division No.: 550-01-116008-204 550-01-117602-203 550-01-117908-204 DATE: November 21, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE ALEXANDRA MARCIL, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE KING Prosecutor v. H. W. Accused _____________________________________________________________________ DECISION ON SENTENCE _____________________________________________________________________ These files are subject to an order under

section 486.4 of the Criminal Code , prohibiting the publication or dissemination in any manner of any information that would identify the main victim in the files. [ 1 ] Mr. W. was found guilty in three files in a domestic violence context. The complainant and main victim is his former spouse, N. A.. In file 550-01-117908-204 , the accused was found guilty on counts of assault, [1] assault causing bodily harm, [2] and assault using a weapon, [3] all prosecuted by way of indictment . In file 550-01-116008-204, he was found guilty of assault [4] and intimidation [5] against the same victim.

In file 550-01-117602-203 , he was found guilty of a breach of condition, [6] which was to abstain from communicating with the same victim. [ 2 ] On sentencing, the positions of the parties are very far from each other . The Crown recommends that the Court impose a sentence of 52 months of incarceration, broken down as follows: 40 months on all of the counts of domestic violence, concurrent, and 12 months on the count of intimidation, to be served consecutively.

For its part, the defense asks the Court to sentence the offender to 3 months of intermittent imprisonment on the counts prosecuted by way of indictment, to be served concurrently, and 30 concurrent days on the other counts. [ 3 ] The Court must determine the just and appropriate sentence. ANALYSIS Legal Principles [ 4 ] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society. According to

section 718 of the Criminal Code , a just sanction will have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) To denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to the victims or to the community; (

b) To deter the offender and other persons from committing such 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; (

f) To promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. [ 5 ] The Court has broad discretion if the sentence is within the minimum and maximum range stipulated by law.

Nevertheless, it must consider the general principles of sentencing: - The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and to the degree of responsibility of the offender. [7] - The sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances. [8] - It must be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. [9] - It must also not be unduly long or harsh where consecutive sentences are imposed. [10] The Gravity of the Offences

[ 6 ] The sentence to be imposed on Mr. W. must be proportionate to the gravity of the offences he committed. The circumstances of the offences were described at length in the decision on the verdict, which is part of the current decision. However, it is useful to recall some of the facts here: [ 7 ] In 2008, the offender met the victim, who was about 17; he was 7 or 8 years older. They got married at the end of 2012. Quickly the chemistry became difficult. [ 8 ] In file 550-01-117908-204 , the crimes committed are indictable offences, punishable by 10 years of imprisonment. The crimes are serious, not only objectively but also subjectively, as this

summary of the facts will show: Count 1: Assault [11] [ 9 ] Two different incidents were established: (

a) Strangulation [ 10 ] While the victim was pregnant, she and the offender had a fight. They were in the room that would be their future baby’s nursery. The offender took her by the throat and choked her as she lay on the floor, and he was on top of her. Today, these facts would have given rise to a count under

section 267 (

c) of the Criminal Code , which was not in force at the time of the events. (

b) Hair-pulling [ 11 ] Another incident occurred when their child was about one year old. The victim and the offender had a fight. The offender seized her by the hair. He threw her on the floor and pulled her by the hair for about five metres, from the baby’s room to the living room, while she begged him to stop. It was so violent that the victim’s hair was pulled out. This incident occurred in the presence of the child. [ 12 ] Thus, the count of assault includes several acts of violence. The level of brutality is high.

The violence took place while the victim was pregnant and continued thereafter, in the presence of the child. Count 2: Assault Causing Bodily Harm [12] [ 13 ] Here again, several incidents in relation to this count were established: (

a) Eye-punching [ 14 ] At the end of 2013, after the victim had an eye surgery, she and the offender had a fight. As they were in the bathroom, the offender took the victim by the throat, pushed her against the wall, and punched her in the eye so hard that it swelled up immediately. She had bruises all over her eye. (

b) Striking head against table [ 15 ] Before the birth of their child, the couple was at the house of the offender’s sister with the offender’s family. In the dining room, the offender started moving his legs in an irritable way and shaking, trying to control himself. Suddenly, he seized the victim’s head with his right hand and forcefully smashed it on the dining table. The whole family was present. Two of them had to grab the offender and hold him back, while the victim was brought upstairs where she lay down. She could not walk because of the pain and dizziness. (

c) Choking [ 16 ] One night, the offender came home intoxicated and woke her up. They started having argument. At some point, while the victim was sitting on the sofa, the offender jumped on her and choked her with both hands around her neck. She pushed him away, but he came back and continued choking her while pressing his knees on her arms. This incident lasted for so long she thought she was going to die. She could not breathe, her strength was leaving her, and she could not push him away. Her arms were numb. She saw bright spots and her vision blurred.

When the offender finally released her, she remained on the floor coughing and trying to catch her breath. After this incident, her voice was hoarse, her arms were completely covered with bruises because of the offender’s knees, and there was blood under the bruises on her neck. [ 17 ] Therefore, the gravity of the offence is high. Count 2 consists of several acts of violence, which began quite early in the relationship, before the birth of their child, and continued in the presence of the child. In addition, the offender showed cruelty by punching the victim’s eye when she had recently undergone eye surgery.

We note that the offender seriously endangered the victim's life during the strangulation incident, which could have been deadly. Count 3: Assault Using a Weapon [13] [ 18 ] In 2013, at the very beginning of their marriage, the offender came home intoxicated. The victim confronted him. At one point, the offender ran to the kitchen and picked up a knife. He pointed the knife at the victim’s throat and at her stomach. While doing so, he uttered threats to kill her. Here again, the gravity of the offence is high.

FILE 550-01-116008-204: [ 19 ] The offender was found guilty on one count of assault [14] and one count of intimidation. [15] [ 20 ] At the time, on November 10, 2019, the couple were no longer living together. The victim had legal custody of their son, and the offender had access rights. [ 21 ] That day, the victim drove with the child to pick up the offender, who had broken legs. They went to a children’s playground together, but they started arguing. They therefore left and kept arguing in the car while the victim was driving. The offender punched her while she was driving, and the car swerved.

The offender forcefully pushed the victim’s head against the dashboard. [ 22 ] When they were stopped at a red light, the victim tried to ask people to call the police, but they did not understand, so she kept driving. When they were close to a police station, she threatened to stop there if the offender did not stop hitting her. H e answered: “If you go to the police station, your son won’t have a mother anymore, I will kill you and won’t stop until you and your family are demolished”. The words of the offender were threatening, and t heir impact was obvious.

The victim was fearful that he would put his threats into practice. Despite the danger of the swerving car, she did not go to the police. [ 23 ] Here again, the gravity of the offences is high. This count of assault includes several acts of violence. All the blows to the victim and the striking of her head on the dashboard were assaults. This shows a repetition of the same acts of violence, even after the end of the marriage. Furthermore, by hitting the victim while she was driving, the offender endangered the safety of the victim and their son, as well as other road users.

FILE 550-01-117602-203: [ 24 ] The condition breached was the order to abstain from communicating with the victim. [16] The offender had been arrested in November 2019 in relation to the previous file and signed a promised to appear with conditions, including a prohibition against communicating directly or indirectly with the victim. [17] [ 25 ] Four months later, on the night of March 11, 2020, when the offender was still bound by conditions, he called the victim. Since then, she has moved to

another province, and she still lives outside of Quebec. [ 26 ] In sum, the degree of violence and brutality of the offences committed by Mr. W. is high. There were several incidents of strangulation that could have been deadly to the victim. In addition, there were several blows to her head that could also have been deadly. Pointing a knife at her throat and stomach is also very worrying, especially since these assaults were accompanied by death threats. The violence continued over a long period of time.

It started while the victim was pregnant and continued later in the presence of the child and lasted even after the end of their marriage. The offender's conduct displayed recklessness for the physical and mental safety and security of his former spouse and child. As time passed, he persisted in using violence. [ 27 ] Imprisonment is the appropriate sentence, and it cannot be ruled out. There is clearly a strong social need to speak out against the crimes committed by Mr. W.. Deterrence and denunciation are important.

This offender represents a danger to the main victim and their child, as well as to other potential victims and the community. The objective and subjective gravity of these crimes militate in favor of a long-term sentence. The Offender, Particular Circumstances and Mitigating Factors [ 28 ] The sentence to be imposed on Mr. W. must be proportionate to his degree of responsibility, and it should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The Court must assess all the circumstances of the case to determine an appropriate sentence. [ 29 ] Mr.

W. was born in 1993 in Iran. He moved to Canada in 1999. He currently works full time in a [restaurant A]. [ 30 ] In the case at bar, there are few, if any, mitigating factors. It seems that, at the time of the offences, the offender had a drug and alcohol problem. However, the evidence at trial reveals that the offender downplays these problems. [ 31 ] The fact that the offender has had a new partner for a year without any incident of violence is not a mitigating factor. [18] His new spouse, A. E., testified that she has been living with him for a year and that he does not hit her.

Her evidence suggests that the offender still has domestic conflicts and still does not know how to cope with them. She states that when the couple have an argument, the offender holds her by the arms and then leaves. The offender still places himself at risk of reoffending. Moreover, the witness has no interest in the offender serving a long-term sentence. Domestic violence is difficult to detect since victims tend to minimize such events, feel guilty or hide such crimes. [19] This witness expresses guilt: She states that when the couple have an argument, it is always her fault.

Her evidence does not demonstrate any significant mitigating factors, nor does it deny the risks of reoffending. [ 32 ] Many factors are considered neutral. [ 33 ] Because the offender was found guilty after a three-day trial, he cannot benefit from the mitigating factor of a guilty plea. This is a neutral factor. [ 34 ] There is no presentence report. The offender did not testify at the sentencing hearing. He did not express remorse, nor did he undertake any process of rehabilitation.

There is no evidence indicating that he has recently undergone any form of treatment or therapy addressing issues in relation to violence. These factors are neutral. [ 35 ] According to his new partner, the offender expresses sadness about the separation from his son. He seems to victimize himself because the victim moved to another province with their child. T he evidence does not support the conclusion that the offender has accepted any accountability whatsoever. This is also neutral.

Aggravating factors [ 36 ] The list of aggravating factors is long. [ 37 ] The offences were committed in a context of domestic violence, which is an aggravating factor. [20] The vulnerability of the victim is also aggravating. [21] Women caught in a cycle of domestic violence are vulnerable. [22] Pregnant women and women with young children are also vulnerable. [23] In this context, the Court shall give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence. [24] [ 38 ] The level of brutality of the acts committed by the offender is high. We note that he forcefully struck the victim's head on different occasions.

He pointed a knife at the victim’s throat and stomach, while uttering threats to kill her. He also forcefully choked her on different occasions. She could have died. [ 39 ] In addition, the repetitive nature of the acts of violence and the long period over which the offences occurred are also aggravating.

His persistence in assaulting the victim is aggravating [25] and an indication of the offender’s blameworthiness. [ 40 ] The impact of the crimes on the victim was considerable. [26] The Court cannot list them all, but it mentions the following: [ 41 ] Beside her wounds, which lasted for weeks, the victim still has a permanent bump on her head. Her concussions following the frequent blows to her head and strangulations still have impacts: dizziness and poor balance, permanent migraines, and sensitivity to light and loud noise. [ 42 ] Non-physical violence is just as destructive as physical violence.

In Gosselin , the Court of Appeal points out that, in the context of domestic violence, the after-effects on a victim can be measured in ways other than physical injuries. [27] As stated by Muldaver J. in R. v. McF. , “Conduct which brutalizes the mind can be far more devastating, painful and long-lasting than conduct which causes injury to the body”. [28] [ 43 ] The victim has many psychological injuries. She has experienced anxiety and depression leading to insomnia, loss of appetite, weight loss, anemia, and headaches. She still has nightmares and horrific memories. She lives in shame.

She has had trouble keeping a stable job for four years. Even now, years after the events, t he victim is still in therapy. She will live with the scars for the rest of her life. [ 44 ] We recall that some incidents of domestic violence occurred while the victim was pregnant. Most of the acts of violence were perpetrated in the presence of their young child. On several occasions, the offender put not only the victim's life and safety at risk, but also the physical and mental safety of their child.

Exposing a child to domestic violence can have devastating effects. [29] By choosing to commit acts of domestic violence in front of his child, the offender exposed his son to psychological abuse, [30] which is also aggravating. [31] T heir innocent child is in therapy still today. [ 45 ] The victim and the child have moved far away to another province. [ 46 ] Therefore , the consequences of Mr. W.'s offences are very serious. [ 47 ] This offender already had violent priors, having been found guilty of assault with a weapon in 2002 [32] and assault in 2008.

Th e 2008 conviction is for violent acts that were also perpetrated in a domestic context. We note that the offender’s conduct was extremely brutal, according to the Court's description of the incident : Lors d’une dispute conjugale et alors qu’il est en état d’ébriété avancé, l’accusé donne une tape à la tête de la victime, la prend par le cou et, la tenant au sol, de l’autre main lui assène plus d’une vingtaine de coups de poing à la tête. [33] [ 48 ] This brutal incident did not prevent the offender from getting into the relationship with N.

A. and making her his victim. [ 49 ] The risk of reoffending is considered high, due to the presence of many factors, including: the length of the crimes and their repeated nature, the offender’s priors, and the absence of other factors (no remorse, no therapy and no psychological follow-up). In addition, we observe in the offender a marked propensity to use violence in his intimate relationships. A fter having been caught and arrested, the offender did not stop committing crimes of domestic violence.

Indeed, in 2021, he was found guilty of the following crimes committed in 2020 against another woman in a domestic violence context: [34] : intimidation, [35] two counts of uttering

threats, [36] being unlawfully in a dwelling house, [37] assault causing bodily harm [38] and assault with a weapon. [39] For all these reasons, the risk of reoffending is considered high. Jurisprudence [ 50 ] Determining the range of sentences in domestic violence matters is not an easy task, considering the circumstances of each case. [40] The range of penalties for assaults against a spouse is very wide, from a discharge to 3 years in prison.

For the offence of assault causing bodily harm prosecuted by indictment and with aggravating factors, the scale of sentences varies from a few months to 36 months of imprisonment or more. The most severely punished cases are those of repeated domestic violence assaults, taking place over several years, by offenders with criminal records in similar matters. [41] [ 51 ] As mentioned above, the defence asks the Court to sentence the offender to 3 months of intermittent imprisonment. W ith all due respect, the defense position is unreasonable and fails to consider the state of Canadian law.

Its position is much too lenient to satisfy the objectives of denunciation and deterrence that must be sought in cases involving repeated domestic violence. [ 52 ] The sentence to be imposed on Mr. W. must be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. [ 53 ] Several courts, [42] including our own Court of Appeal, have repeatedly emphasized the weight that must be given to denunciation and deterrence in the context of domestic violence. [43] [ 54 ] The Court endorses the following comments of Cimon J. in R. v.

B.F .: [18] Au Canada, nous vivons dans une société civilisée et démocratique où chaque personne a droit à son intégrité physique et où la loi du plus fort ne s’applique pas .

La société canadienne est déterminée à protéger l’intégrité personnelle, tant physique que psychologique, de tout individu http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?ID=3E3C54D351C0ACD9FA4A3F58C0283889&captchaToken=03AIIukzhPW5UhKrO5- FqIr6Z0psrUj9IYM2cFaj7rwjEm8E63jeyMhaJXT7qYI5WM1pgDjBCdLVu94kB3MoBf8AEi-hQ66Ynmj88p3AnrDlI- P7kVa3KvbnDfDG8mG0sW2ekaAwpF_8o4txfnVmycMq_C-5bQPXwAMv6AIO2-zu_NOCLuXRP-JC- mslD5v8RfhR3Ss1tZhyFj2uTy6q_thmig6TU9lUu91azuhMu-wMI-Xep5CJKNNrKeNW- Yw_iioV66L3fKDvBaloxhW0lctYve6ljwCQwB3l8QDyncwfqivDpAZ7U01JkTIYzrGS5JKO8yseG2f4sqQKh- TjDkW0KEJjltccxfMs4M3xBPsLUAQfWtAe4hNl6Ps8teY9qcIgLxn5f4mwoMXCOn8yxskMVX- P8ie3LqE6ym6XYI6o24tET_1QlLzk2QqIkUSI0NfnJ4K3vn2NoXObQOaeWyaJAX4zjClvPwSOgGqmMY9uTadtKPPxEq_vEC9LbC1T8zii2a6bAxU1Gh0eujCPz- Ri7hAfxh9AGIzA - _ftn23 .

Elle vise aussi l’élimination de la violence conjugale et l’établissement de rapports égalitaires entre les sexes . [19] L’un des droits fondamentaux de notre société est qu’on ne peut porter atteinte à la sécurité physique d’une personne sans son consentement, et l’un des buts principaux du droit criminel est de protéger les membres de la société contre une telle atteinte . [20] Historiquement, on jugeait que la violence conjugale relevait de la sphère privée et les tribunaux s’efforçaient davantage à préserver l’intégrité de l’unité familiale qu’à mettre un terme à la violence .

Ceci explique pourquoi la violence conjugale a longtemps été minimisée et banalisée . Cela était une erreur . [21] Aucun homme n’a le droit de brutaliser sa femme . On ne règle pas des problèmes conjugaux en frappant sur sa conjointe . Toute personne a le droit d’être protégée de la violence de son partenaire intime comme le serait un inconnu http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca/php/decision.php?

ID=3E3C54D351C0ACD9FA4A3F58C0283889&captchaToken=03AIIukzhPW5UhKrO5- FqIr6Z0psrUj9IYM2cFaj7rwjEm8E63jeyMhaJXT7qYI5WM1pgDjBCdLVu94kB3MoBf8AEi-hQ66Ynmj88p3AnrDlI- P7kVa3KvbnDfDG8mG0sW2ekaAwpF_8o4txfnVmycMq_C-5bQPXwAMv6AIO2-zu_NOCLuXRP-JC- mslD5v8RfhR3Ss1tZhyFj2uTy6q_thmig6TU9lUu91azuhMu-wMI-Xep5CJKNNrKeNW- Yw_iioV66L3fKDvBaloxhW0lctYve6ljwCQwB3l8QDyncwfqivDpAZ7U01JkTIYzrGS5JKO8yseG2f4sqQKh- TjDkW0KEJjltccxfMs4M3xBPsLUAQfWtAe4hNl6Ps8teY9qcIgLxn5f4mwoMXCOn8yxskMVX- P8ie3LqE6ym6XYI6o24tET_1QlLzk2QqIkUSI0NfnJ4K3vn2NoXObQOaeWyaJAX4zjClvPwSOgGqmMY9uTadtKPPxEq_vEC9LbC1T8zii2a6bAxU1Gh0eujCPz- Ri7hAfxh9AGIzA - _ftn31 . (…). [22] (…) L’ère de la tolérance pour la violence conjugale est maintenant révolue et les tribunaux doivent exprimer, au moyen de sanctions suffisamment sévères, l’intolérance de la société à l’endroit de ces violences . [23] La violence conjugale est criminelle et doit être dénoncée. (…) Elle est maintenant reconnue comme une préoccupation publique d’importance au Canada et dans le monde .

Le sérieux de la problématique de la violence conjugale est reconnu partout au Canada et est considérée comme un fléau social . EIle se doit d’être éradiquée . [44] [ 55 ] In file 550-01-117908-204 , the crimes committed by Mr. W. are punishable by 10 years of imprisonment.

In similar cases, even in the presence of mitigating factors, it is common to impose years-long custodial sentences. [ 56 ] Many Courts have underscored the great danger of strangulation or choking and have held that those who choke or strangle their intimate partners will face significant periods of incarceration. [45] In Prevost , the Alberta Court of Appeal observed that strangling a person endangers the victim’s life and could be difficult to reconcile with a non-penitentiary sentence. [46] [ 57 ] In Yektas , the accused had committed assault by choking his spouse. He received only 10 months of imprisonment.

However, there were mitigating factors: it was an isolated incident, the accused had pleaded guilty, and he had no priors. These factors are absent in Mr. W.’s case [47] . [ 58 ] In Morin , the accused was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment for domestic violence crimes including assault by choking. However, he had pleaded guilty, had no criminal record, and had expressed sincere remorse. [48] Thus, once again, several significant mitigating factors were present in that case, whereas they are absent in Mr. W.’s case. [ 59 ] The defence cites various cases which will not be followed.

These include A.A . , [49] in which the offender was sentenced to only 8 months of imprisonment. However, the accused pleaded guilty, had no priors and had started therapy. Also, in the Court's view, his crimes were not as serious as those committed by Mr. W.. The defense also cites Arriaga Orantes , [50] where the offender received a lenient sentence for assault with a knife. Here again, the offender had no priors. That case did not feature a clear repetitive pattern of domestic violence as Mr. W.’s case does.

In Mercedes , [51] cited by the defence, the offender had no priors, the victim had no injuries, and the crimes were not as serious as in Mr. W.’s case. Fortin , [52] which is also cited by the defence, is not useful since the accused had committed only one assault with a weapon. He expressed remorse and planned to go on therapy. This Court is not bound by those decisions, which were rendered by judges at the same level of jurisdiction. [ 60 ] In Flageol , [53] a Court of Appeal decision cited by the defence, the offender was sentenced to 24 months of incarceration.

However, the accused in that case had pleaded guilty, which is not the case here. Also, in Flageol , the offences did not occur over a long period of time, as it is the case for Mr. W.. [ 61 ] Two judgments filed by the parties involve similar facts. But even then, there were significant mitigating factors, whereas they are absent in Mr. W.’s case. I n Mendonca , a sentence of 36 months was imposed on the offender for domestic violence offences, although they were isolated facts. The accused had significant mitigating factors, had suffered from depression, and had no criminal record. [54] Also, in B.

F ., a sentence of 36 months was imposed for domestic violence offences, although the accused had no prior record, and several factors were considered neutral rather than aggravating. [ 62 ] Nevertheless, a 36-month prison sentence would be far below the global sentence required in Mr. W.'s case. T his is a case of repeated domestic violence involving a high level of brutality where the victim could have been killed. Violence took place over several years, even after the couple no longer lived together.

There is a long list of neutral and aggravating factors. The offender did not plead guilty and did not express any remorse. Some of the crimes were committed while the victim was pregnant, and others were committed in the presence of their young child. The offender had priors in similar matters, and he poses significant risks of reoffending. [ 63 ] In file 550-01-116008-204 , the offence of intimidation [55] is punishable by up to 5 years where prosecuted by indictment, but in the case at bar the Crown proceeded by

summary conviction. Here, the Crown recommends sentencing Mr. W. to 12 months to be served consecutively. The defense recommends 30 days, to be served concurrently. [ 64 ] In Cheveldeaw , cited by the Crown, the accused was sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment on a count of intimidation, for having induced someone to make a false statement to the police that created an alibi for him. It should be noted that the accused's blameworthiness was mitigated.

He had a troubled mind at the time of the offence and pleaded guilty. [56] In Côté , the accused received 12 months of imprisonment for attempting to obstruct the course of justice by asking a victim not to press charges against him. This accused had several prior offences but had pleaded guilty. [57] [ 65 ] We note that Mr. W. poses a risk of reoffending since he again committed intimidation in a domestic context, for which he was sentenced in 2021. Therefore, the Court finds that the Crown's recommendation of 12 months is within the appropriate range.

The "totality principle" [ 66 ] The Court considers the "totality principle", which is raised for consideration where consecutive sentences are imposed for multiple offences committed by an offender. The global sentence must not be unduly long or harsh where consecutive sentences are imposed. [ 67 ] After considering the totality of the circumstances, sentences for similar offences committed at different time periods will be consecutive, taking into account the harm done to the victim and the need to avoid, as the BC Court of Appeal once said: making crimes “cheaper by the dozen” [58] .

Consequently, sentences for offences that occurred in 2019 and in 2020 will run consecutively with sentences for previous incidents that occurred in 2013 and during the couple’s marriage. [ 68 ] However, sentences for the physical violence and for the intimidation in 2019 will run concurrently with each other due to the close link between these two offences. [ 69 ] The global sentence is not unduly harsh or disproportionate, considering that this is a case of repeated domestic violence involving a high level of brutality, with serious impacts of the victims, taking place over several years, with a long list of neutral and aggravating factors, committed by an offender with priors in similar matters, who poses significant risks of reoffending CONCLUSIONS [ 70 ] Considering: - the importance of particularizing a sentence to reflect the offender’s situation and the seriousness of the offences; - the need to denounce the offender's conduct and to deter the offender and others from committing such offences, while remaining focused on assisting the offender in his rehabilitation; - the importance of promoting the offender's sense of responsibility and acknowledgment of the harm done to the victims, his former spouse and his son; [ 71 ] The Court hereby imposes on Mr.

W. the following: [ 72 ] In file 550-01-117908-204 : - On Count 1, [59] for the strangulation incident that occurred in 2013 while the victim was pregnant and the hair pulling incident that occurred later in the presence of their 1-year-old child: 36 months of incarceration; - On Count 2, [60] for the incident in which the victim's head was struck against a table, which occurred before the birth of their child, for the eye-punching incident and for the other choking incident: 36 months, concurrent with Count 1. - On Count 3, [61] for the assault by holding a knife at the victim's throat and stomach while uttering death threats: 18 months, concurrent to Count 1. [ 73 ] In addition, on Count 2 and Count 3, the Court also imposes: - an order under

section 487.051 of the Criminal Code , authorizing the taking of the number of samples of bodily substances that is reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis; - an order pursuant to section 109(3) of the Criminal Code , prohibiting the offender from possessing any firearms, crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for life. [ 74 ] In file 550-01-116008-204 : - On Count I, [62] for the other incident of violence that occurred while the victim was driving, on November 10, 2019, after the breakdown of their marriage: 10 months of incarceration, consecutive to file 550-01-117908-204 . - Count 3, for the count of intimidation: [63] 10 months of incarceration, concurrent with Count 1. [ 75 ] In file 550-01-117602-203 , for breaching the condition to abstain from communicating with the victim [64] on March 11, 2020, the Court imposes a sentence of 2 months to be served consecutively to file 550-01-116008-204 . [ 76 ] This is a global sentence of 48 months. [ 77 ] On all counts, the Court imposes an order prohibiting the offender from communicating with the victim N.

A. under

section 743.21 of the Criminal Code . The Court thanks the victim for her involvement in the judicial process. [ 78 ] Considering the long period of detention, there will be no cost and no surcharge.

__________________________________ ALEXANDRA MARCIL, J.C.Q. Mtre Simon-Pier Cossette For the prosecution Mtre Marc Doyon For the accused Date of hearing: October 18, 2022