2022 QCCQ 1719, 2022 QCCQ 1719

Translated from the original French R. c. B.F. 2022 QCCQ 1719 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF LAVAL LOCALITY OF LAVAL “Criminal and Penal Division” No.: 540-01-091393-192 DATE: April 11, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE SERGE CIMON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Prosecution v. B. F.

Accused ______________________________________________________________________ SENTENCING This decision is subject to an order under s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code prohibiting the publication or transmission of any information that could identify the victims or complainants in any way. ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On June 29, 2021, following a 9-day trial, the Court found the accused guilty [1] on 13 counts [2] brought against him for offences committed between October 1, 2010, and September 25, 2018, against his spouse (X), his 3 sons (A, B, and C), his father-in- law (

K) and his mother-in-law (L). [ 2 ] The Court must now determine the appropriate sentence. THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE OFFENCES [ 3 ] The facts are set out in detail in the decision on the verdict. The factual determinations in that decision are an integral part of the sentencing decision. For the purposes of this judgment, the Court will note that the main incidents are as follows: ➢ Between 2010 and September 2018, the accused threatened X several times, stating that he would take the children abroad or kill both her and the children.

For example, the accused threatened to kill X when she tried to take the children off the ledge of the window on the staircase landing. ➢ Between 2010 and September 2018, on various occasions, the accused spit on a twenty-dollar bill and then wiped it on X’s head before handing it to her.

X testified that this happened about twenty times in front of the children. [3] When her boys were born, the accused spit on her in the hospital because she had chosen gender-neutral names for the boys. [4] ➢ In 2010, the accused punched X in the face, on her right cheek. ➢ In 2010, the accused violently pushed X into a wall while she was holding their son A in her arms. He pushed her so hard that she made a hole in the wall before falling to the ground. ➢ In 2012, the accused refused to allow X to go to a baby shower. The accused grabbed her, dragged her along the stairs and pulled her hair.

X sustained injuries to her arms and back. ➢ In February 2015, the accused closed a door on the finger of his son B, aged 18 months, causing him to lose a nail. ➢ In 2016, the accused hit his boys and X with a belt. The boys were hit on their thighs, hips, sides and back. ➢ In a Brault & Martineau store, the accused called X a [ translation ] “dirty whore” and pinched her hard on the stomach. At that time, X had already given birth to three children and had undergone two caesarean sections.

She was bruised and in a lot of pain for a month. ➢ In January 2017, while X was taking a shower, the accused grabbed her by the hair, dragged her along the floor to the stairs, then

punched and kicked her while saying [ translation ] “You slut, I’m tired of this life”. The children begged the accused to stop. [5] ➢ That same day, the accused violently punched X in the face, dislocating her jaw. X could no longer close her mouth properly and had severe pain in her eardrum. Police Officer Bergeron noted that X’s face was swollen on both sides and that her cheeks were red and purple. X left by ambulance.

Following this incident, the accused threatened to kill her and the children if she did not withdraw her complaint. [6] ➢ At another point, the accused slapped A and pinched his other son C on the neck because of an argument over a toy. ➢ In 2016–2017, in front of the children, the accused called X a [ translation ] “dirty whore”, grabbed her left hand and pushed it away. X’s little finger got stuck and her fingernail was torn off. Subsequently, the accused pulled her by the hair, pushed her to the ground, and punched and kicked her. He also spat on her.

X had a bloody upper lip, bruises on her hands and arms, and a scratch on her face. X also had to wear a splint on her finger for two weeks. ➢ In the summer of 2018, the accused grabbed his 9-year-old son A’s ear and pulled it back and forth. He also pinched C’s arm and hit B, both aged 5 at the time. ➢ In July 2018, while the family was driving on Highway 15, the accused hit A on her thighs and slapped her face. The accused stopped the car on a service road and left on foot. ➢ In August 2018, while X was collecting A’s hockey bag, the accused arrived home and called her a [ translation ] “dirty whore”.

He grabbed her by the neck and dragged her from the bedroom to the bathroom. He then pushed her down onto the tile floor and began hitting her. Then he pushed A onto the banister because he was yelling at him to let his mother go. ➢ On August 24, 2018, the accused placed C, aged 5, on the top of a door. When his in-laws tried to intervene to bring C down, the accused pushed them using his hands, causing them to fall backwards.

The Court notes that the accused admitted to having often placed his son C in this situation. [7] ➢ On September 25, 2018, the accused spit in X’s face when she asked him for money to fill up her car with gas in order to take the boys to school. ➢ Later that same day, the accused pushed X by her shoulders with both hands. When the accused tried to hit A because he shouted at him not to touch his mother, X intervened and received a slap in the face.

Subsequently, the accused took X’s cell phone when she tried to call 911, grabbed her by the neck and dragged her upper body, from her stomach to her head, onto the kitchen table, telling her [ translation ] “Abort, you dirty whore”. At the time, X was three months pregnant with her daughter D. The accused left the house with a suitcase, his passport, X’s cell phone, and four thousand dollars. [8] ➢ Between January 2015 and September 2018, on multiple occasions, the accused threw a shoe at his sons when they made noise.

It would hit them on the head, back or lower body. [9] ➢ X estimated that violent episodes would occur every two to three weeks during the time they lived together. THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES [ 4 ] The prosecution asks the Court to impose a sentence of 30 to 36 months of imprisonment. The prosecution argues that in this case there are numerous aggravating factors and few mitigating ones.

In addition, the prosecution underscores that denunciation and deterrence, both specific and general, are paramount sentencing considerations in cases involving domestic violence and child abuse. [ 5 ] The accused asks the Court to impose an intermittent sentence of 3 months, along with probation and 240 hours of community service. [ 6 ] He acknowledges that this sentence may appear lenient but that it is a significant sentence for a person who is an asset to society and who has no criminal record. He adds that he supports his family by paying spousal support.

His ability to pay support could be affected by the imposition of a prison sentence, because he might lose his restaurant. [ 7 ] He also asks the Court to consider his compliance with his bail conditions since September 2018, the unique judicial history of the case and the realities of the public health conditions at detention centres due to COVID-19. [ 8 ] In addition, he notes that he has not had any contact with his children since 2018, which is a source of great sadness. He also submits that the Court should consider the happy times that the family experienced over a period of eight years.

Lastly, he notes that the [ translation ] “frequency of violent episodes” alleged by X was not clearly established, [10] making sentencing more difficult, including in finding comparable cases. THE ISSUES [ 9 ] What is the appropriate sentence to impose on the accused in light of the applicable sentencing principles, in particular the principle that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender? THE APPLICABLE LAW 1.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING [ 10 ] Sentencing is not an exact science. [11] It has been described as one of the most difficult and delicate judicial tasks. [12]

[ 11 ] It is a highly discretionary exercise [13] because the Court can choose to prioritize certain sentencing objectives and aggravating or mitigating factors in order to impose the sentence it considers most fit. [14] [ 12 ] That said, the purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions. [ 13 ] Sentencing has the following purposes, which are both punitive and rehabilitative: to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community, to deter offenders and other persons, to separate offenders from society where necessary, to assist in rehabilitating offenders, to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders. [ 14 ] The fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of moral blameworthiness of the offender, [15] e ven if the purposes of denunciation and deterrence might warrant a harsher sentence. [16] However, offenders must be held responsible for their actions, and the sentence must properly reflect and condemn their role in the offence and the harm they caused. [17] In sentencing, the Court must weigh all factors, both aggravating and mitigating, not be excessive, and consider lighter sentences when justified in the circumstances as well as reasonable alternative measures. [ 15 ] Moreover, a sentence should be in line with sentences imposed for similar offences, all the while ensuring the sentence is individualized [18] to the offender, because the Court is not punishing the crime, but its author. [19] [ 16 ] Parity in sentencing is not an absolute principle.

The principle of parity allows for some disparity. The principle of similarity in sentences is a matter of degree – courts must consider the similarities in terms of the offences, the offenders and the circumstances. [20] [ 17 ] That said, courts today have a better understanding of the gravity and harmfulness of domestic violence and children’s exposure to that violence. Similarly, the long-term effects of physical abuse on children are also well documented.

This deeper understanding of the seriousness of these offences requires a “modern” approach to proportionality, which may justify an upward departure from precedent. [21] 2.

PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE [ 18 ] In Canada, we live in a civilized and democratic society where every person has the right to their physical integrity and where the survival of the fittest no longer applies. [22] Our society is committed to protecting the personal integrity, both physical and psychological, of every individual. [23] Canadian society also aims to eliminate domestic violence and promote equality between the sexes. [24] [ 19 ] One of the key rights in our society is the right to be free from unconsented invasions of physical integrity.

A central purpose of the criminal law is to protect individuals from such invasions. [25] [ 20 ] Historically, domestic violence was considered a private matter, and courts were often more focused on keeping the family unit intact than on ending the violence. [26] This explains why domestic violence has long been downplayed and trivialized. [27] This was a mistake. [28] [ 21 ] No man has a right to abuse his spouse. [29] Marital problems are not solved by resorting to violence. [30] Every person is entitled to protection from violence from their intimate partners just as strangers are. [31] In this regard, the Court adopts the teaching of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v .

Glen : [14] … This Court has a duty to make it clear that however unhappy a spouse may be about his or her marital life, and however great the marital stress may become, resorting to violence is not the answer.

The sanctions for violence will be severe. [32] [ 22 ] Similarly, no spouse has a right of ownership over the other, [33] and a spouse is entitled to end the relationship without fearing for his or her safety and peace of mind. [34] The days when domestic violence was tolerated are long gone, and courts must express society’s intolerance for this type of violence by imposing sufficiently severe sentences. [35] [ 23 ] Domestic violence is a crime [36] and must be denounced. [37] It manifests itself in all societies and across all social classes. [38] The courts now recognize that domestic violence is a pressing social issue in Canada and internationally. [39] The seriousness of the issue of domestic violence is acknowledged across Canada [40] and it is considered a social evil [41] that must be eradicated. [42] [ 24 ] Any crime of violence affects the community. [43] Over the years, many governmental action plans targeting domestic violence have been implemented to address this issue.

Governments have made it clear that there is zero tolerance for domestic violence.

It is only natural that the courts should follow suit. [44] Parliament has also indicated that, in cases of domestic violence committed by men against their partners, sentences should act as a deterrent. [45] Courts must impose increasingly severe sentences for this type of crime in order to send a clear message to deter anyone from committing such acts. [46] [ 25 ] The sentences imposed for domestic violence must reflect society's condemnation of these offences. [47] The role of the courts is to condemn violence, protect the weakest in our society and contribute to the development of a society that is as healthy and safe as possible. [48] [ 26 ] The sentence imposed in domestic violence cases must meet two requirements: that of denouncing the unacceptable and criminal nature of domestic violence, and that of increasing the confidence of the victims and the public in the administration of justice. [49]

[ 27 ] Further, it is well established that courts should prioritize the objectives of denunciation and deterrence in matters of domestic violence. [50] This is particularly the case if the episodes of domestic violence are cyclical and persistent. [51] The same is true if the violence lasts for years, affects young children and is accompanied by constant threats. [52] [ 28 ] Similarly, the principle of restraint must yield, to a large degree, to the objectives of denunciation and protection of the victim in domestic violence cases. [53] [ 29 ] The author Clayton Ruby notes that there are circumstances where an accused with no criminal record may receive a harsh sentence or even the maximum penalty where the circumstances of the offence are of sufficient gravity, where multiple offences are committed over a long period of time, where the offender is especially morally blameworthy or in cases involving domestic violence. [54] [ 30 ] However, courts do not impose sentences in response to public clamour, because vengeance has no role to play in sentencing. [55] Rather, the sentence imposed must promote a sense of responsibility in the offender and an acknowledgement of the harm done not only to their immediate victims, but equally to the community at large. [56] As emphatically noted by Beaulieu J. in R. c.

Malo : a sentence sends a clear message to anyone who thinks that their spouse is disposable when they get in their way. [57] [ 31 ] In sentencing matters, courts may be guided by the following question: What would the appropriate sentence if the victim were a woman who was not known to the accused? [58] Further, the law of Canada applies equally to all who are in Canada.

Differences in an accused’s ethnicity, religion or culture must not be considered as a factor trivializing the issue of domestic violence. [59] The fact that an accused is a newcomer to Canada rather than someone born and raised here is not a mitigating factor. [60] [ 32 ] That said, the victim impact statement is a factor to be considered in sentencing [61] in order to understand the impact of the crime on the victim. However, the victim’s opinion as to the appropriate sentence should not, in principle, be sought or considered. [62] 3.

PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO CHILD ABUSE [ 33 ] Children are the future of our country and our communities. They deserve to enjoy a childhood free from physical and domestic violence. [63] Every child has a right to expect that their parents will protect them and keep them safe. [64] [ 34 ] They also are entitled to whatever protection the courts can give them. [65] [ 35 ] In S.B. c. R . , our Court of Appeal [66] took the position that child abuse cases generally fall into three distinct types, [67] with each type entailing a different degree of responsibility: (

a) Cases involving the application of force with the expectation of causing injury or indifference to that possibility; (

b) Cases involving the application of force where a parent was immature and unskilled and acting out of emotional upset, frustration or temper and did not fully appreciate the serious injuries that might result; and (

c) Cases involving diminished responsibility due to mental disorder where the abnormal mental condition of the accused requires that treatment of the offender be given priority over the principles of general and individual deterrence. [68] [ 36 ] However, in R. c. D.B. , [69] our Court of Appeal began by noting that this categorization was officially rejected by the Alberta Court of Appeal [70] when it repudiated the notion that crimes against children can be classified in pre-identified categories.

The Court of Appeal then went on to cite with approval [71] an approach that focussed on the purposes of s. 718 of the Criminal Code and, more particularly, the principle of proportionality. [72] From that point on, the recommended approach has been the following: [73] (

a) First, the Court must assess the moral blameworthiness of the offender in terms of the actus reus . At this stage, the most important factor is the risk of harm to the child and the extent of the injuries suffered. [74] (

b) Next, in terms of mens rea , the Court must assess the foreseeability of harm and the subjective state of mind or state of consciousness of the offender. [75] Did the offender understand the risks? Was there an intent to harm the child? (

c) Finally, the Court must consider the objectives and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 and following of the Criminal Code . For example, whether the accused used a firearm, the number of victims, or the frequency and duration of the abuse. [ 37 ] That said, crimes against children must not be trivialized.

Our society strongly condemns these crimes, and the courts cannot treat them lightly. [76] Further, in cases involving the abuse of young children, courts will prioritize the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. [77] These crimes generally warrant a severe prison sentence. [78] Moreover, in cases involving child abuse, the goal of rehabilitation of the offender is secondary . [79] 4.

PRINCIPLES REGARDING CONCURRENT OR CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES [ 38 ] As a general rule, concurrent sentences may be imposed when the offences arise out of a single episode or are so closely linked to each other so as to constitute a single criminal adventure. [80] [ 39 ] Moreover, the principle is that the sentence for offences that do not constitute a single criminal venture should be served consecutively. [81] [ 40 ] Put another way, sentences may be consecutive if the offences arise out of separate and distinct transactions or if there is an

aggravating circumstance justifying a consecutive sentence. [82] The same is true when offences are committed at different times against different victims. [83] [ 41 ] Further, an offender may receive consecutive sentences for offences committed on the same day if there are different legal interests at stake. [84] If an accused assaults both their spouse and their children during the same event, the sentences imposed should also be consecutive since spousal abuse and child abuse engage different societal values. [85] [ 42 ] By the same token, the fact that two offences of a domestic or sexual nature are committed in close succession is not in itself a basis for imposing concurrent sentences. [86] When several offences are committed in a short period of time, courts must be cautious in imposing concurrent sentences so that offenders do not think they are getting a “free ride” for subsequent offences. [87] When the Court is dealing with multiple offences, it must first determine the sentence appropriate to each offence, then determine whether any or all of the offences will be served concurrently or consecutively, and finally, whether the global sentence comports with the principles of totality and proportionality. [88] This “last look” at the cumulative sentence ensure that it is not unduly long or harsh because it exceeds the overall culpability of the offender; in short, that it is just and appropriate. [89] [ 43 ] That said, it is common ground that the decision to impose sentences concurrently or consecutively is at the discretion of the Court, [90] except where Parliament provides otherwise. [91] ANALYSIS 1.

THE OBJECTIVE GRAVITY OF THE OFFENCES [ 44 ] The offences for which the accused was convicted are objectively serious. [92] They were all prosecuted by indictment. The counts of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm carry a maximum sentence of 10 years.

As for the counts of assault and uttering threats, the accused faces a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison. [ 45 ] That said, determining the range of sentences in domestic violence matters is not an easy task, given the fact-specific nature of each case. [93] As a result, a review of the case law is somewhat helpful. [94] [ 46 ] Generally speaking, for the offence of assault causing bodily harm prosecuted by indictment and with aggravating factors, the sentences range from a discharge to 12 months of imprisonment or more. [95] [ 47 ] Longer sentences are seen in cases where offenders committed repeated acts of domestic violence over a long period of time. [96] Similarly, the range of sentences for assault committed against a spouse varies widely, from a discharge to 3 years in prison. [97] [ 48 ] The range of sentences for the offence of assault causing bodily harm when prosecuted by way of indictment and with several aggravating factors varies between a few months to 36 months of imprisonment or more. [98] A number of sentences in the range of 18 to 24 months’ imprisonment have been imposed. [ 49 ] The harshest sentences are reserved for repeated attacks that are committed in the context of domestic violence over several years by individuals with little insight and with a history of similar offences. [99] [ 50 ] For the offence of assault with a weapon, the case law makes it clear that whipping a young child with a belt is unacceptable. [100] Similarly, the Supreme Court has emphasized that corporal punishment involving slaps or an object such as a belt is physically and emotionally harmful. [101] [ 51 ] The Court emphasizes that sentencing ranges are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. [102] [ 52 ] Further, a sentence that falls outside a particular range is not demonstrably unfit. [103] 2.

THE PROFILE OF THE ACCUSED [ 53 ] The accused did not testify on sentencing and no pre-sentence report was prepared. He is 40 years old and the father of four children. From all indications, he is in good health. 3. THE VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT [104] [ 54 ] X did not testify on sentence. However, she filed a victim impact statement in January 2019 in court file 540-01-086265- 181. [105] [ 55 ] In the statement, she recounted that she lived through 10 years and 8 months of hell. Those years made her fearful and withdrawn. The accused’s repeated insults robbed her of her self-esteem.

She isolated herself socially so as not to fuel the accused’s anger. She experienced a lot of anxiety due to his threats to kill her and to take the children away. [ 56 ] She also suffered from insomnia frequently and slept with the children for comfort. As a result of the stress and anxiety, she experienced stomach upset, loss of appetite, and fatigue, among other issues. [ 57 ] She added that she sustained numerous injuries from the accused hitting her. Indeed, the evidence shows that she had two fingernails torn out, a dislocated jaw, a swollen face, a bloody upper lip and multiple bruises all over her body.

[ 58 ] Even though they have separated, she is still afraid of the accused and still wakes up at night thinking about what he put her through. [ 59 ] The defence asks the Court to disregard this statement as it was prepared in the context of another file.

In addition, the defence argues that the statement contains a falsehood, namely the reference to the presence of [ translation ] “redness on the back of the neck” That assertion was allegedly contradicted by the evidence at trial. [ 60 ] The Court rejects the defence’s argument. [ 61 ] First, the Court is of the view that s. 722 of the Criminal Code does not require such a formalistic approach. [ 62 ] Second s. 722(1) of the Criminal Code provides that the Court must take into consideration the statement describing the harm suffered by the victim “as the result of the offence”.

The charge of assault against X dated September 25, 2018, is found in both informations. [ 63 ] Finally, the Court notes that on January 14, 2017, the nurses found an [ translation ] “edema on the right side of the neck” of X, at 2:12 p.m. and 2:20 p.m. [106] Additionally, one of the photographs in Exhibit SP-3 clearly shows the presence of redness on the upper left side of X's neck. 4.

MITIGATING FACTORS [ 64 ] There are very few mitigating factors in this case, and they are of relatively little weight. 4.1 No prior criminal record [ 65 ] The accused has no prior criminal record, nor are there any cases pending against him.

The lack of a criminal record is generally considered a mitigating factor. [107] However, it is common ground that a person without a prior criminal record will not “necessarily” be a person of good character. [108] [ 66 ] In addition, it is not a significant mitigating factor where there is a high degree of responsibility on the part of the offender [109] or where the offence is a serious [110] and carried out over a lengthy period. [111] [ 67 ] Sentences imposed for incidents of abuse of children can include incarceration of several months, even for offenders with no previous criminal records. [112] The same is true in cases where a parent excessively “disciplines” their children. [113] [ 68 ] In this case, the Court is of the opinion that the lack of a criminal record of a person accused of crimes of domestic violence committed repeatedly against vulnerable persons is not a determining factor. [114] Moreover, the degree of responsibility of the accused is high.

He created and maintained a climate of fear and violence for his wife and children for over eight years. 4.2 The accused is an asset to society [ 69 ] The accused is a businessman who owns several businesses in Montreal. 5.

NEUTRAL FACTORS 5.1 No guilty plea [ 70 ] A guilty plea is a recognized mitigating factor. [115] The fact that an accused continues to assert their innocence during sentencing is not an aggravating factor. [116] An accused should not receive a harsher sentence for exercising the right to have a trial or plead not guilty. [117] However, after the trial, it is inappropriate for an accused to ask for the same treatment as an accused who obtained a more lenient sentence in exchange for pleading guilty. [118] 5.2 Lack of remorse [ 71 ] A lack of sincere or genuine remorse on the part of an accused is not an aggravating factor [119] but is generally treated as a neutral factor. [120] Moreover, it is difficult to criticize an accused for maintaining their innocence when they are seeking to appeal their conviction. [121] A lack of remorse merely removes from the accused one mitigating factor on sentencing, [122] particularly where a court is considering whether it is in the best interests of the accused to grant a discharge. [123] [ 72 ] Lack of remorse is also an element that the Court may consider when analyzing the need for specific deterrence or the prospects of rehabilitation, or in assessing the degree to which the offender poses a continuing risk to the public. [124] 5.3 Lack of premeditation and permanent physical injuries [ 73 ] Premeditation and the existence of permanent physical injuries are aggravating factors.

However, their absence is not a mitigating factor. [125] Similarly, the fact that an offender did not intend to harm or make a child suffer is not a mitigating factor as such, although it is a circumstance of the offence that cannot be ignored during sentencing. [126] 5.4 Failure to cooperate with the police [ 74 ] The accused’s failure to cooperate with the police during their investigation is not an aggravating factor. It can be nothing more than the absence of another important mitigating factor. [127]

5.5 Lack of contact with his children since September 2018 [ 75 ] It is questionable whether the separation of an accused from their child is a true collateral consequence of a sentence. [128] This is especially so when the accused has committed violent offences against that child. In this case, it is difficult for the Court to assess this factor since the accused chose not to testify on sentencing.

That said, the evidence at trial showed that the accused was regularly away from the family home to take care of his businesses. [ 76 ] Subsequently, the accused was under a no-contact order with X and his children, [ translation ] “other than to exercise his access rights, as set out in any court order granting those rights ”. [129] However, the evidence does not indicate that the accused actively sought to obtain such an order.

On the contrary, the accused, who was represented by counsel, signed an undertaking at the end of 2018 or the beginning of 2019 to stay away from the children. [130] 5.6 The length of the proceedings [ 77 ] A lengthy delay that does not rise to the level of a Charter breach under s. 11(

b) is not a mitigating factor in itself, since it does not relate to the gravity of the offence or the degree of responsibility of the accused. [131] However, on rare occasions and to a limited extent, delay can be considered a mitigating factor in the calculation of a fit sentence. [132] The weight to be given to this factor is at the discretion of the sentencing judge. [133] Further, such mitigation must not come at the expense of the principle of proportionality. [134] [ 78 ] In this case, there is no indication that the delay prejudiced the accused or impacted him in any relevant way for sentencing. [135] On the contrary, after the decision on verdict, the defence even asked to postpone the hearing for almost eight months to analyze the decision on verdict and prepare submissions on sentence.

In addition, the defence never brought a motion alleging unreasonable delay. 5.7 Compliance with bail conditions [ 79 ] It is common ground that restrictive bail conditions may be relevant in sentencing, but their relative weight as a mitigating factor varies. [136] Whether they should be treated as a mitigating factor is at the discretion of the Court. [137] In this case, the conditions that the accused had to comply with were not very restrictive. [138] Further, no evidence was adduced that the conditions were onerous or imposed a hardship on him. 5.8 The age of the accused [ 80 ] The accused was between 29 and 37 years of age during the period when the offences were committed.

It cannot be said his crimes were due to a youthful mistake [139] or because of a lack of maturity. [140] Yet, normally, with maturity comes self-control. [141] [ 81 ] In addition, as noted by authors Hugues Parent and Julie Desrosiers, the question of age as a mitigating factor lessens in importance as the offender ages and disappears completely once an offender is in their thirties. [142] 5.9 The risks related to COVID-19 in detention centres [143] [ 82 ] The COVID-19 pandemic is not a mitigating factor in the classic sense, and it is not a “get out of jail free card”. [144] [ 83 ] COVID-19 is a factor that can be considered a collateral consequence that may reduce a sentence; [145] however, collateral consequences cannot be used to reduce a sentence to a point where it is inconsistent with the principle of proportionality. [146] Further, the COVID-19 pandemic alone is not enough to make an unfit sentence fit. [147] [ 84 ] It is within a court’s discretion whether to reduce the sentence due to the pandemic. [148] Each case turns on its own facts and will depend on the evidence. [149] It is ultimately a question of balance. [150] The discretion of the courts must not merely apply a mathematical formula. [151] In this regard, the inclination of the courts is not to consider only the impact of COVID-19 generally.

Normally, evidence as to the concrete impact of the pandemic on the accused and their particular circumstances is required. [152] [ 85 ] The Court is of the view that reducing a sentence based on prospective difficulties in a prison setting or on account of circumstances that are not yet known would be unwise and inappropriate. [153] [ 86 ] These considerations are matters within the jurisdiction of the Parole Board, who will be able to make an informed assessment. [154] [ 87 ] In this case, the accused chose not to testify at the sentencing hearing.

The Court is therefore unaware of the state of the accused’s health and the concrete impact of the pandemic on him. 5.10 The possible closure of his restaurant [ 88 ] The potential loss of employment is a relevant factor in sentencing.

However, its significance will vary depending on the circumstances of each case, including the seriousness of the charges. [155] In matters of domestic violence, the potential loss of employment is a factor to be considered in sentencing, but with a caveat. [156] Further, loss of employment is often seen as a neutral factor. [157] When an offender commits crimes despite being employed, it is difficult for them to use the fact they are employed to seek a more lenient sentence. [158] On the contrary, it could even be considered an aggravating factor. [159] Also, a new job [160] or stable

employment should not preclude a lengthy prison sentence when the gravity of the offences justifies such a sentence. [161] [ 89 ] In this case, the accused did not testify during submissions on sentence.

His counsel argued that he could lose his restaurant if he receives a prison sentence. [ 90 ] The Court finds that the accused has provided insufficient details, particularly regarding his sources of income and the financial situation of his businesses, to allow it to properly weigh this factor. [ 91 ] First, the evidence showed that the accused owns not just one restaurant but two restaurants and a store. [162] [ 92 ] Second, the Court is unaware of the legal and business structure of the accused's businesses. For example, is he a sole proprietor or does he have partners?

Does he have family members or managers who can run his businesses in his absence?

In this regard, the evidence shows that one of the accused's brothers is a “partner” in the businesses. [163] Also, at trial, the accused indicated that he was his own boss and that he had employees who worked for him. [164] [ 93 ] Finally, the Court is unaware whether the accused has sold his house in Laval or whether he has rented out his Montreal loft on Airbnb. [165] 5.11 Absence of therapy or other steps taken [ 94 ] As part of the sentencing process, courts often consider whether the offender has completed therapy [166] or taken other steps to improve future behaviour.

In this case, there is no indication that the accused has undergone any particular therapy. 6. AGGRAVATING FACTORS 6.1 Offences committed against a person under 18 years of age (ss. 718.01 and 718.2(a) (ii.1) Cr. C .) [ 95 ] The protection of children is a basic value of our society. [167] Society does not tolerate adults who abuse children, because children are vulnerable and in need of protection. [168] In this regard, the Court adopts the words of Downs J. in R. c. Z.M ., where he stated: [ translation ] [44] By enacting

section s. 718.01 Cr. C ., Parliament has indicated that courts must be particularly attentive to offences involving the abuse of persons under the age of 18 years. Any abuse that constitutes criminal behaviour is wrong, regardless of the age of the victim. However, abuse of persons under the age of 18 is particularly serious, as young people are less able than mature adults to overcome such abuse due to their physical, mental and emotional immaturity.

Children are also more vulnerable to lasting emotional trauma, as they are still developing during these formative years. [45] Offenders who abuse children are particularly deserving of societal condemnation. They must be made to understand, or they must be reminded, that what they have done is wrong. This denunciation also offers a measure of reparation to young victims, who need to be reassured that they are not to blame for what happened to them, so that they can move on with their lives.

Offenders who abuse children and those who would be tempted to do so must also be deterred from repeating or committing these crimes, and they must know that, in our justice system, the sentences handed down for such behaviour are severe. [169] [ 96 ] In this case, the accused's sons ranged between 18 months and 9 years of age at the time of the assaults. In terms of actus reus , placing children high up on the edge of a window that opens outwards [170] or balancing a child upside down on the top of a door creates a very high risk of injury.

Causing an 18-month-old toddler to lose a fingernail or leaving bruises and marks on young children is also not trivial. In terms of mens rea , the evidence shows that the accused deliberately sought to make his children suffer in order to impose his will and assert his control over them. [ 97 ] The Court notes that the younger the victim, the greater the need to protect them.

Generally speaking, the abuse of a very young person requires a sentence commensurate with the serious nature of the crime committed by an adult offender. [171] Similarly, evidence of a pattern of abuse that is deliberate and protracted is an aggravating factor. [172] 6.2 Intimate partner abuse (s. 718.2(a)(ii) Cr. C .) [ 98 ] The accused and X were married in 2008. They separated after the last episodes of violence that occurred on September 25, 2018. 6.3 Abuse of a vulnerable person (ss. 718.04 and 718.201 Cr.

C .). [ 99 ] Courts must pay particular attention to acts of violence committed against persons said to be vulnerable. [173] [ 100 ] It is common ground that children [174] and women caught in a cycle of domestic violence are vulnerable. [175] The trial revealed that the accused did not think twice about hitting his wife when she was holding a baby in her arms [176] or when she attempted to shield the children from him.

He also dragged her upper body against a table when she was pregnant. [ 101 ] Moreover, domestic violence causes not only physical harm but also severe psychological harm, particularly in cases involving repeated acts of violence. [177] The abuser will often wield intimidation and degradation against a vulnerable intimidate partner in order to exert power and control over them. [178] As Moldaver J. correctly noted 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”. [179] In other words, non-physical violence is just as destructive, and often more insidious, than physical violence. [180]

[ 102 ] It is also common ground that women who are victims of domestic violence are more likely to leave their home and belongings and their financial security to seek shelter elsewhere. As a result, women will often face financial, occupational, temporal and emotional disadvantages. [181] In this regard, the evidence at trial showed that the accused exerted financial control over his wife and sought to isolate her. Indeed, the evidence showed that: • The accused did not always pay for X's cell phone.

The accused maintained that in fact it was his cell phone because it was in his name, and that he was the one who paid for it; [182] • There was no landline in the family home; [183] • X did not have the mailbox key; [184] • X was not allowed to have a Facebook account; [185] • X was not allowed to go to the rink to watch their son play hockey; [186] • X had no savings when she left the accused, [187] as she was not able to really work during their marriage, apart from a short time when she worked at the school run by the accused's father. [ 103 ] Further, when she asked the accused for money, he would take out a twenty-dollar bill, spit on it and wipe it on her hair.

The Court notes that X is 5 feet 2 inches tall, while the accused is over 6 feet tall and weighs 190 pounds. [ 104 ] The role of the courts is to protect vulnerable victims of domestic violence and child abuse as best they can. [188] In addition, the protection of children is one of the most fundamental values of Canadian society. [189] Children have the right to live in a safe family environment without being humiliated. [190] 6.4 Abuse of a member of the victim's family (s. 718.2(a)(ii) Cr.

C ) [ 105 ] The accused assaulted his in-laws in August 2018, before the amendment to s. 718.2 (a)(ii) of the Criminal Code , which expressly provides that it is an aggravating factor to abuse a member of the victim's family. [191] [ 106 ] Nevertheless, the Court has no hesitation in finding that this is an aggravating factor, given that the abuse was part of a series of actions designed to exert control over his spouse and to isolate her from her family. [192] 6.5 Abuse of a position of trust in relation to the victims ( s. 718.2 (a)(iii) Cr.

C .) [ 107 ] An intimate spousal relationship is one that is built upon trust, mutual respect, and love. [193] Instead, the accused chose to base his relationship with X on a foundation of violence, fear, and anguish. When a person takes advantage of the special relationship that they have with their intimate partner by committing

an act of violence against them, it is a breach of their partner’s trust. [194] [ 108 ] Indeed, a superior court can order an abusive husband to pay his victimized wife significant monetary damages during divorce proceedings. [195] [ 109 ] The element of trust in an intimate relationship is implicit. [196] This makes domestic violence very difficult to detect, because the victims tend to hide the effects of these crimes, downplay them and recant when they do complain. [197] [ 110 ] Courts must highlight the courage it takes for complainants to come forward to report this type of crime [198] , as reporting domestic violence can put them in grave danger. [199] Further, victims should never blame themselves or be blamed for having experienced domestic violence. [200] [ 111 ] The accused is also a father to three young boys.

Parents occupy a position of trust vis-à-vis their children. [201] By the same token, one of the most important aspects of being a father is protecting one’s children and ensuring that they are safe, both physically and emotionally. [ 112 ] Exposing children to domestic violence and violating their physical integrity is a profound breach of trust. [202] Breach of trust is an aggravating factor recognized in the case law. [203] 6.6 Significant impact on the victims ( s. 718.2 (a)(iii.1) Cr.

C .) 6.7 The accused committed acts of domestic violence in front of his children [ 113 ] The accused chose to commit domestic violence in front of his children.

The fact that the abuse occurred in front of his children is an aggravating factor [204] and also constitutes psychological ill-treatment. [205] [ 114 ] Indeed, it is now accepted that witnessing domestic violence can be devastating for children. [206] Children who witness domestic violence are as affected as they would be if they had been abused themselves. [207] [ 115 ] When children who witness domestic violence are also themselves abused, there is what is referred to as “cumulative victimization”. [ 116 ] The exposure of children to domestic violence affects various areas of young people’s lives and endangers their development and well-being. [208]

[ 117 ] Children can develop physical, psychological, behavioural and cognitive problems.

Further, they may end up repeating the cycle of violence in their circle or in their own romantic relationships. [209] [ 118 ] Moreover, as highlighted in the Final Report of a Federal-Provincial-Territorial Working Group on spousal abuse: Research indicates that children who are exposed to spousal violence may display signs of emotional, social, cognitive, physical and behavioural problems including lower levels of social competence; higher rates of depression, worry, frustration and anxiety; increased likelihood of developing stress-related disorders; decreased levels of empathy; developmental regression; complaints of physical ailments; and aggressive behaviour.

There is also evidence to indicate that children who witness spousal violence are more likely to become a part of a generational cycle of violence: boys who witness the abuse of their mothers are more likely to subsequently become abusive in their own relationships; girls who witness the abuse of their mother are more likely to subsequently enter into abusive relationships. [210] [ 119 ] That said, for children to witness one of their parents being abused is as traumatic as being victims themselves, because they live in fear, both for their own safety and also for the parent on whom they depend for their needs and for protection. [211] 6.8 The accused committed offences in the family home [ 120 ] The violence committed by the accused in the family home is deemed to be an aggravating factor since it occurred away from public view and from anyone who could have assisted the victim. [212] A person's home is their sanctuary and a place that should normally be a safe haven. [213] The normal safe haven of one’s home must not be turned into a virtual torture chamber. [214] Women have a right to feel safe, secure and at peace in the family home. [215] 6.9 The accused committed offences in a moving vehicle [ 121 ] One of the incidents of violence occurred while the accused was driving a vehicle on a highway.

The actions of accused endangered not only the lives of his entire family, but also the lives of others on the road. [216] 6.10 The number of offences and of victims [ 122 ] In this case, the offences committed by the accused were not isolated or trivial incidents. [217] On the contrary, he committed several acts of violence against more than six people. [218] 6.11 The period over which the offences were committed and the repeated nature of the acts [ 123 ] An accused’s repeated criminal conduct over a long period of time is an excellent indicator of a high degree of responsibility.

Here, the accused committed repeated criminal acts over a period of more than eight years. Such persistent behaviour over time is a significant aggravating factor. [219] The violence that took place for years, out of sight, must not be trivialized. [220] 6.12 The physical and psychological consequences for the victims [ 124 ] X was a victim of serious crimes that terrorized and scarred her, both physically and emotionally. She experienced recurrent physical abuse, saw her children being hurt and lived in a constant state of fear over an extended period of time .

The actions of the accused over the years clearly were an attempt to control X and to exert his will and power over her by force. [ 125 ] The courts have recognized that victims of domestic violence are subjected to continuing abuse, both physical and emotional. [221] It is logical and rational to infer that survivors of domestic violence experience lasting psychological trauma. [222] In Gosselin c.

R . , the Court of Appeal pointed out that, in domestic violence cases, a victim’s injuries can be measured in ways other than physical injuries. [223] In other words, domestic violence is insidious because the harmful effects endure long after the physical injuries of the victim have healed. [224] [ 126 ] That said, at trial, the Court was able to observe the psychological effects on their son A. His testimony revealed that he still experiences anxiety, sadness, and hate. Further, even without direct evidence, it stands to reason that physical abuse necessarily causes psychological trauma to a child. [225] 7.

THE RISK OF RECIDIVISM [ 127 ] In light of the specific facts of this case, the Court finds that the accused poses a risk of reoffending. [ 128 ] First , the accused has not received any psychological counseling, nor has he attended anger management therapy since September 2018, yet the trial revealed that he is incapable of managing his emotions. During each offence, the accused repeatedly had difficulty controlling his anger and lost control of himself.

This leads to an inference that the accused poses a risk of reoffending. [226] [ 129 ] Second , the evidence at trial showed that the accused committed repeated criminal acts over a period of more than eight years. The accused’s tendency to commit violence is particularly worrying. This case is a far cry from a momentary lack of judgment on his part. [ 130 ] Third , the accused blames the victim for what happened to him.

The accused’s new spouse stated that the accused considers himself to be the victim of an injustice. [ 131 ] Fourth , the case law teaches that, depending on the circumstances, denial of responsibility is a consideration in sentencing since it can indicate a risk of recidivism. [227]

[ 132 ] Fifth, the accused is engaging in the same patterns of behaviour with his new spouse. She noted that they have had two “fights” in the past five months, which led to the accused leaving their home. Clearly, the accused is still incapable of managing his emotions and communicating effectively with his intimate partners. 8.

THE REHABILITATION OF THE ACCUSED [ 133 ] The Court must always consider the rehabilitation of the accused. [228] The rehabilitation of the accused does not have to be a certainty at the time of sentencing, [229] but there must be a reasonable prospect of rehabilitation. [230] This is a factor for the hearing judge to assess. [231] [ 134 ] However, even if the accused shows encouraging signs of rehabilitation, that objective should not take precedence over the objectives of denunciation and deterrence in domestic violence cases. [232] [ 135 ] This is particularly the case where an accused’s actions cannot be described as isolated, thoughtless or short-lived. [233] In addition, there is no evidence that the accused made significant efforts to improve his “parenting abilities”. [234] [ 136 ] The fact that the accused has been in a new relationship for five months without any incidents of domestic violence is not a mitigating factor. [235] The accused does not live with her on a daily basis, and he still refuses to introduce her to his father. [ 137 ] Further, there is no evidence of any rehabilitation on the part of the accused.

Rather, the evidence at trial showed that he is subject to sudden blind rages and unable to control his anger. The Court finds on the facts of this case that the factor of rehabilitation does not play a significant role in the sentence. [236] CONCLUSION [ 138 ] In this case, the Court finds that the defence’s proposal fails to consider the aggravating factors. There is still a risk of recidivism, particularly given the accused’s lack of insight and his failure to begin the process of rehabilitation.

Clearly, the criminogenic factors that led the accused to commit the offences for which he was charged still exist or are not controlled. [237] If the Court were to accept the defence’s proposal, it would trivialize domestic violence and child abuse. [ 139 ] Here, the Court adopts the words of Lacoursière J. in R. c. Gervais , where he stated that: [ translation ] [48] The increase in crimes of domestic violence, their reprehensible nature, and the harm they cause are evident. Courts must send a message that anyone tempted to commit similar crimes will face stern sentences.

Courts must also send a message to victims that physical and sexual violence committed against current or former spouses, common-law partners or intimate partners will be taken seriously. [238] [ 140 ] Further, the moral blameworthiness of the accused is very high, and the offences he committed are serious. The fact that he repeatedly committed domestic violence over such an extended period of time in front of his children is particularly alarming, especially since he did not think twice about being violent with them, even to the point of putting their lives at risk during the incident in the car on Highway 15.

The accused acted irresponsibly without any concern for the foreseeable risk of injury that could result from his actions. [ 141 ] Consequently, the objectives of denunciation and deterrence, both specific and general, require the Court to impose a long prison sentence on the accused. [239] [ 142 ] The prosecution’s proposal is within the range that is normally imposed. The proposal takes into account both the weak mitigating factors and the numerous aggravating factors. The accused is a mature offender.

Even if the Court were to ignore the almost monthly cycle of violence that X experienced, the evidence shows that over a period of eight years, the accused: ➢ punched and kicked his wife in five separate events, causing her injuries including a dislocated jaw, swollen face, bruises, marks, a bloody upper lip and scratches; ➢ pushed his wife into a wall and a counter on two separate occasions, including while she held a baby in her arms; ➢ slapped his wife, pulled her hair, dragged her to the ground, spit on her, hit her with a belt, pinched her stomach, dragged her on a table while she was pregnant and caused two fingernails to be torn off; ➢ slapped his children, closed a door on the finger of an 18-month-old child, hit them with a belt, threw shoes at them, pinched them, grabbed his eldest son by the ear and pulled it hard, hit his eldest son’s legs in a car and repeatedly placed one of his sons on the upper door rail.

His actions caused injuries including redness, bruises, marks, and the loss of a fingernail. [ 143 ] In addition, a review of the case law with similar facts confirms the reasonableness of the prosecution’s position. [ 144 ] In Nguyen c. R ., [240] the Court of Appeal upheld the sentence of 36 months of imprisonment imposed by Auger J. at trial. The accused had been convicted of seven counts of uttering threats and assault against his wife and daughter in 1991, 1994 and 2009. The accused punched and kicked the victims and threw various objects at them, including a knife.

The accused was convicted of two counts of mischief in 1989 and received a suspended sentence and 2 years' probation in 1990 for assaulting another spouse. The accused appealed on the grounds that the judge failed to consider that he had also lost his job, his business and his home, as well as on the ground that the sentence was too severe. [ 145 ] In R. c. Mendonca , [241] Beaulieu J. imposed a sentence of 36 months of imprisonment on an accused who, in a single instance,

committed the following offences against his spouse: uttering death threats, assault causing bodily harm (a blow to the head) and attempted strangulation. The accused had no criminal record and suffered from depression and borderline personality disorder. [ 146 ] In R. v. Bonneteau , [242] the Alberta Court of Appeal imposed a global sentence of 2 years less a day on an accused who pleaded guilty to two charges of assault causing bodily harm and one charge of assault. The incidents occurred in January 1991, December 1992 and May 1993.

On each occasion, the accused kicked and punched the victim, giving her a black eye and bruises. In addition to pleading guilty, the accused waived a preliminary inquiry and received counselling for his problems with substance abuse and anger management. There is no indication that the accused had a criminal record. [ 147 ] In R. c. J.K . , [243] Dalmau J. imposed a global sentence of 21 months on an accused who pleaded guilty to charges of assault, assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm against his spouse and their child.

The violence was committed over a period of seven months and included punching the victim, head-butting her and breaking her nose. The 47-year-old accused had no criminal record. He expressed remorse and regret for his conduct. He read a letter of apology to the victim and fully accepted responsibility for his crimes. In addition, the accused underwent an eight-week intensive psychiatric treatment program and completed 30 hours of therapy that focussed on domestic violence and anger management.

According to the pre-sentence report, his rehabilitation was well underway, and the likelihood of him reoffending in the short-term was low. [ 148 ] In R. c. Ducas , [244] the Court of Appeal imposed a sentence of 18 months on an accused who pleaded guilty at trial to charges of assault causing bodily harm, assault, and uttering threats. The offences were committed between 1998 and 2005. His spouse’s injuries included a deep cut on her forehead that required several stitches. [ 149 ] In R. c. Mabrouki , [245] Plante J. imposed a sentence of 18 months on the accused.

He was convicted of twelve offences of domestic violence committed against his spouse over a period of a year and a half. The violence included slapping her, grabbing her hair, pushing her, punching her in the shoulder and head, holding a knife to her throat and uttering death threats. The accused had maintained a stable job since 2002, had no criminal record and was involved in his community. He also faced deportation to Tunisia. [ 150 ] In Légaré c. R . , [246] the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment for an accused who pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, who was over 6 feet tall and weighed nearly 200 pounds, delivered a single punch to the victim’s face, which caused her to suffer serious and permanent injuries. The risk of recidivism still existed, and the accused had little insight into his behaviour. [ 151 ] In R. c. A.B ., [247] Pelletier J. imposed a sentence of 12 months on an accused who committed several acts of violence against his wife (over a period of 12 years) and his 7-year-old daughter (over a period of 2 years). The accused had pleaded guilty and had no criminal record.

The accused had gained some insight, he met regularly with a psychologist and he had joined an organization that helps people with poor impulse control. The accused admitted to throwing a boot in his daughter’s face and pushing her into a stationary bike. The domestic violence also included spitting in his wife’s face, kicking her when she was on the ground, pinning her arms, pushing her when she was pregnant, grabbing her by the hair, throwing her to the ground, and punching her arms and shoulders while they were in the car. [ 152 ] In R. c.

Atallah , [248] Laramée J. imposed a sentence of 12 months of imprisonment on an accused with no criminal record who had pleaded guilty to three offences of assault committed over a six-month period. The behaviour of the accused towards his spouse was controlling, aggressive and demeaning. He hit her in front of the children. In addition to pleading guilty, the accused had been working since 2012, he had attended stress management sessions and he expressed regret about his criminal misconduct. [ 153 ] In St-Laurent c.

R . , [249] the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 9 months of imprisonment imposed on an accused who, in a single instance, grabbed his wife by the throat, holding her up against the wall. Still holding her by the throat, he carried her into the bedroom and finally flipped her onto the bed. The accused had one prior conviction for domestic violence against his wife, he had taken steps towards rehabilitation, there was a low risk of him reoffending, he was employed and he had complied with all bail conditions. [ 154 ] In R. c.

Séguin , [250] Doucet J. imposed a sentence of 8 months of imprisonment on an accused who pleaded guilty to a single instance of assault causing bodily harm. First, the accused pushed the victim [251] into the snow. Five minutes later, the accused came back, threw the victim to the ground, threw a shovel at him and dragged him between two cars. The accused then punched the victim in the face and kicked him in the testicles. The accused was 45 years old, a father and a business owner. He had one prior conviction for impaired driving.

The accused took responsibility for his actions, expressed remorse, and underwent therapy. The risk of recidivism was low and being prosecuted had a deterrent effect. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the sentencing judge’s decision. [252] [ 155 ] In Jean c. R. , [253] the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 8 months of imprisonment imposed on an accused who committed the following offences in a single instance: mischief, assault and assault causing harm bodily harm. The accused broke down the victim's bedroom door, grabbed her by the hair and pushed her down the stairs.

The accused was a young adult who was going to school and had no criminal record. [ 156 ] In R. c. A.A . , [254] Costom J. imposed a global sentence of 8 months of imprisonment on an offender who pleaded guilty to two counts of assault causing bodily harm against his spouse during two separate events that occurred in March and July 2010. During the first event, he punched his wife in the face (giving her a swollen eye). During the second event, he hit her on the back, thighs and head with a broom handle.

The accused was an asset to society, had no prior criminal record and had started therapy for domestic violence. [ 157 ] The Court agrees with the parties that this case presents certain difficulties in terms of sentencing. First, the counts include several distinct offences. [255] Next, several counts are overlapping in terms of the time period in which the offences were committed. Finally, the offences were part of a cycle of domestic violence extending over a long period of time. [ 158 ] In R. c.

N.L ., our Court of Appeal emphasized that the hallmarks of domestic violence include the frequency and duration of the violence. [256] Each further instance of violence traumatizes the victim anew and tightens their abuser’s control over them. Courts cannot let repeated assaults become a mere statistic. If the indictment for a single charge includes multiple instances of violence, courts

must give weight to this factor and should not analogize the case to single instance cases simply because those cases also involved only a single charge. [257] [ 159 ] That said, the Court finds that the prosecution’s proposal responds to the fundamental principle of proportionality and the moral blameworthiness of the offender. [ 160 ] Further, given that the accused is a first offender, and considering the principle of totality, the Court finds that it is appropriate that the sentence for each count should be served concurrently.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 161 ] SENTENCES the accused to 36 months’ imprisonment on count 1; [ 162 ] SENTENCES the accused to 12 months’ imprisonment on count 2, to be served concurrently; [ 163 ] SENTENCES the accused to 9 months’ imprisonment on count 3, to be served concurrently; [ 164 ] SENTENCES the accused to 36 months’ imprisonment on count 4, to be served concurrently; [ 165 ] SENTENCES the accused to 9 months’ imprisonment on count 5, to be served concurrently ; [ 166 ] SENTENCES the accused to 9 months’ imprisonment on count 6, to be served concurrently; [ 167 ] SENTENCES the accused to 6 months’ imprisonment on count 7, to be served concurrently; [ 168 ] SENTENCES the accused to 9 months’ imprisonment on count 8, to be served concurrently; [ 169 ] SENTENCES the accused to 9 months’ imprisonment on count 9, to be served concurrently; [ 170 ] SENTENCES the accused to 6 months’ imprisonment on count 10, to be served concurrently; [ 171 ] SENTENCES the accused to 9 months’ imprisonment on count 11, to be served concurrently; [ 172 ] SENTENCES the accused to 3 months’ imprisonment on count 12, to be served concurrently; [ 173 ] SENTENCES the accused to 3 months’ imprisonment on count 13, to be served concurrently; [ 174 ] ORDERS the taking of the number of samples of bodily substances that is reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis, under s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code (counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 11); [ 175 ] PROHIBITS the accused from communicating directly or indirectly with X and the members of her immediate family during his incarceration, under s. 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code , except as required to exercise his access rights as set out in any decision of the Superior Court, [ 176 ] PROHIBITS the accused from possessing any firearms, cross-bows, prohibited weapons, restricted weapons, ammunition and explosive substances, under ss. 109(1)(

a) and (a.1)(

i) of the Criminal Code , for a period beginning on April 11, 2022, and ending 10 years after his release (counts 2 and 4); [ 177 ] PROHIBITS the accused from possessing any firearms, cross-bows, restricted weapons, ammunition and explosive substances, under ss. 109(1)(

a) and (a.1)(ii) of the Criminal Code , for a period beginning on April 11, 2022, and ending 10 years after his release (counts 6, 8, 9 and 11); and [ 178 ] PROHIBITS the accused from possessing any restricted weapons, prohibited weapons, prohibited devices and prohibited ammunition, under s. 109(1) (2)(

b) of the Criminal Code , for life (counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 11). __________________________________ Serge CIMON, J.C.Q.

Mtre Romi BERTRAND Counsel for the prosecution Mtre Georges JABBOURI Counsel for the accused Hearing date: February 14, 2022