Canada Case Law

R. v. Downey

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

After balancing aggravating factors (intimate partner killing, weapon use, flight and concealment, significant victim and community impact, substantial prior violent record) against mitigating factors (admissions shortening trial, IRCA demonstrating early trauma and systemic influences, expression of remorse), and applying s.745.4 and relevant authority, the proper exercise of discretion places this case at the lower end of the 12–15 year range; therefore parole ineligibility is set at 12 years.

Source excerpt

• Parole ineligibility under s.745.4
• Victim impact
• Impact of race and culture assessment
• Aggravating and mitigating factors
• Ancillary orders

Read case analysis

Veal-Brake v. Pitts

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On balance of probabilities the father will retain primary care because the children had lived with him for the relevant period, the mother’s credibility issues and delayed, sporadic contact undermined her claim to primary care, there was insufficient, detailed evidence to displace the status quo despite some finding of intimate partner violence, and risks from the mother’s historical alcohol use and conflictual behaviour were addressed by ordered restrictions; major decisions require consultation and adherence to third-party professional advice or, absent such advice, final decision by the f…

Source excerpt

• Parenting arrangements
• Decision-making responsibility
• Parenting time
• Best interests of the child
• Communication restrictions
• Alcohol restriction during parenting time

Read case analysis

R. v. Bananish

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Leave to appeal sentence was granted but the appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge's findings of fact and risk assessment were supported by the record, the expert evidence was not shown to be biased, the defence did not challenge prior-conviction facts at the hearing, and the factual conclusion that the appellant is at substantial risk of violent re-offending justified the long-term offender designation and the imposed sentence.

Source excerpt

• Sentencing appeals
• Long-term supervision orders
• Risk assessment
• Expert evidence
• Prior convictions

Read case analysis

R. v. Meyers

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court convicted Cameron Bruce Meyers of three assault counts arising from an intimate partner relationship, relying on the complainant’s evidence, texts, and photos.

• Assault
• Strangulation/choking
• Credibility assessment
• Electronic evidence (texts/photos)
• Admissibility of uncharged misconduct
• Domestic-violence

Read case analysis

R. v. Publicover

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The judge found the competing versions of events in the bedroom were equally possible and, applying the W.D. test, concluded the Crown had not proven the assaults, choking allegation or uttering threats beyond a reasonable doubt; for conduct at the door the judge found the accused reasonably believed he was in peaceable possession and that removing the complainant was lawful and reasonable under s.35(1) (defence of property), and accordingly acquitted the accused of all charges.

Source excerpt

• Assault
• Assault causing bodily harm
• Assault by choking/strangulation
• Uttering threats
• Mischief (property damage)
• Defence of property (s.35 criminal code)

Read case analysis

R. v. Murtagh

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding the sentencing judge misapplied the Anthony-Cook test by using a conventional sentencing approach to reject the joint submission.

• Joint submission on sentence
• Public interest test (anthony-cook)
• Consecutive vs concurrent sentences
• Totality principle
• Denunciation and deterrence
• Joint-submission-on-sentence

Read case analysis

J.P. v. S.E.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On the balance of probabilities the mother was the primary caregiver and parties engaged in a joint family venture; the father's conduct (including IPV, withholding children and poor communication) undermined his credibility and parenting suitability; unjust enrichment principles entitle the mother to one half of the present net equity in the house, one half of the father's pension accrued during the relationship to July 5, 2021, and one half of the RRSP and TFSA; prospective child support set at guideline $2,111.81/month based on imputed/declared annual income $97,649.05; arrears $6,824.94 p…

Source excerpt

• Parenting time
• Decision making responsibility
• Child support (prospective and retroactive)
• Imputation of income
• Special or extraordinary expenses
• Division of assets

Read case analysis

R. v. MacLeod

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Sentencing reasons after guilty pleas to second-degree murder and aggravated assaults, where the court accepted a joint submission and imposed life imprisonment with 12 years of parole ineligibility.

• Second-degree murder
• Parole ineligibility (s.745/745.4)
• Aggravated assault
• Joint submission on sentence
• Victim surcharge
• Sentencing

Read case analysis

R v. N.J.A.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation because the assault was committed against an intimate partner (aggravating under s.718.2(a)(ii)), the offence had significant emotional impact and ongoing co-parenting risks; mitigation (guilty plea, remorse, counselling) did not outweigh public interest in denunciation and deterrence. The publication ban under s.486.4 remains in force. The court declined a DNA order and imposed mandatory weapons prohibition under s.109, counselling and no-contact and 20 metre exclusion conditions.

Source excerpt

• Assault
• Sentencing
• Publication ban
• Probation
• Weapons prohibition

Read case analysis

R. v. Cunningham

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The sentencing judge erred in principle by giving undue weight to rehabilitation and personal mitigation while failing to prioritize denunciation and deterrence, misunderstanding planning/deliberation as inherent to attempted murder, misidentifying the low end of the applicable sentencing range, and by improperly treating a Duncan credit as a direct subtraction; the appropriate sentence for this attempted murder in a domestic context is 15 years imprisonment less credit for time served (914 days credited at 1.5:1 = 1371 days).

Source excerpt

• Attempted murder
• Sentencing principles
• Denunciation and deterrence
• Pre-trial custody credit (duncan/summers)
• Planning and deliberation as aggravating factor
• Sentencing range evolution

Read case analysis