|
Criminal - Intimate Partner Violence. R. v. Greer
In R. v. Greer (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered 'intimate partner violence', here in the context of a criminal sentencing appeal:[23] As the Crown submits, intimate partner violence extends beyond physical force. It includes implicit or explicit threats as well as overt violence: R. v. Finnessey (2000), 2000 CanLII 16862 (ON CA), 135 O.A.C. 396 (C.A.), at para. 16, leave to appeal refused, [2000] S.C.C.A. No. 565; R. v. Samery (2007), 2007 CanLII 16455 (ON SC), 219 C.C.C. (3d) 435 (Ont. S.C.), at paras. 54-56, aff’d 2007 ONCA 643. Similarly, intimate partner abuse under s. 718.2(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code encompasses conduct that harms, exploits vulnerability, or wrongfully asserts power even absent overt violence or threats: Cook c. R., 2009 QCCA 2423, 250 C.C.C. (3d) 248, at para. 76, leave to appeal refused, [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 112; R. v. Costello, 2020 CanLII 43695 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), at paras. 31-32; see also R. v. Lis, 2020 ONCA 551, 152 O.R. (3d) 125, at para. 57.
[24] The trial judge was entitled to conclude that the present and prior offences formed part of a pattern of intimate partner violence and abuse. The present offences involved threats against the complainant and constituted abuse by emotionally harming her and wrongfully asserting power through the unlawful entry into her dwelling and the carving of a threatening message. The prior convictions for uttering threats likewise constitute intimate partner violence. The remaining offences – including breaches of court orders, break and enter, and property offences directed at the complainant – were properly viewed in context as part of the same pattern of abuse. As the trial judge found, this conduct caused significant emotional and psychological harm and left the complainant fearing for her safety for years.
[25] The trial judge properly emphasized the gravity of the offences given their intimate partner violence context. Intimate partner violence is a grave and pervasive social harm whose seriousness “can hardly be overstated”: R. v. Lavallee, 1990 CanLII 95 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852, at p. 872. Courts have consistently stressed the need for sentences that emphasize denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public: R. v. Boucher (2004), 2004 CanLII 17719 (ON CA), 186 C.C.C. (3d) 479 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 27, citing R. v. Denkers (1994), 1994 CanLII 2660 (ON CA), 69 O.A.C. 391 (C.A.).
[26] Parliament has likewise directed courts to treat abuse of an intimate partner as aggravating and to prioritize denunciation and deterrence while recognizing victims’ heightened vulnerability: Criminal Code, ss. 718.2(a)(ii), 718.201, 718.04. These provisions strengthen the justice system’s response by ensuring that sentences reflect the full gravity of intimate partner violence: R. v. Bunn, 2022 MBCA 34, 79 C.R. (7th) 351, at paras. 100, 103.
[27] These concerns apply equally where the victim is a former partner. Violence against and abuse of a former partner may punish separation, undermine independence, and generate lasting fear and emotional harm, sometimes escalating unpredictably. Sentencing must protect former partners’ ability to live safely and independently after separation: Boucher, at para. 27, citing Denkers; R. v. Bates (2000), 2000 CanLII 5759 (ON CA), 146 C.C.C. (3d) 321 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 30-38; R. v. Butcher, 2020 NSCA 50, 387 C.C.C. (3d) 417, at paras. 147, 178-79, leave to appeal refused, [2020] S.C.C.A. No. 310.
[28] The trial judge applied these principles. She found that the appellant’s escalating conduct caused the complainant to reasonably fear for her safety and that of her family years after the relationship ended. She, therefore, treated the complainant’s status as a former spouse as aggravating and properly emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public.
[29] The trial judge was also entitled to treat the appellant’s extensive record as highly aggravating. Persistent breaches of court orders undermine the administration of justice and heighten moral culpability. Where such orders protect intimate partners, repeated breaches also threaten victims’ safety and ability to rebuild their lives, reinforcing the need for denunciation and deterrence: Bates, at paras. 29, 35-36; R. v. Louison, 2008 SKCA 69, 310 Sask. R. 217, at para. 14; Costello, at paras. 29-30, 33.
|
