Case information

Criminal law — Sentencing — Considerations — Domestic violence — Child witnessing domestic violence — Victim choosing not to continue psychological counselling — Whether majority erred in law in disregarding inherent and reasonably foreseeable harm suffered by child exposed to domestic violence — Whether majority erred in law in prejudging how victim should act after commission of offence, particularly with regard to nature and duration of therapy — Whether majority erred in law in failing to give full effect to principles of denunciation and general deterrence in light of legislative initiatives on abuse of intimate partner or family member.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(Publication ban in case) (Certain information not available to the public)

The respondent, V.L., was convicted of the attempted murder of his former spouse as well as of other offences committed at the same time against her and two neighbours who tried to assist her. The respondent’s daughter, then five years old, witnessed the acts of violence.

The Court of Québec sentenced the accused to 15 years’ imprisonment for the count of attempted murder and to concurrent terms of imprisonment for the other counts. It deducted 1 year to take into account difficult conditions while he was in custody, resulting in an effective sentence of 14 years. It also granted credit for pre-sentence custody. In the opinion of the judge, the gratuitous and planned nature of the assault, the significant risk of reoffending, the limited weight of the mitigating circumstances and the presence of the daughter during the assault justified a sentence of 15 years, a sentence that also considered the presence of mitigating factors. The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and varied the prison sentence to 10 years. It upheld the deduction of one year that was granted by the Court of Québec, resulting in a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment before the deduction for pre-sentence custody. It found that the characteristics of the attack and the consequences, both physical and psychological, were not readily comparable to those of crimes for which prison sentences of 15 years or more were deemed appropriate.