Case information

Criminal law — Sentencing — Conditional discharge — Considerations — Assault by strangulation — Domestic violence — Underage victim — In determination of sentence for serious domestic violence case, guidelines and directions that should guide courts to balance principles of denunciation and deterrence with objectives of rehabilitation and accountability of offender — Impact of offence of strangulation, under s. 267(c) of Criminal Code, on sentence that must be handed down by courts, particularly in domestic violence case — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 267(c).

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)

Mr. Boily and the victim were a couple; he was 23 years old, and she was 16 years old. While the couple was travelling by car, the victim asked to get out. Mr. Boily stopped on the side of the road and let her get out, after first holding her back by the arm. She walked for a moment, but then finally got back in the car. When they arrived at Mr. Boily’s apartment, he threatened to push the victim from the second floor. Fearing that he would carry out his threat, she sat on the floor and felt the respondent’s hand push her back. She grabbed hold of the banister, and Mr. Boily finally held her back to prevent her from falling. They entered the apartment, and she informed him that she was ending the relationship. Mr. Boily pushed her: she banged her head and ear against the hood of the stove. When the victim took refuge in Mr. Boily’s bedroom, he followed her, threw himself on top of her and tried to strangle her. The victim ran away from the apartment, but Mr. Boily chased her. He eventually caught up to her, grabbed her by the hair and threw her to the ground. He then threw her cell phone, breaking it. She started running again, but he caught up to her, pinned her to the ground and strangled her. Mr. Boily let go of her again, and she found refuge in a building, where she called for help. The police intervened with Mr. Boily, who behaved very aggressively during his arrest. He hit one of the officers in the head three times. At various times, he sent death threats against the victim through third parties. One year after these events, in a separate case, Mr. Boily was arrested for violating his curfew and for being in possession of cannabis and cocaine. Mr. Boily pleaded guilty.

The Court of Québec ordered a conditional discharge with three years’ probation, two with supervision. Mr. Boily’s best interests were not in issue. Regarding the public interest, the trial judge was of the opinion that the case lent itself to being an exception where discharge was possible. A majority of the Court of Appeal was of the opinion that the sentence imposed was not unreasonable and that conditional discharge was not contrary to the public interest. According to the majority, the trial judge had not committed an error in his analysis of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances and had not committed an error in principle in his assessment of the evidence concerning Mr. Boily’s mental health. In dissent, Ruel J.A. was of the opinion that intervention was warranted. The trial judge had not considered all the relevant provisions and the totality of the aggravating factors codified in the Criminal Code.