We don’t often cover Criminal cases here on this Blog, but sometimes they are worth mentioning because they overlap with important Family Law issues. In a recent case called R. v. P.P., that overlap had to do with the stereotypes that all judges must avoid, particularly when dealing with the sensitive topic of Intimate Partner Violence.
The Backstory
The background involved a couple who were both of Indian heritage. Before getting engaged, they had only met once – by video call arranged by their respective parents. The husband had been living in Canada at that time, and they first met in person shortly before their wedding in India in 2015. The husband returned to Canada shortly after, and his wife joined him about a year later.
The wife later accused him of being controlling and abusive throughout their relationship, including after the birth of their child in 2020. The husband denied the abuse, saying that any tension in the marriage was linked to family interference and money issues.
All of this came to head in early 2021, when the relationship officially ended after a heated argument. About six months later, and not long after serving the husband with divorce papers, the wife went to the police about a litany of serious Intimate Partner Violence she had suffered at the husband’s hands during the marriage; these included assault, sexual assault, unlawful confinement, uttering threats, and attempted extortion. The husband was charged and convicted.
New Criminal Trial Ordered
However the husband appealed those convictions based on what he said were several errors he said the trial judge had made. After reviewing the matter, the Court of Appeal agreed with him.
The Court found several serious problems with how the trial judge reached her decision. First, the trial judge said it was “surreal” that the couple could have been happy early in their arranged marriage, since they were “basically strangers.” This was a problematic assumption – especially since that the couple had been in regular communication for over a year before living together. In the Appeal Court’s view, it suggested that the trial judge had applied a stereotype about arranged marriages, which was unsupported by the evidence and accordingly unfair.
The judge also made other errors in her assessment of some of the evidence, particularly relating to the timing of certain threatening comments to the wife on a particular day. There was actually a lack of credible evidence on this point, the Appeal Court said, and it led to unjustified conclusions on the trial judge’s part.
In light of these and other errors, the Court set the husband’s criminal convictions aside, and ordered a new trial.
Why This Matters to Family Law Cases
While the case involves criminal law, there are lessons here for family law too. Allegations of abuse—whether in the criminal or family context—are incredibly serious. But just as seriously, courts need to be careful, fair, and grounded in the evidence.
Does your home life feature incidents of Intimate Partner Violence? If so, gathering evidence is crucial, and if done incorrectly it can make-or-break your recourse to some of your legal options. Feel free to give our offices a call, on a confidential basis, for advice that is tailored to your situation.
For the full text of the decision, see:
R. v. P.P., 2025 ONCA 243 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kb9bw>
