Domestic Charges

A domestic criminal charge is any criminal allegation that occurred within the context of a current or historical romantic relationship. The couple can be (or in the past have been) married, common-law, or in a dating relationship. The most common domestic offences occur following an altercation and include charges such as assault, mischief, and threatening death. Other domestic charges may include criminal harassment, sexual assault, fraud, etc.

Courts have stated that criminal offences occurring within this context are aggravating in nature. This means that a potential penalty for anyone found guilty of a domestic offence may be greater than if it occurred outside a domestic relationship.

Domestic charges are usually dealt with differently than a traditional court system. There are specific courts that deal with domestic charges from an administration perspective and there are specifically assigned teams of Crown Attorneys who deal with their prosecution.

In many cases where the police are called because of a domestic dispute, one or both parties will face charges. The police have an obligation to investigate such complaints, and when there is an allegation that exists as a criminal offence, the police will lay a charge. Whether the charge is valid or not is the job for a Crown Attorney and not the police. Laying a charge immediately also ensures that the person charged will be placed on certain conditions that will help assure the safety of the complainant while the case moves through the system.

In many cases, one party will be arrested and taken from their home. They may be released from the police station, often with conditions. These conditions may include not having contact with the complainant, or being held for a bail hearing where a court, with input from a Crown Attorney and defence counsel, will determine whether the person arrested should be released and on what conditions.

No. There is zero advantage to doing this. The role of the police is to investigate the offence and lay a charge if the complaint makes out a criminal offence. Do not expect to be able to talk your way out of the charge. Anything you say to a police officer will be recorded. The police are also sometimes allowed to lie and/or try and trick you into saying things against your best interest. These statements may be admissible in court and can be used against you at trial. If you testify at your trial and you say something inconsistent with a statement made to the police, a court can hold that against you in making a credibility assessment. Furthermore, your lawyer cannot introduce statements you made to the police that work in your favour (called exculpatory statements) but the Crown can introduce statements that work against you (called inculpatory statements). It is much easier to defend your case when the first time the Crown is hearing your side of the story is in court with a defence lawyer present to protect your interests.

The best advice is just to say nothing to the police. Keep your mouth shut. Do not make small talk, discuss the weather or the latest sports results; once you start talking you may let your guard down and say something that hurts you down the road. Police officers are trained in interrogation techniques and know how to get you to keep talking; the best way to avoid this is to not open your mouth at all. If the police take you into an interview room, put your head on the table and close your eyes. If, however, you want to talk to a lawyer, even if you have already done so, make the request and say nothing more.

This is a complex question that will be unique to each situation. The first question is whether the person charged has been placed on specific conditions not to see their children. Such conditions will occur in cases where a child may have been a victim or witness to the alleged offence or due to other reasons. Like any condition, there is a procedure to them varied by court order.

With a specific no-contact condition, there may need to be conditions to allow access to the children. One way to do this is through a mutually agreed upon third-party. This third-party would be responsible for helping facilitate access and communicating between both parties for this specific purpose (any communication for other purposes may be a violation of a no-contact condition).

In most cases, there will be a condition deferring an access decision to a family court. In cases where the complainant and charged party cannot find a mutually agreed upon third party (or where the court does not allow this condition), the matter may have to be litigated in family court. It is best to seek out the assistance of a family lawyer for this purpose.

In the cases of older children who can communicate with both parents, it may not be necessary to arrange a third party or seek family court assistance as the older children can determine living arrangements and visitation directly with both parents.

Given that you have not been convicted of a criminal offence, your employer should not be able to terminate your employment. There may be exceptions for those who work with vulnerable persons such as children and the elderly. It is also possible you will have an obligation to your professional body to report the fact you were charged with a criminal offence. Absent any specific conditions on your release that make it impossible for you to continue employment, you should be able to continue to work. Courts like it when people are working so if you find that conditions make it impossible, it may be worthwhile to seek a variation.

This depends on the condition of your release. If there is a no-contact order with the complainant, and you were living together, then likely not unless the complainant is prepared to move elsewhere (courts do not like to force a complainant to move even if the home belongs to the person charged).

The evidence is likely not hearsay. Hearsay is when a witness repeats information someone else told them. If you are accused of an act against someone, then their complaint is not hearsay but is direct evidence of the act – as they were present for the allegation. Direct evidence is admissible in court, even if it is not true. There is a difference between evidence allowed to be heard in court and evidence in which a court has determined to be true. It will up to a court to consider and weigh the evidence, assess the credibility of the person providing it, and then determine whether to accept it.