Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a general term capturing the range of criminal offences that occur in intimate-partner contexts — from common assault to homicide. While IPV is not itself a separate offence, the intimate-partner context triggers significant procedural and substantive consequences: a statutory aggravating factor at sentencing, expanded reverse onus at bail, and special Crown policy treatment.
Mass Tsang's domestic assault lawyers handle the full range of IPV files. For more, see our blog posts on domestic assault and how domestic assault charges can be resolved.
Statutory definition
Section 2 of the Criminal Code defines "intimate partner" broadly to include current and former spouses, common-law partners, and dating partners. The definition captures relationships that range from long-standing marriages to recent or brief dating relationships. The breadth of the definition reflects parliamentary recognition that IPV occurs across a wide range of relationship types.
Statutory aggravation — section 718.2(a)(ii)
Section 718.2(a)(ii) directs sentencing courts to treat as aggravating any evidence that an offence was committed against an intimate partner or family member. This statutory aggravation operates in addition to common-law aggravating principles and produces significantly higher sentences than equivalent offences against non-family complainants. The provision was strengthened by Bill C-75 (2019) to expand the categories of relationships captured.
Reverse onus on bail
Section 515(6)(b.1) imposes a reverse onus at bail in certain IPV cases — particularly where the accused has a prior conviction for similar conduct. Bill C-48 (2024) expanded these provisions further. Reverse onus shifts the burden to the accused to justify release rather than requiring the Crown to justify detention.
Crown policies
Ontario Crown attorneys apply zero-tolerance policies in IPV cases. Charges are generally not withdrawn at the request of complainants alone; Crown discretion to withdraw is exercised more narrowly than in other contexts. Resolution discussions in IPV files often involve Partner Assault Response (PAR) program completion, peace bond resolutions, or careful negotiation of joint submissions on sentence.
Defences and resolution paths
Defences in IPV cases turn on the underlying offence — self-defence, accident, identification, lack of intent — combined with credibility analysis of the complainant. Cross-examination is central. Even where the evidence is strong, resolution paths exist: PAR program completion can lead to withdrawal in some configurations; peace bonds can resolve cases where the Crown has evidentiary concerns; absolute or conditional discharges can avoid the worst consequences after a finding of guilt.
Related glossary terms
