The accused was acquitted of aggravated assault after the trial judge instructed the jury on the definition of assault under s. 265(1)(a) of the Criminal Code but refused to instruct on s. 265(1)(b).
The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial, but restricted the new trial solely to the definition under s. 265(1)(b).
The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the order for a new trial but held that the Court of Appeal erred in restricting its scope, as the two subsections do not create separate offences but define two ways of committing the same offence.
The new trial was ordered without restriction.
