Aggravated assault

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Denim Henderson’s conviction and sentence appeals arising from the death of nine-month-old Kaleb McKay.

The appeal addressed whether charges for aggravated assault and failing to provide necessaries of life were properly joined with a second degree murder charge, and whether a discreditable conduct instruction was required.

The court held that the indictment was valid under s. 589 of the Criminal Code, as the charges arose from the same transaction.

The court also found no error in the trial judge’s instructions and concluded that the jury’s verdict was not tainted by improper propensity reasoning.

The decision concerns the conviction of Kayani As-Sadiq for assault, threatening death, aggravated assault, and related offences against his former wife, Marie-Lyne Toussaint.

The court found the complainant credible and her account corroborated by independent evidence and post-offence conduct.

The court rejected the accused’s alibi and alternative explanations, finding them improbable and unsupported by the evidence.

The court acquitted the accused of attempted murder, finding a reasonable doubt as to intent to kill, but convicted him of the included offence of aggravated assault.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Hunter Smith’s appeal from his conviction and sentence for aggravated assault arising from a nightclub incident.

The court found no merit in the arguments that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, failed to consider all relevant evidence, or erred in sentencing.

The court addressed the risk of cross-racial misidentification but found it was not a serious danger in this case.

The five-month custodial sentence was upheld as fit and principled.

Michael Williams pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, two counts of possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a firearm while prohibited, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court imposed a global sentence of eight years, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors, including Mr. Williams' disadvantaged background, harsh pre-sentence custody, and the joint submission of counsel.

The decision reviews the relevant sentencing principles and case law, and details the factual background, evidence, and positions of the parties.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Jacob Yoell to 12 months imprisonment concurrent on two counts of robbery and aggravated assault, followed by two years probation with specific conditions including no contact with victims and a weapons prohibition.

The offences involved violent, racially motivated attacks on two homeless Black men in Windsor, captured on video and widely disseminated on social media.

The Court emphasized the aggravating factors of racial bias, victim vulnerability, and the offender’s leadership role in the assaults, while also considering mitigating factors such as the offender’s remorse, guilty plea, youth, lack of prior record, and positive changes since the offences.

The Court rejected a conditional sentence due to the gravity and nature of the offences, despite the offender’s rehabilitative prospects.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the appeals of Rushawn Anderson and Nicholas Rhoden from convictions for attempted murder and aggravated assault.

The appellants argued that the trial judge erred in admitting out-of-court statements, in his rulings on Charter violations, in instructing the jury on fabrication, and that the verdicts were unreasonable.

The majority dismissed the appeals, finding the fabrication instruction sufficient and the verdicts reasonable.

In dissent, Gomery J.A. would have allowed the appeals, finding the fabrication instruction flawed and the verdicts unreasonable, and would have substituted acquittals.

This decision addresses deficiencies in the defence final submissions in a criminal trial for Aggravated Assault.

The court found multiple errors in the defence's case citations, including fictitious cases, unrelated civil cases, and incorrect pinpoint references.

The judge ordered the defence counsel to personally prepare a new set of submissions with strict guidelines to ensure accuracy, proper numbering, and prohibition on the use of generative AI for legal research.

The ruling emphasizes the importance of reliable and precise legal submissions even when the case primarily turns on factual disputes.

This decision addresses the acquittal of Cadence Kakepetum on a charge of aggravated assault under s. 268 of the Criminal Code.

The court analyzed conflicting witness testimony, including that of a reluctant civilian witness, a co-accused youth who pled guilty, and an intoxicated bystander, alongside forensic evidence such as blood spatter and CCTV footage.

Applying the three-prong test from R. v. W.D. and considering the guidance from R. v. Hoohing and R. v. J.D., the court found reasonable doubt as to Ms. Kakepetum’s participation in the assault.

The forensic evidence and video corroborated her version of events, while the credibility of other witnesses was undermined by inconsistencies, intoxication, and self-serving testimony.

The accused was therefore acquitted.

The appellant, Hang Shi, appealed his conviction for aggravated assault arising from an incident in which his wife sustained significant injuries after a parking lot altercation.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in any of the grounds of appeal, holding that the trial judge properly assessed the reliability of the bystander’s eyewitness testimony, which was corroborated by Mr. Shi’s own text messages.

The court also found no error in the application of the burden of proof or in the treatment of after-the-fact conduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court sentenced Kane Alexander Underhill for aggravated assault after a guilty plea.

The facts involved a violent, unprovoked two-on-one attack on a vulnerable, homeless victim, resulting in severe injuries.

The court considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including Mr. Underhill’s Indigenous background, substance abuse, harsh pre-sentence custody, and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court imposed a seven-year sentence, less pre-sentence custody, and made ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The accused, Idriss Buni, was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon against Muna Riyaleh.

The central issue was whether Ms. Riyaleh was the victim of an unprovoked knife attack by Mr. Buni or whether she attacked him and was injured during a struggle.

The court found Ms. Riyaleh to be a credible witness and rejected Mr. Buni’s account as contrived and inconsistent with the evidence.

The court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of Mr. Buni’s guilt and found him guilty as charged.

The court sentenced Mwanza Serge Mutombo for aggravated assault after a guilty plea.

The facts involved a vicious, unprovoked attack on a vulnerable, homeless victim, resulting in severe injuries.

The court considered aggravating factors such as Mutombo’s significant criminal record, the use of a weapon, and the vulnerability of the victim, as well as mitigating factors including his guilty plea, disadvantaged background, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court reviewed relevant case law and sentencing ranges, ultimately imposing a nine-year sentence, less pretrial custody credit, and making ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Frank Dimillo guilty of multiple firearm-related offences, including discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life and possession of a firearm while prohibited, but acquitted him of aggravated assault.

The conviction rested primarily on the reliable and corroborated statement of his son, Blake Dimillo, who recounted the accused’s confession to shooting Morgan Richardson in the face.

Despite Blake’s in-court recantation, the judge preferred the original statement due to its precision, corroboration with physical evidence, and Blake’s motivation to tell the truth at the time.

The court carefully analyzed the circumstantial evidence, DNA findings, and the accused’s opportunity and motive, concluding the shooting was intentional and that the accused was the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court accepted a joint submission on sentence for James Dobbs, who pled guilty to manslaughter, indignity to a body, and aggravated assault.

The sentence included 16 years for manslaughter, 3 years consecutive for indignity to a body, and 6 years consecutive for aggravated assault, for a total of 25 years less pre-sentence custody.

The court discussed the principles of denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and rehabilitation, and found the joint submission appropriate given the aggravating and mitigating factors, including Dobbs' criminal history and mental health issues.

This decision involves the trial of C.L. charged with mischief, uttering threats, and aggravated assault against V.L. The accused pleaded guilty to uttering threats but denied the other charges.

The case centered on conflicting accounts regarding whether C.L. caused injuries to V.L. by kicking her down stairs and damaging her property.

The Court conducted a detailed credibility assessment, applying the W.(D.) test and principles from recent Supreme Court jurisprudence on reasonable doubt and witness reliability.

The judge found C.L.'s explanations inconsistent and untruthful, particularly regarding the cause of V.L.'s injuries and the damage to the bedroom wall.

The Court accepted V.L.'s testimony and concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that C.L. committed mischief and aggravated assault by causing V.L. to fall down the stairs, resulting in a spinal fracture.

Brian O’Donnell pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and discharging a prohibited firearm with intent after shooting the victim, Lacramioara Flanagan, with a sawed-off shotgun from behind at close range.

The offences were premeditated and caused significant physical, emotional, and financial harm to the victim.

The Court considered the offender’s psychiatric and cognitive disorders, his criminal history, and the impact of harsh pre-sentence custody and bail conditions.

The sentence imposed was 2859 days imprisonment before credit, with concurrent sentences and ancillary orders including DNA sampling and a no-contact order.

This decision addresses the issue of identity in a stabbing incident where the accused, Dwumo Amankwaah, was charged with attempted murder, assault with a weapon, and failure to comply with probation.

The Crown withdrew the attempted murder charge but sought conviction for aggravated assault as a lesser included offence.

The court carefully analyzed the reliability and credibility of the victim's identification, corroborated by surveillance footage and DNA evidence linking the accused to the crime scene.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault and failure to comply with probation, staying the assault with a weapon charge under the Kienapple principle.

The judgment also clarifies the requirements for lesser included offences in attempted murder charges, particularly regarding aggravated assault.

The accused, William Gallerno, was tried for aggravated assault under section 268 of the Criminal Code.

The main issue was identification, as the victim, Ms. Assenza, could not identify her assailant.

The court considered the authenticity and chain of custody of a surveillance video showing the assault, as well as corroborating evidence from police, the victim’s husband, and subsequent police interactions with Mr. Gallerno.

Despite gaps in the chain of custody and the victim’s inability to identify the accused, the court found the video authentic and the identification evidence overwhelming, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Gallerno was the assailant.

A finding of guilt was entered.

This sentencing decision addresses the serious offences committed by Abdisatar Aden, who pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm endangering life, aggravated assault, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and possession contrary to a prohibition order.

The case involved a shooting of an 18-year-old victim, Amadou Suwareh, who suffered life-threatening injuries but survived.

The decision carefully balances aggravating factors such as the use of a modified fully automatic firearm, prior weapons prohibition orders, and possession of crack cocaine for trafficking, against mitigating factors including an early guilty plea, social context evidence of systemic racism and disadvantage, and the offender’s remorse and family support.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, with credit for pre-sentence custody, reflecting the gravity of the offences and the need for denunciation and deterrence in the context of ongoing gun violence in Toronto.

The accused, Chiduben Anthony Okeke, was charged with Aggravated Assault and Failing to Comply with a Recognizance.

Both the Crown and Defence jointly sought a finding of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) under sections 16 and 672.34 of the Criminal Code.

Two forensic psychiatrists provided reports concluding that the accused suffered from schizophrenia with paranoid and somatic delusions and auditory hallucinations at the time of the offence, rendering him incapable of knowing the wrongfulness of his actions.

The court accepted the joint recommendation, finding the accused NCR for both charges, and issued a DNA order.

The judgment also highlighted the severe impact on the victim, PC Andrew Varao, and raised concerns about the lack of adequate supervision for mentally ill individuals released on bail.