Aggravated assault

The accused was tried for aggravated assault and weapons offences following a stabbing at a sports bar.

The incident was captured on surveillance video, showing a man wearing a Nirvana baseball cap striking the victim in the face with a knife-like object.

The victim, who was unavailable for trial, had testified at the preliminary inquiry that he was stabbed by a different person on the stairs.

The court admitted the victim's preliminary inquiry evidence but rejected it as implausible and contradicted by the video.

The court also admitted prior acquaintance recognition evidence from a police officer who identified the accused as the man in the video.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the attacker and found him guilty on all counts.

The accused was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault against his former intimate partner.

The assault involved a sustained beating that left the victim with severe facial bruising and swelling.

The Crown sought a 3-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or 90 days intermittent.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for domestic violence, finding the attack was unprovoked and sustained.

After accounting for mitigating factors, including youth, lack of related record, and credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, the court imposed a sentence of 2.5 years in custody.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and several firearms offences after shooting his long-term domestic partner in the face with a homemade firearm.

The court considered the offender's prior record for domestic violence and the devastating, permanent injuries suffered by the victim as aggravating factors, while the late guilty pleas and pandemic-related pre-sentence custody were mitigating.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6.5 years' imprisonment, reduced to 30 months net after crediting 4 years for pre-sentence custody.

The Crown applied for an order remanding the offender for an assessment for a dangerous or long-term offender application following his conviction for aggravated assault against a fellow inmate.

The court reviewed the offender's criminal record, including youth convictions, intimate partner violence, and a manslaughter conviction.

The court found that the threshold for ordering an assessment, while low, was not met, as the offender's past behaviour did not provide reasonable grounds to believe he might be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender.

The application was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault and carrying a concealed weapon following an unprovoked stabbing in a shopping mall.

The court determined the appropriate sentence was five and a half years in prison, noting the seriousness of the offence and the offender's intoxication.

However, after applying credit for over three years of pre-trial custody, including enhanced credit for harsh lockdown conditions, the sentence was reduced to time-served with no probation order.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder following a stabbing incident outside a bar.

The accused raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder, arguing he experienced a dissociative episode triggered by post-traumatic stress disorder after hearing a threat to shoot.

The court rejected the NCR defence, finding the accused's evidence of dissociation and lack of memory lacked credibility, particularly given his organized post-offence conduct.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove the specific intent required for murder and attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the suddenness of the attack, the single stab wounds, and the accused's intoxication and PTSD.

The accused was found not guilty of the charged offences but guilty of the included offences of manslaughter and aggravated assault.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault against his intimate partner, who was pregnant, deaf, mute, and unconscious at the time of the attack.

The victim suffered life-threatening injuries.

The court considered the offender's substance abuse, remorse, and the harsh conditions of his pre-trial custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a gross sentence of 7 years, reduced to 2 years, 6 months, and 11 days after applying credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, discharging a firearm with intent, possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and multiple firearms offences.

The offences involved shooting a man in the leg over a drug debt in a residential complex, and later being found in a vehicle with a loaded handgun and significant quantities of fentanyl and other drugs.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors, including the accused's lengthy criminal record for firearms offences, against mitigating factors such as his guilty pleas, difficult background, and exceptionally harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to lockdowns.

A global sentence of 7.5 years was imposed, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from a violent home invasion robbery where the victim was beaten, tied up, and had his pants and underwear removed.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including DNA found on a bandage at the scene, surveillance video, and items seized from the accused's residence that matched those used in the robbery.

The accused and a defence witness testified that the witness committed the robbery using items borrowed from the accused, but the court rejected this evidence as not credible.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and circumstantial evidence principles, the court found the accused guilty of the home invasion offences.

The offender, an African Canadian man, was convicted of aggravated assault after sucker-punching and stomping a defenceless victim outside a nightclub.

The court considered the impacts of systemic anti-Black racism and the lack of a formal Impact of Race and Culture Assessment (IRCA) due to financial constraints.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given the severity of the unprovoked attack, the court sentenced the offender to two years in a penitentiary, less three months credit for time spent on strict bail conditions.

The accused was charged with the attempted murder of his spouse and assault with a weapon against another individual.

The court acquitted the accused of the assault with a weapon charge due to the unreliability of the complainant's evidence.

On the attempted murder charge, security video captured the accused brutally beating his unconscious spouse, causing life-threatening injuries.

The court found the specific intent to kill was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but convicted the accused of the included offence of aggravated assault, rejecting the defence of necessity.

The offender was sentenced for multiple offences, including aggravated assault and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, after trespassing on the victim's property and repeatedly attacking him with an ATV.

The unprovoked attack left the victim with catastrophic, life-altering injuries, including a traumatic brain injury.

Considering the offender's extensive criminal record and the devastating impact on the victim, the court imposed a total sentence of 5 years' imprisonment, along with a 15-year driving prohibition and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle after deliberately driving his car at two pedestrians, striking one and causing a compound fracture.

The court weighed the gravity of the offence, the offender's prior record, and the severe injuries against mitigating factors including strong community support and stringent house arrest conditions.

The offender was sentenced to three years in custody for aggravated assault and a concurrent twelve-month sentence for dangerous driving, along with a three-year driving prohibition and a ten-year weapons prohibition.

The applicants, charged with aggravated assault, applied to sever their trial from a co-accused charged with second-degree murder on the same indictment.

They argued the charges did not arise from the same transaction and that a joint trial would cause prejudice.

The court dismissed the application, finding the events shared a factual, temporal, and legal connection under s. 589 of the Criminal Code.

The court also held that severance under s. 591(3) was not required in the interests of justice, as the evidence of the murder was highly relevant to the aggravated assault charges and the risk of prejudice was low.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms offences and aggravated assault following a drive-by shooting that injured a victim.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including wiretap intercepts, video surveillance, and testimony from individuals involved in the local drug trade.

The court found the civilian witnesses credible despite their criminal backgrounds and drug use, and concluded that the accused had the motive, means, and opportunity to commit the offences.

The accused was found guilty on all six counts.

The accused was involved in a lengthy police pursuit while driving stolen vehicles, resulting in collisions with several police cruisers.

He pled guilty to numerous offences including dangerous driving, theft, and break and enter.

For the remaining charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon against the officers, the central issue was intent.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court believed the accused's testimony that he was merely trying to escape and did not intentionally target the officers or their vehicles, resulting in acquittals on the contested charges.

The accused was found guilty of aggravated assault, discharging a firearm with intent, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

Following a dispute outside a bar, the accused retrieved a gun and fired it towards a group, striking an innocent bystander.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the serious nature of gun violence in a public place.

The accused was sentenced to a global term of 10 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh jail conditions, leaving six years to serve.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault and breach of probation after severely injuring a man visiting the mother of the offender's child.

The Crown sought 8 to 10 years, while the defence sought 4 to 6 years.

The court imposed a sentence of 6.5 years for the aggravated assault.

The court also awarded 3 years and 2 months of pre-sentence custody credit, which included 14 months of enhanced credit under the Duncan framework due to the harsh conditions of the 426 days the offender spent in segregation.

The Crown brought an application to designate the offender as a dangerous offender following his convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon stemming from a pre-planned attack on a fellow inmate.

The offender was already serving a 15-year sentence for prior violent offences.

The court declined to designate him a dangerous offender, finding that psychiatric evidence could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that his violent conduct was intractable, given the impossibility of predicting his risk 15 years into the future when his current sentences expire.

Instead, the court designated him a long-term offender, imposing a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order and a determinate sentence of 2.5 years consecutive for the predicate offences.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including aggravated assault against a three-month-old infant and assault with a weapon against his girlfriend, following a domestic dispute.

The Crown relied heavily on the girlfriend's videotaped police statement, which she recanted at trial.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court found the accused guilty of simple assault for intentionally dropping the infant's bassinette and for placing a pillow over his girlfriend's face.

However, the court acquitted the accused of aggravated assault and uttering threats, finding reasonable doubt regarding the cause of the infant's severe head injuries and the exact words spoken during the pillow incident.