Aggravated assault

This criminal trial involved three defendants charged with various offences, including break and enter and aggravated assault, stemming from an altercation with a tenant.

The court heard conflicting accounts from the Crown's witness and the defence witnesses.

Applying the rule in R. v. W.D., the judge assessed the credibility of all principal witnesses, noting inconsistencies and weaknesses in both narratives, particularly concerning 911 calls and witness actions.

Ultimately, the court found significant reasons to doubt the credibility of all parties, leading to a reasonable doubt as to the events of the altercation.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and all charges were dismissed.

Joshua Sabourin pleaded guilty to 10 offences, including robbery, aggravated assault, sexual assault, and break and enter.

The parties jointly recommended a 5-year penitentiary sentence, minus pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders.

The court considered the facts, the offender's background (including substance abuse and potential intellectual disability), and legal principles of sentencing (denunciation, deterrence, totality, proportionality, parity).

Despite mitigating factors like the guilty plea, numerous aggravating factors, including a long criminal record, random selection of vulnerable victims, and lack of insight, warranted a significant sentence.

The court acceded to the joint recommendation, imposing concurrent sentences totaling 5 years, and ordered various ancillary measures including DNA submission, a lifetime weapon prohibition, and SOIRA registration.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and robbery and appealed his convictions and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in her R. v. Grant analysis by characterizing the impact of a s. 10(b) Charter breach (unreasonable delay in access to counsel of choice) as "neutral," when it should have weighed in favour of exclusion.

However, the Court applied the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, concluding that even if the impugned evidence (satchel and knife) had been excluded, the remaining overwhelming identification evidence would have inevitably led to the same convictions.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned due to lack of submissions.

The appellant appealed his convictions for four counts of aggravated assault and five counts of assault with a weapon, alleging unreasonable verdicts, an erroneous similar fact evidence ruling, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the similar fact evidence test and that the verdicts were reasonable given the ample evidence.

The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was also rejected.

Abubakar Bukardikwa was convicted of 12 counts related to a shooting incident where he fired a semi-automatic handgun multiple times in a public parking lot, striking the victim, Jason Lamarche, three times in the leg.

The court considered sentencing principles including denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, balancing them with the offender's youth and first-offender status.

The decision applied the Kienapple principle for conditional stays and extensively discussed pre-sentence custody credits (Summers and Duncan).

The Crown sought a total of nine years, while the defence proposed five to six years.

The court imposed an effective total sentence of six years, eleven months, and twelve days, comprising a sentence of six years, five months, and twelve days on the charge of discharging a firearm with intent, and a consecutive six-month sentence for possessing a firearm while prohibited.

Mr. Paucsek was charged with assault with a weapon and aggravated assault after stabbing his wife with a samurai sword.

He claimed self-defence, arguing his wife violently attacked him.

The Crown conceded the wife used force but argued Mr. Paucsek's response was unreasonable.

The court applied the objective reasonableness test under s. 34 of the Criminal Code, considering factors like the parties' physical capabilities, history of violence, and the accused's retreat.

The court found the wife's testimony unreliable and accepted Mr. Paucsek's account of being attacked.

Given the prior severe beating and the current assault, the court found Mr. Paucsek's use of the sword, though unusual, was a reasonable and proportional response in the circumstances.

Mr. Paucsek was found not guilty.

The appellant, convicted of aggravated assault on his intimate partner and sentenced to seven years imprisonment, appealed both his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the evidence, including video footage, overwhelming and the defence of necessity lacking an air of reality.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the court found the sentence fit given the egregious nature of the assault, despite the appellant's arguments regarding mitigating factors.

The court did, however, correct errors in the imposition of weapons prohibition orders under the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed convictions for first-degree murder and attempted murder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for first-degree murder, finding no error in the trial judge's instructions on contemporaneity and mens rea for murder.

However, the court found the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the mens rea for attempted murder, as it failed to specify the requirement of a specific intent to kill.

The court substituted the attempted murder conviction with aggravated assault.

The court also upheld the trial judge's decision to deny a mistrial application, finding that the remedial instructions were sufficient to cure any prejudice from a witness's improper reference to a previous conviction.

The appellant, Terrence Rivard, appealed his conviction for aggravated assault and a 6-year sentence.

The trial judge had acquitted him of assault with a weapon but convicted him of aggravated assault on Daniel Shaver, rejecting his self-defence claim regarding Shaver.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and factual findings, supported by independent evidence, were sound.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, noting the appellant's significant criminal record and the severe impact on the victim.

Tyrone Joseph pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing Cassandra Cole multiple times, causing grievous injuries.

The court considered mitigating factors, including his guilty plea, genuine remorse, and efforts towards rehabilitation, alongside aggravating factors such as the severity and unprovoked nature of the attack, the profound victim impact, and the offender's cognate criminal record and alcohol abuse.

The decision applied "Downes credit" for stringent bail conditions, "Summers credit" for pre-trial custody (1.5:1), and "Duncan credit" for harsh detention conditions (lockdowns, triple-bunking).

A net sentence of 33¼ months imprisonment was imposed after deducting 502 days for bail and pre-trial custody credits, along with various ancillary orders.

Ricardo Charleston pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and failure to comply with probation.

This decision concerns his sentencing.

The court reviewed the circumstances of the offence, the offender's background (including sexual abuse, family dynamics, education, employment, and extensive criminal record related to addiction and mental health), and the severe impact on the victim.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the defence sought 5 years, arguing for time served due to pre-sentence custody and rehabilitation efforts.

The judge imposed a global sentence of 7 years (84 months), crediting 70 months for pre-sentence custody and mitigating factors, resulting in a further 14 months to serve.

A concurrent 3-month sentence was imposed for the probation breach.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and uttering a threat to cause death.

The appeal centered on the alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, specifically the unauthorized disclosure of the appellant's statement to the Crown and its subsequent use in cross-examination, which impacted the trial judge's assessment of his credibility.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence and found that trial counsel's conduct fell below the standard of a reasonable professional, leading to a miscarriage of justice due to both trial unfairness (unilateral waiver of the right to silence) and an unreliable verdict.

The appeal was allowed, convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The offender, Enoch Villanueva, was found guilty of aggravated assault for biting off the tip of the victim's finger during an altercation.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating factors (violence, permanent disfigurement, ongoing victim impact, offender reigniting the fight, and returning to the scene), and mitigating factors (family support, expressed remorse, no prior criminal record).

The court rejected the defence's request for a 90-day intermittent sentence, finding it insufficient for denunciation and deterrence given the severity and lasting impact of the injury.

The Crown sought 8-9 months.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 months jail, followed by 2 years probation with conditions including anger management, a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a no-contact order with the victim during custody.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery and aggravated assault, and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The appellant argued that the trial judge improperly inferred guilt from disbelief of his testimony and that the robbery conviction was unreasonable, contending the theft was complete before the violence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's reasoning regarding the rejection of testimony or the continuous transaction for robbery.

The court also found the custodial sentence imposed was fit.

The offender, Nam Nguyen, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault.

The victim sustained severe injuries including a broken jaw requiring surgery and metal plates.

The Crown sought an 18-24 month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restraint, particularly for a youthful first offender.

Despite the seriousness of the offence and the victim's injuries, the court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate given the offender's lack of prior record, employment, and low risk of re-offending, and that it could adequately meet sentencing objectives.

The appellant, Marcel Seip, appealed his conviction and sentence for multiple offences, including aggravated assault, stemming from a home invasion and kidnapping.

The primary ground of appeal was that the trial judge erred in convicting him of aggravated assault after acquitting him of discharging a firearm with intent to wound, arguing that the finding of a potentially accidental shooting precluded the necessary intent for aggravated assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the mens rea for aggravated assault requires only objective foreseeability of bodily harm, not specific intent to wound.

The court found no error in the trial judge's application of this principle or in her credibility findings, concluding that the appellant was a party to the aggravated assault as the mastermind of the home invasion who knew his accomplice had a gun.

The appellant, Brian Lariviere, appealed a 12-month imprisonment sentence for aggravated assault, use of an imitation firearm, breach of recognizance, and fentanyl possession, after receiving credit for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions.

The appeal sought a reduction in sentence due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on detention conditions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding the original sentence fit and that general pandemic conditions, without unique personal vulnerability, did not justify a sentence reduction.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for aggravated assault.

He sought to admit fresh evidence, a hospital report confirming broken fingers, to support his self-defence argument.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the fresh evidence were admitted, it would not change the result because there was no basis for a self-defence claim during the second altercation, which was the basis of the charge.

The trial judge had already found that the appellant escalated the conflict and that his actions were not in response to a threat.

The appellant, Christopher Dockery, appealed his five-year sentence for aggravated assault, arguing the sentencing judge erred by not granting enhanced credit for pre-trial custody spent in lockdown and by failing to assist him as a self-represented party.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding enhanced credit, finding the sentencing judge properly exercised discretion under R. v. Duncan.

However, the appeal was allowed by consent of the Crown regarding the victim surcharge.

The appellant, Tola Paul, was convicted of aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

He appealed on the basis that the trial judge erred in refusing to put the defences of self-defence and defence of others to the jury, finding no air of reality to these defences.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by making factual conclusions and credibility assessments that usurped the jury's role in determining the air of reality of the defences.

The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to reasonably find that the defences of self-defence and defence of others had an air of reality.

The appeal was allowed, convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered.