Aggravated assault

A young person was tried for multiple offences, including attempted murder and aggravated assault, after robbing a taxi driver and shooting him in the leg with a sawed-off shotgun.

The accused admitted to the robbery but claimed the firearm discharged accidentally due to intoxication and a malfunction.

The court rejected the accident defence, finding the accused intentionally pointed and fired the weapon, resulting in convictions for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life.

However, the court acquitted the accused of attempted murder, finding a reasonable doubt regarding the specific intent to kill, as the shot was aimed at the lower body through a seat.

The accused, experiencing a severe mental health crisis and auditory hallucinations, called 911 to falsely report she had committed a murder.

When police arrived, she held a box-cutter to her own throat.

An officer reached in to prevent her suicide, and the accused slashed downwards to keep him away, severely cutting his hand.

The court acquitted her of public mischief and carrying a concealed weapon due to lack of requisite intent.

However, she was found guilty of the included offences of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, as the application of force was intentional and bodily harm was objectively foreseeable, though she lacked knowledge that the victim was a police officer.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the offender following his convictions for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and breaches of probation.

The offender had a lengthy, violent criminal record spanning two decades and was diagnosed with severe antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorder.

The court found the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation, noting his pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour and high likelihood of harmful recidivism.

However, at the penalty stage, the court found a reasonable expectation that the offender's risk could be managed in the community given his recent commitment to treatment and the availability of intensive cognitive behavioural therapy.

The court imposed a determinate sentence of 8 years (with 18 months remaining after pre-sentence custody credit) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The 21-year-old accused pleaded guilty to carrying a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace and aggravated assault after stabbing a victim twice in the abdomen during an altercation.

The accused had a difficult upbringing, no prior record, and demonstrated significant rehabilitative efforts.

The court considered the availability of a conditional sentence for aggravated assault following the Court of Appeal's decision in Sharma.

Emphasizing the accused's youth, rehabilitative potential, and the harshness of pre-trial custody during the pandemic, the court imposed a 14.5-month conditional sentence.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated as a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate term following his guilty plea to aggravated assault for an unprovoked stabbing of a stranger.

The court considered extensive psychiatric evidence and a Gladue report detailing the offender's traumatic childhood, substance abuse, and mental health issues.

The court found that while the offender posed a high risk of violent re-offending, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his violent conduct was intractable, noting his recent improvements and the impact of Gladue factors.

The court dismissed the dangerous offender application, designated the offender as a long term offender, and sentenced him to 7.5 years in prison followed by a 10-year Long Term Supervision Order.

The accused pleaded not guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing the victim in the neck.

The defence argued the accused was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code, calling a forensic psychiatrist who testified the accused was suffering from a psychotic episode and command hallucinations.

The court rejected the expert evidence, finding it relied on inadequate information and that the accused's statements to police demonstrated he had the capacity to know the act was morally wrong.

The accused was found criminally responsible and guilty of aggravated assault.

The Crown brought an application for mandamus with certiorari in aid to quash a discharge at a preliminary inquiry on an aggravated assault charge.

The reviewing court held that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by weighing competing inferences, considering evidence in isolation, and failing to assess the whole of the evidence in accordance with the committal standard under Part XVIII of the Criminal Code.

Applying the preliminary inquiry sufficiency test for circumstantial evidence, the court found there was a reasonable inference available to the Crown that the respondent was the assailant.

The application was granted, the discharge was quashed, and the matter was remitted with a direction that the respondent be committed for trial.

The appellant appealed convictions for discharging a firearm with intent to wound and aggravated assault following a jury trial.

He argued that the trial judge impermissibly bolstered the complainant’s evidence in the jury charge by referring to a prior consistent statement after admitted perjury, and that the acquittals on attempted murder and robbery rendered the verdicts inconsistent.

The court rejected both grounds, holding that the impugned instruction was merely an example of inconsistent statements and would not have bolstered the complainant’s testimony.

The court also held that the different mens rea requirements and factual findings available to the jury made the verdicts logically reconcilable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed jury convictions for second degree murder and aggravated assault arising from a fatal attack in a rest home, arguing that the jury unreasonably rejected his NCR defence based on schizophrenia and conflicting expert evidence.

The court held that, although the evidence could have supported an NCR finding, there was also evidence capable of supporting the jury’s conclusion that the appellant had not met his burden on a balance of probabilities.

The court further held that the jury charge adequately distinguished the NCR and mens rea inquiries, properly limited the use of protected assessment statements, and did not misdirect the jury on malingering or recall evidence.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

The appellant appealed convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon arising from a knife attack on one complainant, and also appealed sentence.

He argued that the trial judge failed to properly consider prior inconsistent police statements, unevenly scrutinized defence and complainant evidence, and neglected a self-defence theory.

He further contended that the sentencing judge failed to meaningfully apply Gladue principles despite the appellant's Aboriginal heritage.

The Court of Appeal rejected all grounds, found the credibility analysis fair, held the self-defence argument had in substance been addressed, and concluded the sentencing judge properly considered s. 718.2(e), the Gladue report, and relevant sentencing authorities.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after stabbing an unarmed victim.

He appealed his convictions on several grounds, including allegations of juror coercion and outside influence, the trial judge's failure to instruct the jury on self-defence under section 37 of the Criminal Code, and the trial judge's review of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the juror's allegations of coercion were protected by juror secrecy, the alleged outside influence was not capable of influencing the jury, and there was no air of reality to a self-defence claim under section 37.

The young person appealed his convictions for robbery and aggravated assault, as well as his sentence, which included a 'serious violent offence' designation under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The convictions arose from an incident where the young person robbed the victim of a cell phone and subsequently assaulted him, resulting in the victim's finger being severed on a chain-link fence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the risk of bodily harm was objectively foreseeable.

The Court also dismissed the sentence appeal, holding that the preliminary threshold for a serious violent offence designation is automatically met when serious bodily harm is caused, with foreseeability remaining a factor at the discretionary stage.

The offender pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to aggravated assault after disposing of a knife used by a co-accused in a fatal stabbing.

The offender was 18 years old at the time, had no prior criminal record, and was unaware of the victim's death when he disposed of the weapon.

The court weighed the principles of general deterrence and denunciation against the offender's youth, lack of record, and rehabilitative prospects, ultimately imposing a conditional sentence and probation.

The appellant pled guilty to aggravated assault and breach of probation after attacking a man with a tire iron who intervened when the appellant approached his ex-wife.

He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment less pre-trial custody.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentencing judge erred by treating a lack of remorse as an aggravating factor and by finding a high risk to reoffend without expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge merely rejected remorse as a mitigating factor and reasonably inferred a high risk of reoffending from the appellant's escalating aggressive conduct.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault, assault, and breach of recognizance arising from a stabbing outside a bar.

The trial judge relied on the testimony of a taxi driver who heard the appellant admit to stabbing someone.

The appellant argued that his trial counsel's failure to cross-examine the taxi driver on his preliminary inquiry testimony resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was aware of the discrepancies in the evidence and made reasonable credibility findings.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences arising from two home invasions involving the collection of drug debts, during which one victim was beaten and another was shot.

He argued the trial judge erred in relying on unsavoury witnesses and flawed eyewitness identification, and lacked authority to convict him of aggravated assault on an unparticularized attempted murder charge.

He also appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to consider his Aboriginal status under Gladue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, amending the indictment to include the means of the assault to uphold the aggravated assault conviction.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence remained fit despite the trial judge's failure to expressly apply s. 718.2(e).

The appellant appealed his sentence of 5 years (less pre-trial custody credit) for aggravated assault and possession of a firearm without a license.

He argued the trial judge erred by considering his previous plan to kill his wife as an aggravating factor, given he had pled guilty to aggravated assault in exchange for the Crown dropping an attempted murder charge.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, holding that the prior plan was a valid aggravating factor in this serious domestic assault involving a loaded rifle.

The appeal was dismissed.

The young person appealed convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, as well as a serious violent offence designation.

In an addendum to a previous endorsement, the Court of Appeal noted the Crown's intention not to proceed on a new trial.

The court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, ordered a new trial, and stayed those charges.

Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal the sentence and quashed the serious violent offence designation under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as the remaining conviction for weapons dangerous could not support it.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, as well as his 18-month sentence.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence and applied an unequal standard of scrutiny to his testimony.

He also argued the sentence failed to account for his unblemished character and charitable works.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the record did not support the appellant's claims.

Leave to appeal the sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed as the sentence was within range and the trial judge had properly considered the mitigating factors.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace.

He argued the trial judge misapplied the self-defence provisions of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly concluded the appellant became the aggressor when he exited his vehicle, vitiating his self-defence claim and changing his purpose for possessing the knife to a dangerous one.