Assault causing bodily harm

This sentencing decision addresses multiple offences including breach of a release order, assault, and assault causing bodily harm within the context of intimate partner violence.

The offender, C.P., pleaded guilty after trial commenced, and the court considered both the evidence presented and facts read in by the Crown.

The decision emphasizes the seriousness of intimate partner violence, including physical, emotional, and psychological abuse, as well as breach of court orders.

The court balanced aggravating factors such as repeated breaches and ongoing abuse with mitigating factors including the offender’s guilty plea and efforts to address addiction.

The offender was sentenced to 12 months custody on each count concurrently, with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by three years probation with strict no-contact conditions and ancillary orders including DNA sampling and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

Jean-Claude Robitaille was charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm after kicking a volleyball that struck Michelle Powell in the face during Canada Day 2023 celebrations at Ashbridges Bay, Toronto.

The court examined whether the kick was accidental or reckless/deliberate, focusing on the mens rea for assault.

Evidence showed Robitaille kicked the ball hard toward a group of people, causing significant injury.

The court found that the force and proximity of the kick established that the risk of bodily harm was either intended or objectively foreseeable, rejecting the defence of accident.

Intoxication was not a defence as assault is a general intent offence.

This appeal concerns the sufficiency of reasons provided by a trial judge in a conviction for assault causing bodily harm.

The appellant, Sarah Bannon, argued that the trial judge failed to address or analyze the defence of self-defence, which was the central issue at trial.

The Superior Court found that the trial judge’s reasons did not mention self-defence or the relevant legal framework, preventing meaningful appellate review.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The court considered an application by the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of France for the extradition of Prasanna Nallalingam to stand trial in France for murder and attempted murder.

The court found that a properly instructed jury could conclude that Nallalingam possessed the requisite mens rea for manslaughter and assault causing bodily harm, based on circumstantial evidence of his planning, provision of weapons, and command of the attack.

The committal order was granted under the Extradition Act.

This decision addresses the reliability and credibility of witness testimony in a stabbing case where the accused, Tharsigan Ravichandran, was identified by the victim through a problematic photo line-up.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ravichandran was the stabber due to inconsistent, unreliable, and contradictory witness evidence, including issues with the victim's identification and motives to lie among witnesses.

The accused was acquitted on both counts of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

This case involves charges of assault causing bodily harm against Mathew Kinsella and Alexandria Skeffington arising from a violent altercation on October 2, 2022.

The court analyzed video evidence and witness testimony, including the defendants' claims of self-defence and defence of another under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The judge found the complainants' testimonies unreliable due to intoxication and inconsistencies, while accepting Ms. Skeffington's credible testimony.

Applying the Supreme Court's recent guidance on self-defence, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants' actions were unlawful, resulting in dismissal of all charges.

The appellant, Charles Kennedy, appealed his conviction for unlawful confinement, assault causing bodily harm, and sexual assault.

He sought the appointment of counsel under section 684 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the trial judge’s findings and the legal standards for appointing counsel, ultimately dismissing the application on the basis that the grounds of appeal did not surpass the "arguability" threshold and were not legally complex enough to require appointed counsel.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed the Crown's appeal from an absolute discharge imposed on Jennel Christie for assault causing bodily harm.

The Court found the sentence demonstrably unfit, given the seriousness of the offence, the lack of consideration for public interest, and errors in the sentencing judge’s reasoning regarding employment and immigration consequences.

The Court substituted a nine-month conditional sentence with strict conditions, followed by one year of probation.

The court considered whether Mohamed Siad should be designated a dangerous offender following a series of violent offences, primarily against intimate partners and family members.

After reviewing Siad’s history of escalating violence, repeated breaches of court orders, failed attempts at rehabilitation, and psychiatric evidence, the court found that Siad’s conduct was intractable and that he posed a high risk of future violence.

The court designated Siad a dangerous offender and imposed a global sentence of five years’ incarceration (after credit for pretrial custody), followed by a seven-year long-term supervision order, with ancillary orders including DNA and weapons prohibitions.

Nick Chrysostomou pled guilty to assault causing bodily harm after attacking a man with a hatchet during a road rage incident in Toronto.

The Court considered aggravating factors including the deliberate use of a weapon, the serious injury caused, and the public nature of the offence.

Mitigating factors included Chrysostomou’s lack of prior record, guilty plea, and rehabilitative potential.

The Court rejected a conditional discharge as contrary to public interest but imposed a 6-month Conditional Sentence Order with strict conditions, followed by 18 months probation, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, restraint, and rehabilitation.

L.C. pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm to his 13-year-old son, who suffered a broken clavicle after being pushed down stairs.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of four months home incarceration and 18 months probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for child abuse.

Defence sought a conditional discharge and 12 months probation, citing L.C.'s guilty plea, lack of prior record, and rehabilitative efforts.

The court denied a conditional discharge, finding it contrary to public interest given the seriousness of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence in child abuse cases.

A suspended sentence with a two-year probation order was imposed, along with a three-year firearms prohibition and a DNA sample order.

The court also considered the collateral consequences of restrictive bail conditions on the family.

The offender, Shane Springer, was sentenced following a trial where he was found to have caused significant head injuries to the complainant with a bag.

The Crown sought six months imprisonment and 24 months probation, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered sentencing principles, including proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, as well as aggravating factors (unprovoked attack, weapon use, lack of remorse, ongoing harm to victim) and mitigating factors (first offender, refugee claimant status, community contributions, positive pre-sentence report).

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to the severity of the assault and lack of remorse, imposing six months imprisonment and two years probation, noting the potential for deportation.

This judgment re-affirms a finding of guilt for assault causing bodily harm after the case was re-opened to hear new defence evidence.

The court had previously found the defendant guilty, and the defence sought to re-open the case after locating a new witness.

The new witness's testimony was found to be unreliable due to intoxication, marijuana use, and inconsistencies.

The court concluded that the defendant's response to the complainant's initial slap was an unreasonable and excessive use of force, not constituting self-defence, and re-affirmed the conviction.

The defendant, Hacar Khesro-Mohamed-Rasheed, brought an application to re-open his case after being found guilty of assault causing bodily harm.

The application sought to introduce new eyewitness evidence from Kelly Farkas, who was present during the altercation but was not located prior to trial.

The court applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence, considering admissibility, cogency, and due diligence.

Despite the proposed evidence being sparse, the court found it met the threshold for cogency and credibility, and that the defendant had demonstrated sufficient due diligence in attempting to locate the witness.

The application was granted, the finding of guilt was vacated, and the defence was permitted to call the new witness.

This is a sentencing decision for Zlalame Alemu, who was found guilty of multiple offences including assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, failing to comply with a release order, residential break and enter, mischief, and threatening a peace officer.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the serious nature of the injuries, the unprovoked attacks, and the accused's lengthy criminal record, including prior convictions for similar offences.

Mitigating factors included the accused's expression of remorse and his difficult life experiences, including systemic anti-Black racism and mental health issues, as detailed in a Pre-Sentence Report and an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report.

The court applied principles from R. v. Morris regarding anti-Black racism and R. v. Hills regarding conditions of incarceration.

While acknowledging the impact of systemic racism, the court found it did not significantly reduce moral culpability for these specific violent offences given the accused's recidivism and lack of engagement with past rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed a global sentence of 30 months, which, after applying credit for pre-sentence custody and substantial mitigation for incarceration conditions, resulted in one further day in custody, followed by a three-year probation order.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for a 39-year-old man convicted of assault causing bodily harm against his 67-year-old uncle.

The unprovoked attack resulted in significant injuries, including two knocked-out teeth and ongoing anxiety for the victim.

The court considered the Crown's request for a custodial sentence (4-6 months) and the defence's proposal for a conditional sentence.

Despite the seriousness of the offence and the victim's vulnerability, the court imposed an eight-month conditional sentence (four months house arrest), three years probation, restitution, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order, emphasizing the offender's lack of prior record, pro-social behaviour, and the principles of restraint and rehabilitation.

The Appellant, Romain Landu, appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm.

He raised five grounds of appeal, including that the trial judge erred by reversing the burden of proof on self-defence, misapprehending material evidence, failing to consider significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, applying different standards of scrutiny to the evidence, and concluding without evidence that the appellant was not in shock during a 911 call.

The appeal court dismissed all grounds, finding that the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof, made findings of fact entitled to deference, adequately addressed inconsistencies, and did not engage in uneven scrutiny or stereotypical thinking in assessing credibility.

The accused, an Indigenous person, pleaded guilty to multiple criminal offences, including assault causing bodily harm to a police officer, breaches of court orders, and drug/weapon possession.

The court considered Gladue factors, the accused's history of trauma and addiction, and the collateral consequences of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence, while the defence sought time served.

The court imposed a global sentence of 44 months, applying a 1.5:1 pre-sentence custody credit (35 months) and an additional 3-month mitigation credit for pandemic conditions, resulting in 6 months of new custody.

The court declined to impose a probation order, citing the accused's history of breaches and the Gladue principles.

The defendants, Jamal and Jamis Yusuf, sought to reopen their trial after conviction for assault causing bodily harm and forcible confinement, and subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada.

The application was based on a new affidavit from co-accused Aziz Pauls, who did not testify at trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed evidence failed to meet the credibility and impact requirements of the test for reopening a trial after conviction, particularly given the strong video evidence and prior judicial findings.

The appellant, A.G., appealed convictions for assault causing bodily harm and the imposed sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge reasonably inferred the appellant's participation and encouragement in the assault as a joint principal, noting common participation in a continuing event.

The court also upheld the sentence, concluding that the appellant's failure to plead guilty and express contrition, unlike co-accused, justified a more onerous sentence.

Both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal were dismissed.