Assault causing bodily harm

The offender was convicted of assault causing bodily harm after sucker-punching his supervisor at work, causing life-altering injuries.

The court considered the offender's escalating criminal record for violence, lack of remorse, and the severe impact on the victim.

A conditional sentence was deemed inappropriate due to the high risk to the community.

The offender was sentenced to 10 months in custody followed by two years of probation.

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to human trafficking, receiving a financial benefit from trafficking, unlawful confinement, assault causing bodily harm, and attempted procurement arising from the exploitation of vulnerable sex trade workers.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as the dominant sentencing objectives, emphasized extreme coercion, control, violence, addiction-related vulnerability, and degrading treatment of the principal victim, and applied the Tang and Lopez sentencing considerations for trafficking offences.

The court accepted Summers credit for pre-sentence custody and granted a reduced Duncan credit for harsh remand conditions and repeated lockdowns, while declining to credit all lockdown days on a one-to-one basis.

A global penitentiary sentence of six years was imposed, reduced by 1740 days of credit, leaving a net sentence of 450 days from the date of sentence, together with ancillary DNA, firearms, and non-communication orders.

The accused faced charges of assault, criminal harassment, and assault causing bodily harm arising from two separate incidents involving a neighbour dispute over an allegedly illegal basement apartment.

In the first incident, the accused intentionally sprayed a tenant with a water hose while uttering racial slurs.

In the second incident, the accused confronted the landlord's son over the use of a garage, pushed him to the ground, and repeatedly punched him, causing a facial fracture.

The court dismissed the criminal harassment charge as the Crown failed to prove repeated unwanted communication, but found the accused guilty of both assault and assault causing bodily harm, rejecting his claims of self-defence and defence of property.

The accused and the complainant engaged in a consensual physical fight at a car wash over a perceived line-cutting incident.

During the altercation, the complainant grabbed and pulled out two of the accused's dreadlocks.

In response, the accused used a key on his keyring to strike the complainant, causing a puncture wound.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The court found that the consensual fight ended when the complainant pulled the accused's hair, causing bodily harm, and that the accused's use of the key was a reasonable and proportionate response in self-defence.

The Crown failed to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused, a bicycle courier, was charged with assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and mischief under $5,000 following a road rage altercation with a motorist.

After the accused crossed an intersection against a red light and kicked the motorist's car, the motorist exited his vehicle and aggressively confronted the accused.

The accused struck the motorist's raised hand with a bicycle lock and pulled him to the ground.

The court acquitted the accused of mischief due to a lack of evidence that his kick caused the alleged damage.

The court also acquitted the accused of the assault charges, finding that the Crown failed to disprove self-defence under s. 34 of the Criminal Code, as the accused reasonably feared for his safety and his response was proportionate.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm after a playground altercation involving his son and a group of older children.

The Crown alleged the accused grabbed and twisted the arm of a child who was running away, causing a buckle fracture to her wrist.

The accused denied touching the child, testifying she fell while running.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the Crown witnesses' evidence had frailties and inconsistencies.

Furthermore, medical evidence indicated the fracture was most likely caused by a forward fall rather than a twisting motion.

The court was left with a reasonable doubt regarding both the commission of the assault and causation, resulting in an acquittal.

The accused was charged with assaulting his common law partner causing bodily harm, and assaulting and threatening his child.

The trial involved conflicting evidence, including testimony and videotaped statements from two child witnesses, and testimony from the accused.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility.

The court rejected the accused's testimony and relied on the videotaped statement of one child, corroborated by circumstantial evidence including photographs of injuries and the victim's unresponsiveness.

The accused was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm against his partner, but acquitted of the charges relating to the child.

Sentencing decision following convictions for sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, and assault arising from a long-term pattern of exploitation and abuse that began when the complainant was a teenage athlete and the offender was her coach.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as predominant, relying on the modern sentencing approach for sexual offences against children and recognizing the aggravating features of breach of trust, exploitation, domestic violence, humiliation, and lasting psychological harm.

The court also considered mitigating factors including the offender's youth at the time of the sexual assault, lengthy law-abiding period, harsh extrajudicial consequences, and extended bail period.

A global custodial sentence of 45 months was imposed, together with mandatory and ancillary orders.

Following a multi-count criminal trial arising from intimate partner violence over a single weekend, the court found the accused guilty of sexual assault, mischief under $5,000, assault, and assault causing bodily harm.

The central issue was whether the complainant’s active participation in oral and vaginal sex in a parked car constituted voluntary consent after recent assaults, yelling, and coercive control within the relationship.

Applying the governing consent principles, the court held that submission, resignation, and an attempt to 'make the best of it' did not amount to free and voluntary agreement, and that the accused knew the complainant was not consenting.

The court also rejected any air of reality to an honest but mistaken belief in consent and found the accused responsible for related property damage and the earlier assaults.

The offender was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm after striking her nephew in the head with a beer bottle in an unprovoked attack.

The Crown sought 21 to 30 days of imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended or conditional sentence.

The court reviewed the principles of sentencing and the criteria for a conditional sentence, concluding that the seriousness of the unprovoked, weapon-based assault required actual incarceration to satisfy denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to 21 days in jail followed by two years of probation.

The accused, a police officer, was charged with assault causing bodily harm following the arrest of an intoxicated suspect.

The officer used a 'grounding' technique, resulting in a facial laceration to the suspect.

The court reviewed video evidence and found that the suspect was compliant at the time force was applied, contradicting the officer's testimony that the suspect was reaching for his waist.

The court concluded the use of force was unnecessary, disproportionate, and unlawful, and that the resulting injury constituted bodily harm.

The accused was found guilty.

The appellant appealed convictions for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm arising from a nightclub attack in which the victim was choked and struck in the face with a bottle.

He argued that the trial judge improperly treated his utterances to police, applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence of a key Crown witness and the defence, and misapprehended aspects of the evidence.

The court held that the impugned utterances were used only to assess the credibility of the appellant's claim that he was acting as a peacemaker, that no uneven scrutiny was shown, and that any alleged misapprehensions were peripheral rather than material.

The appeal was dismissed.

On a summary conviction appeal from convictions for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm arising from a nightclub altercation, the appellant challenged both the adequacy of the trial reasons and the reasonableness of the verdict.

The court held that the trial judge failed to explain how exculpatory eyewitness evidence was treated, failed to explain how equivocal recognition evidence from grainy surveillance video established identity, and referred to legal doctrines that had no clear application to the evidentiary record.

After independently reviewing the surveillance footage and the totality of the evidence, the court concluded that no properly instructed trier could reasonably find identity proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and acquittals were entered.

The accused was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm against his newborn son, who sustained multiple serious fractures within the first 30 days of life.

The Crown sought 18 months of custody, while the defence proposed a non-custodial or intermittent sentence.

Emphasizing the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence in child abuse cases, the court sentenced the accused to 12 months in custody followed by 2 years of probation, noting his lack of a criminal record and positive prospects for rehabilitation.

The young person accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm following a consensual fist fight with another youth.

The fight resulted in the complainant losing two front teeth.

The court analyzed the law on consent in fist fights, applying the Supreme Court's decisions in Jobidon and Paice.

The court found that the accused intended to cause non-trivial bodily harm and did in fact cause such harm, thereby vitiating any consent to the fight.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was tried on charges of assault, assault causing bodily harm, and sexual assault against his spouse.

The case turned primarily on credibility, as the complainant was the only Crown witness and the accused denied all allegations while calling his mother as a defence witness.

Applying the W.(D.) credibility framework, the court rejected the accused’s testimony as inconsistent and implausible, and found the complainant’s evidence reliable despite delayed reporting and inconsistencies related to her extramarital affair.

The court concluded that the accused assaulted the complainant in July 2008, caused bodily harm by beating her in August 2008 resulting in a fractured tailbone, and later forced anal intercourse without consent.

The accused was convicted on all three counts.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after his infant son sustained multiple severe injuries within the first 30 days of life, including a torn frenulum, a bruised cheek, and multiple rib and leg fractures.

Medical evidence established that the injuries required significant force and could not have been self-inflicted or caused by a toddler.

The accused admitted to handling the child roughly and provided explanations that were inconsistent with the medical evidence.

The court found that the accused caused the injuries but concluded that the evidence best supported a conviction for the included offence of assault causing bodily harm, as the Crown proved objective foreseeability of the risk of bodily harm.

The accused was charged with assaulting his girlfriend with a broomstick and breaching a recognizance.

Police responded to a 911 call and found the victim hiding in a washroom with a piece of wood embedded in her hand.

Both the accused and the victim testified that an unknown stranger committed the attack in the hallway.

The court rejected their evidence as absurd and internally inconsistent, finding the accused guilty of the assault charges based on circumstantial evidence, but acquitted him of the breach charge.

The accused was sentenced to 12 months in jail (reduced by 4 months for pre-trial custody) and three years of probation.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and possession of a weapon following a road rage incident.

The accused and the complainant provided conflicting accounts of the altercation, with each claiming the other was the aggressor.

The court rejected the accused's evidence and accepted the complainant's account, corroborated by an independent witness and video evidence, that the accused was the aggressor.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally used a sharp-edged weapon to cut the complainant's shoulder.

The defence of self-defence was rejected as the accused provoked the assault.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm, assault, and possession of marijuana following an altercation at an after-bar party.

He pleaded guilty to the drug charge.

At trial for the assaults, the Crown witnesses testified that the accused grabbed the first victim by the hair, forced her head to the pavement, and then punched the second victim when she intervened.

The accused and his mother testified that the first victim fell while he was pulling her purse and that he punched the second victim in self-defence after she kicked him.

The court rejected the defence evidence as concocted and unbelievable, applied the W.D. test for credibility, and found the accused guilty on all counts.