Assault causing bodily harm

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm against a child in his care.

The accused sought production of notes made by the child's foster mother (H.N.) a few days after the alleged assault.

H.N. had prepared these notes at the request of her family lawyer to obtain legal advice regarding custody proceedings.

The notes were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The court rejected the accused's argument that H.N. waived privilege by seeking to refresh her memory from the notes prior to trial.

The court applied a flexible, principled approach to determine whether implied waiver occurred, balancing the probative value of the document against the prejudicial effect of breaching solicitor-client privilege.

The application for production was dismissed.

The Crown charged the defendant with assault causing bodily harm, possession of a firearm and ammunition, possession of controlled substances, and failure to comply with release conditions.

The Crown's case relied on DNA evidence linking the defendant to items found in a vehicle that fled the scene of a stabbing at a bar.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove all counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence regarding the assault was insufficient as the knife blade and handle were not properly linked to the incident, and there was no evidence connecting the victim identified through DNA to the person assisted by the bar owner.

The possession counts failed because DNA evidence alone, showing the defendant's profile among multiple contributors on items, could not establish possession on the date alleged.

No evidence was presented on the failure to comply counts.

All charges were dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm, unnecessary injury to a dog, and two counts of assault against his former girlfriend over a period spanning April 2017 to August 2018.

The offences occurred in the context of a domestic relationship characterized by escalating violence, control, humiliation, and threats.

The offender failed to attend multiple sentencing dates and did not cooperate with the presentence report process.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 16 months less presentence custody, apportioned consecutively across the four counts, along with an 18-month probation order with conditions including no contact with the victim, participation in domestic violence programming, and prohibition on animal ownership.

The offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm and unlawfully being in a dwelling house arising from an incident where he struck a victim in the head in the victim's home, causing unconsciousness, laceration, and concussion.

The offender also pleaded guilty to two counts of failure to appear in court and three counts relating to possession of brass knuckles while subject to weapons prohibition orders.

The court imposed a sentence of eight months' incarceration for the assault (less five months pre-sentence custody credit), resulting in three additional months of custody, concurrent three months for unlawful dwelling, and 30 days consecutive for weapons possession.

The court also imposed three years' probation with protective conditions for the victim.

The sentencing was influenced by COVID-19 pandemic considerations, the offender's prior violent criminal record, and his personal trauma from his father's suicide.

The offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm and failing to comply with a term of a recognizance.

The assault involved striking a vulnerable 66-year-old woman with an extremely low IQ in the face, causing significant bruising and swelling.

Days after release on bail, the offender breached a no-contact condition by approaching the victim.

The court imposed a sentence of 21 months imprisonment followed by 3 years probation, with credit for 305 days of pre-sentence custody at the 1.5:1 ratio plus an additional 5 months credit for harsh detention conditions at Toronto South Detention Centre, resulting in 1 month remaining to serve.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a non-communication order.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm to his four-month-old infant daughter.

The Crown's case was based primarily on circumstantial evidence, including medical evidence of a skull fracture, four rib fractures, and a metatarsal fracture.

The accused initially provided a false explanation for the skull fracture (a fall from a change table) and later suggested to the child's mother that he may have caused injuries through a medical exercise.

The defence argued the Crown failed to prove exclusive opportunity and that the medical evidence could not establish when the injuries occurred.

The court found that while the accused did not have exclusive opportunity to cause the injuries, and while the evidence was circumstantial, there remained reasonable doubt as to guilt.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused, a 16-year-old youth, was charged with assaulting a pregnant woman causing bodily harm during a family celebration.

The Crown alleged the accused punched and kicked the complainant.

The accused testified he only slapped the complainant in self-defence after she pushed and hit him.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness whose testimony was consistent with photographic evidence of her injuries.

The accused's testimony contained multiple inconsistencies and his post-offence conduct of leaving without his shoes suggested consciousness of guilt.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

A boxing coach was charged with assault causing bodily harm after sparring with his 13-year-old student, who sustained a concussion.

The court examined whether the coach's conduct exceeded the student's implied consent to contact within the sport of boxing.

Despite evidence that the coach struck the student multiple times and the student suffered a concussion, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct constituted criminal assault.

The court noted the lack of expert evidence regarding boxing rules, inconsistencies in witness testimony, and the possibility that the student's injury resulted from contact with another sparring partner.

The accused was acquitted.

A youthful first offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm after throwing a glass of beer at a stranger during an altercation at a bar, causing a laceration requiring four stitches.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation and a conviction, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The sentencing judge imposed a conditional discharge with two years' probation, finding that the exceptional circumstances of the case—including the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, significant rehabilitative efforts undertaken after being charged, and the disproportionate impact a conviction would have on her employment prospects in the security field and future career aspirations—warranted a discharge despite the violent nature of the offence.

The accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm following a trial.

The offence occurred when the accused, provoked by serious racial slurs directed at him by the victim and another individual, attended a restaurant with two other males and engaged in a violent altercation that resulted in significant injuries to the victim.

The court balanced competing sentencing objectives: general deterrence and denunciation against rehabilitation and restraint principles applicable to a youthful first offender.

The court imposed a conditional sentence rather than incarceration, finding that the provocation and the offender's positive background and prospects for rehabilitation warranted a community-based disposition with onerous conditions.

A young person was charged with four counts arising from a stabbing incident in a school parking lot, including assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and weapons dangerous.

The Crown relied on testimony from the complainant, a witness, and the complainant's mother.

The defendant was alleged to have aided an adult perpetrator under section 21(1)(b) of the Criminal Code or to have acted pursuant to a common purpose under section 21(2).

The court found the Crown's evidence unreliable and insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Critical evidence, including the alleged weapon (a taser baton), was never recovered by police.

The court acquitted the defendant on all charges.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm following an altercation at a nightclub on Halloween.

The accused struck the complainant in the face with a glass she was holding, causing a laceration requiring 18 stitches.

The accused claimed she responded reflexively to a punch thrown by the complainant.

The court found there was an air of reality to the claim of consensual fight and determined the Crown failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to inflict bodily harm.

The accused's instantaneous reflexive response, the fact that she too was injured by the broken glass, and the absence of any deliberate throwing of the glass supported her account.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon after striking the complainant on the back of the head with a drinking glass at a bar.

The accused claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while there was an air of reality to the self-defence claim based on the accused's evidence regarding her anxiety and prior abusive relationships, the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the force used was not reasonable in the circumstances.

The accused's response was grossly disproportionate to the threat posed.

The accused was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm, with the assault with a weapon charge stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

Sentencing was adjourned.

The accused was convicted after trial of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm following a stabbing incident at a bar.

The Crown sought 15-18 months imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence for assault with a weapon and a 15-month conditional sentence for assault causing bodily harm, to be served consecutively, along with a one-year probation term.

A weapons prohibition and DNA order were also imposed.

The conviction for possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace was stayed.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm to his former common-law spouse.

The Crown alleged that the accused intentionally slammed a washing machine door on the complainant's finger, causing a tear requiring five stitches.

The court found that while the accused deliberately slammed the door out of frustration during an argument, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to catch the complainant's finger or was reckless as to whether the door would injure her.

The accused was acquitted due to reasonable doubt regarding the element of intent.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm following a road rage incident on the Queen Elizabeth Way in Oakville.

The accused punched the victim in the face, fracturing a cheekbone and chipping a tooth.

The accused claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code, asserting the victim ran at him with intent to attack.

The court found the accused's evidence inconsistent with that of independent witnesses and internally implausible.

The court determined the Crown proved all essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt and that the self-defence provisions did not apply.

The accused was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, assault causing bodily harm, and mischief under $5,000 following an incident on a farm.

The Crown alleged the defendant drove his vehicle into the complainant's truck, struck a hydro pole, and then assaulted the complainant.

The defendant claimed the complainant was intoxicated, responsible for hitting the pole, and that any physical contact was in self-defence.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to his state of intoxication and could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged offences.

All charges were dismissed.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm contrary to section 267 of the Criminal Code.

The incident arose from a parking dispute in a laneway outside a Chinese food restaurant in Whitby.

After an argument and physical confrontation, the defendant punched the complainant in the face, causing him to lose two teeth and have one chipped.

The defendant claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the defendant guilty, rejecting the self-defence claim as the defendant's actions were an unreasonable over-reaction to a minor struggle and did not constitute a proportionate response to any perceived threat.

A Toronto Police Service officer was charged with assault causing bodily harm against a member of the public.

The Crown alleged the officer used excessive force and made an unlawful arrest for public intoxication.

The defence argued the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the complainant was intoxicated and posed a safety risk, and that any force used was necessary to effect a lawful arrest.

The court found the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the complainant was intoxicated, that there was a risk to safety, and that arrest was necessary.

The court also found the officer was entitled to the defence of honest mistake of fact.

The charge was dismissed.

Sentencing decision following conviction of two accused for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm against a young child with sickle cell anemia.

The accused inflicted repeated physical abuse including whipping with a belt, resulting in significant scarring.

The court imposed custodial sentences of 9 months for the mother and 5 months for the co-accused, finding that non-custodial sentences would be inadequate given the severity of abuse, the vulnerability of the victim, the positions of trust held by the accused, and the complete absence of remorse or insight demonstrated by either accused.