Assault causing bodily harm

The accused was tried on multiple charges including assault causing bodily harm and weapons offences following a violent altercation.

The accused claimed he was acting in self-defence after being attacked by two men.

The court rejected the self-defence claim, finding the accused initiated the confrontation out of jealousy, armed himself with a metal pipe and a rock, and used excessive force for an offensive purpose.

The court found the accused guilty of assault causing bodily harm against three victims, as well as weapons and breach of probation offences.

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.

The accused, a Toronto Police Service officer, was charged with assault causing bodily harm after performing an uncontrolled take down of a cyclist during a traffic stop.

The cyclist had run a red light and was arrested for failing to identify himself under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found that while the arrest was lawful, the officer pushed the cyclist face down to the ground out of frustration and annoyance, not out of any genuine safety concern.

The force used was deemed excessive, unreasonable, and disproportionate to the circumstances, resulting in a finding of guilt.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and breach of probation in a domestic violence context.

The court noted the accused's lengthy history of non-compliance and high risk of violent recidivism.

The court sentenced the accused to 36 months of custody in addition to 99 days of pre-sentence custody credit, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a non-communication order with the victim.

Following an encounter in apartment building elevators and hallways, the accused was tried on charges of robbery, aggravated sexual assault by wounding, aggravated assault by wounding, and forcible confinement.

The court held the taking of the complainant's phone did not involve more than incidental contact and therefore did not amount to robbery, but did constitute theft.

Applying the objective sexual-assault analysis, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the stairwell interaction established a sexual or carnal context, and it rejected the aggravated sexual assault charge.

The facial bite injuries did not amount to wounding in law, but supported a conviction for assault causing bodily harm.

The Crown also failed to prove forcible confinement beyond a reasonable doubt.

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.