Assault causing bodily harm

A police constable was charged with assault causing bodily harm after an altercation with an individual he was attempting to re-apprehend under the Mental Health Act.

The court found that while the officer was justified in the initial apprehension, the subsequent use of force, specifically four closed-fist strikes to the individual's face while he was on the ground and largely defenceless, was excessive and disproportionate.

The court found the officer's testimony inconsistent and concluded that the force was used out of frustration and annoyance rather than genuine safety concerns.

The officer was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm.

This criminal trial concerned James Hutchinson, charged with seven offences including assault causing bodily harm, forcible confinement of children, and choking an adult.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, including the adult complainant and the children via transcribed statements, and the defendant.

The adult complainant's evidence was found unreliable due to alcohol consumption and inconsistencies.

The defendant's evidence was largely accepted as credible.

The court found the defendant guilty of assault causing bodily harm against one child due to excessive force (leaving bruises), three counts of forcible confinement of the children in a cold cellar (deemed excessive discipline), and one count of assault by choking the adult complainant, despite the defendant's claim of attempting to ensure her safety.

The defendant was acquitted of two counts of assault causing bodily harm against the other two children due to insufficient evidence of unreasonable force or injury.

J.W. was found guilty by a jury on six counts including choking to overcome resistance to sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, and forcible confinement, stemming from a domestic relationship between 2013-2015.

The court, in its reasons for sentence, considered the serious and ongoing nature of the abuse, its profound impact on the victim, and the aggravating factor of domestic partner abuse.

Despite mitigating factors such as no prior criminal record and strong community support, the court found a conditional sentence inappropriate due to the gravity of the offences.

The total sentence imposed was six years incarceration, with specific terms for each count, and ancillary orders including a non-communication order, DNA order, lifetime firearms prohibition, and a 20-year Sexual Offender Information Registry order.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced the defendant for assault causing bodily harm.

The defendant, who had no prior criminal record, assaulted the victim on a public transit bus, causing a fractured arm and significant emotional and financial hardship.

Despite admitting the assault during trial, the defendant's admission was not considered equivalent to a guilty plea for sentencing mitigation.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court, applying principles of denunciation and deterrence, found a conditional sentence too severe and a conditional discharge inappropriate given the gravity of the offence and the defendant's blameworthiness.

A suspended sentence with two years of probation, including anger management and community service, along with a DNA order and weapons prohibition, was imposed.

The appellant, Waqar Ali, appealed his convictions for two counts of sexual assault and one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sought leave to appeal his global sentence of 22 months.

The appeal raised issues concerning an alleged s.11(b) Charter delay, the trial judge's decision to grant a similar fact application, the assessment of DNA evidence, and the credibility assessment of the appellant's testimony regarding his vehicle.

On sentence, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding a breach of trust as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, upholding both the conviction and the sentence, finding no errors in principle or demonstrably unfit sentence.

Robert Patterson was charged with assault causing bodily harm.

He claimed self-defence, arguing he was defending himself from the complainant who had entered his home.

The court found that while there was an "air of reality" to the self-defence claim, the defendant's subjective belief that force was being used or threatened was not credible, nor was it objectively reasonable.

Furthermore, his conduct was not for the purpose of self-defence and was unreasonable in the circumstances, particularly the continued stabbing after the complainant fell.

The defendant was found guilty.

This criminal trial concerned charges of voyeurism, unlawfully distributing an intimate video, assault causing bodily harm, and criminal harassment.

The complainant alleged the defendant took non-consensual intimate videos and photographs, distributed one such video, and engaged in assault and harassment.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible regarding non-consensual recording of intimate images, leading to convictions for voyeurism.

However, the Crown failed to prove the distribution of the intimate video due to lack of admissible evidence on how it was obtained by a third party.

The assault charge was dismissed, as the defendant's actions in retrieving his property were deemed a reasonable defence of property under the Criminal Code, and the injury was accidental.

The criminal harassment charge was also dismissed, as the complainant's actions did not demonstrate a fear for her safety despite the use of a tracking device.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm, forcible confinement, and mischief following a domestic incident.

The court found the defendant guilty of assault causing bodily harm and mischief, but not guilty of forcible confinement.

The incident involved the defendant forcing open a bedroom door, preventing the complainant from leaving the apartment, and biting her during a struggle over a kitchen knife, which resulted in a cut hand requiring stitches.

The court rejected the defendant's claim of self-defence regarding the knife struggle, finding his actions constituted assault and that the damage to the door was intentional mischief.

The Crown sought leave to appeal the nine-month imprisonment sentence and three years probation imposed on the respondent for assault causing bodily harm and uttering a threat.

The Crown argued the sentencing judge erred in principle by not properly considering denunciation and deterrence, and that the sentence was unfit.

The Court of Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and concluding the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, despite being at the lower end for the offence.

The appellant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm, having claimed self-defence at trial.

The trial judge rejected the self-defence claim, finding the appellant was the aggressor.

The appellant appealed the conviction, alleging legal errors in the application of self-defence provisions under s. 34 of the Criminal Code and a failure to give adequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's holistic examination of the self-defence claim, concluding that the appellant armed himself and initiated the confrontation with an aggressive intent, not for self-defence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was abandoned.

The accused, Matthew Picanco, was sentenced for simple assault and assault causing bodily harm.

The court identified several aggravating circumstances, including the accused's underlying bias and racist attitudes towards the complainants (international students and persons of colour), his lack of remorse and insight into his offending conduct, and his failure to comply with pre-sentence report appointments.

The assault causing bodily harm resulted in a serious facial fracture.

The Crown sought a 14-18 month jail sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional or intermittent sentence.

The court imposed a global sentence of eight months in real jail, followed by two years of probation, a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and non-contact orders with the victims.

This is an appeal by Amadin Asemota from his conviction for assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon.

The appellant alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, citing various failures including inadequate disclosure review, failure to pursue Charter violations (stolen chain, strip search), improper advice on immigration consequences, breach of the Browne v. Dunn rule, and failure to locate witnesses.

The court found that the appellant failed to establish the factual basis for most of his claims and that trial counsel's conduct did not amount to incompetence.

The court emphasized the deference owed to counsel's strategic decisions, especially given the appellant's uncooperative behaviour and late disclosure of information.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld as safe.

The Crown brought a motion for a mental health assessment of the accused, who had pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm.

The assessment was sought under sections 672.11(b) and 672.12(3)(b) of the Criminal Code to determine if the accused was exempt from criminal responsibility due to a mental disorder under section 16(1).

The accused opposed the application, arguing his psychotic episodes were drug-induced.

The court, reviewing a psychiatric assessment, found reasonable grounds to doubt the accused's criminal responsibility on account of a mental disorder, noting that a diagnosis of "Psychosis Not Otherwise Specified" suggested a potential underlying mental health issue beyond drug-induced psychosis.

The court granted the Crown's application, ordering the assessment.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of assault and assault with a weapon against his intimate partner, stemming from incidents on November 25, 2018, and June 19, 2019.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable, corroborated by medical records and photographs, accepting her explanations for prior inconsistent statements due to the context of intimate partner violence.

The accused's self-defence claim for the November 25, 2018 incident was rejected as his use of force was disproportionate and unreasonable, particularly given the history of abuse.

The accused was found guilty of assault and assault with a weapon for the June 19, 2019 incident, and guilty of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm for the November 25, 2018 incident.

Paul Tranter, a Staff Sergeant with the Waterloo Police Service, was charged with assault causing bodily harm to Jamie McFadyen during a booking process.

The defense argued the force used was justified under section 25 of the Criminal Code to prevent injury to another officer.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the force used was objectively unnecessary, unreasonable, or disproportionate, considering the volatile circumstances and the perceived threat to the officer.

Tranter was found not guilty.

The appellant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm after a jury trial.

The complainant, who was in a long-term relationship with the appellant, recanted her initial allegations at the preliminary hearing and trial.

The appeal raised three grounds: the trial judge's failure to instruct the jury on prior consistent statements, the admission of prior disreputable conduct evidence, and the admission of the complainant's police statement for the truth of its contents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's instructions or evidentiary rulings, particularly regarding the principled exception to hearsay and the use of prior bad acts to understand the relationship.

The accused, Attaul Raheem Ahmad, was charged with assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon against his mother.

The mother testified for the Crown, describing a violent, prolonged beating.

The accused testified in his own defence, offering inconsistent explanations for his mother's extensive injuries, including speculative falls.

The court found the mother's testimony consistent and corroborated by photographic evidence of her severe bruising, while rejecting the accused's unreliable and changing account.

The court found the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Barjot Minhas pleaded guilty to one count of assault causing bodily harm and one count of aggravated assault after stabbing two individuals at a house party.

The court considered the serious nature of the injuries, the use of a concealed knife, and the multiple instances of violence as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, first-offender status, positive pre-sentence report, remorse, and compliance with bail conditions.

The court also considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on conditions of custody.

Applying sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a global sentence of 18 months custody followed by 2 years probation, along with ancillary orders.

The accused, Mylo Barreto, was charged with assault causing bodily harm, robbery, and unlawful confinement against Allan Howe, his landlord.

The incident arose from a rent dispute and pending eviction.

Howe testified to a prolonged, violent attack by Barreto and two friends, resulting in significant injuries and theft of money.

Barreto admitted causing injuries but claimed self-defence, denying the involvement of his friends, confinement, or theft.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses and the validity of the self-defence claim.

The court found Howe's testimony compelling and corroborated by physical evidence, while Barreto's self-defence claim was inconsistent with the extensive injuries inflicted and lacked credibility.

The court rejected Barreto's evidence and found the Crown proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rodney John Love pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm.

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

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of excessive force with a golf club causing injury, and mitigating factors, such as the offender being a first-time offender, his remorse, acceptance of responsibility, a positive pre-sentence report, and proactive steps in anger management and sobriety.

The court also considered the collateral consequence of a conviction preventing the offender from coaching hockey.

Applying sentencing principles, including proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restraint, the court determined that a conditional discharge with 2 years probation was in the offender's best interest and not contrary to the public interest, given the totality of circumstances.