Assault with a weapon

The accused, experiencing a severe mental health crisis and auditory hallucinations, called 911 to falsely report she had committed a murder.

When police arrived, she held a box-cutter to her own throat.

An officer reached in to prevent her suicide, and the accused slashed downwards to keep him away, severely cutting his hand.

The court acquitted her of public mischief and carrying a concealed weapon due to lack of requisite intent.

However, she was found guilty of the included offences of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, as the application of force was intentional and bodily harm was objectively foreseeable, though she lacked knowledge that the victim was a police officer.

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 sexual assault, assault with a weapon, and mischief against his spouse.

The complainant alleged she was sexually assaulted while heavily intoxicated and later assaulted with a cell phone during an argument.

The court acquitted the accused of sexual assault, finding reasonable doubt regarding the complainant's capacity and consent due to her intoxication and uncertain memory.

The court convicted the accused of assault with a weapon based on the complainant's credible testimony and corroborating photographic evidence of a bruise.

The mischief charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt about intent.

The accused was tried on multiple counts of assault with a weapon, sexual assault, and assault arising from alleged incidents within a marriage.

The court reviewed the complainant's testimony, prior statements, documentary communications, and supporting witnesses, and applied the W.(D.) framework together with the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

While recognizing that impermissible myths and stereotypes cannot govern the assessment of sexual assault evidence, the court found material inconsistencies and reliability concerns in the complainant's account on critical details, and found the supporting evidence insufficient to cure those concerns.

The accused's evidence, viewed in the context of the whole record, at minimum raised a reasonable doubt.

Findings of not guilty were entered on all counts.

The appellant appealed convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon arising from a knife attack on one complainant, and also appealed sentence.

He argued that the trial judge failed to properly consider prior inconsistent police statements, unevenly scrutinized defence and complainant evidence, and neglected a self-defence theory.

He further contended that the sentencing judge failed to meaningfully apply Gladue principles despite the appellant's Aboriginal heritage.

The Court of Appeal rejected all grounds, found the credibility analysis fair, held the self-defence argument had in substance been addressed, and concluded the sentencing judge properly considered s. 718.2(e), the Gladue report, and relevant sentencing authorities.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of assault with a weapon after attacking his adoptive parents.

Following psychiatric assessments, the trial judge found the appellant not criminally responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder, likely schizophrenia.

The appellant appealed the NCR verdict, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel's strategy was professional and caused no prejudice, and that the NCR verdict was well-supported by the evidence of the appellant's mental decline, bizarre behaviour, and expert testimony.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and pointing a firearm after a confrontation with another individual in a fast‑food drive‑through.

Evidence showed the accused possessed a pellet pistol capable of discharging projectiles at velocities exceeding the threshold for serious bodily harm.

Applying the W.(D.) credibility framework, the court rejected the accused’s denial that he pointed the gun.

However, the court found reasonable doubt regarding whether the accused committed an assault or possessed the weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The court held that a pellet gun may constitute a firearm for Criminal Code offences even if it is not operational at the moment due to an empty compressed air cylinder.