Self-defence

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Robert Ashley Williams from his conviction for second degree murder.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by not leaving the partial defence of provocation with the jury and by misdirecting the jury on the defence of self-defence.

The court found that the evidence did not support leaving provocation with the jury, as the appellant's actions made the victim's response foreseeable and there was no air of reality to the loss of self-control or suddenness elements.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's self-defence instructions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused, Alexander Campbell and Tyler Josling, were charged with manslaughter after restraining Frank Harbalis during a violent incident at a restaurant.

The court considered whether the force used, including a chokehold, was excessive and outside the scope of lawful self-defence or defence of others.

The court found that while a brief chokehold was applied, the actions of the accused were not unreasonable in the circumstances, given the sudden and dangerous situation.

Both were acquitted.

The appellant, Justin Williams, appealed his conviction for assault, arguing that the trial judge made unreasonable findings of fact or credibility and misapprehended his evidence.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge’s findings were open to him on the record, that there was no palpable and overriding error, and that the trial judge provided comprehensive reasons for rejecting the defences of consent and self-defence.

The appeal was dismissed.

This appeal concerns the sufficiency of reasons provided by a trial judge in a conviction for assault causing bodily harm.

The appellant, Sarah Bannon, argued that the trial judge failed to address or analyze the defence of self-defence, which was the central issue at trial.

The Superior Court found that the trial judge’s reasons did not mention self-defence or the relevant legal framework, preventing meaningful appellate review.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

This case involves charges of assault causing bodily harm against Mathew Kinsella and Alexandria Skeffington arising from a violent altercation on October 2, 2022.

The court analyzed video evidence and witness testimony, including the defendants' claims of self-defence and defence of another under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The judge found the complainants' testimonies unreliable due to intoxication and inconsistencies, while accepting Ms. Skeffington's credible testimony.

Applying the Supreme Court's recent guidance on self-defence, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants' actions were unlawful, resulting in dismissal of all charges.

The court acquitted TM of all charges, including assault, sexual assault, and assault with a weapon, after a judge-alone trial.

The decision turned on significant credibility and reliability concerns with the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies, omissions, and changes over time, as well as a lack of corroboration.

The court also found that the evidence supported a plausible case of self-defence in relation to the alleged assault causing bodily harm to CW.

The ruling provides a detailed analysis of the law on credibility, reasonable doubt, and self-defence, and addresses the impact of trauma and racial context on the assessment of post-offence conduct.

The appellant, Mustafa Ahmed, was convicted of second degree murder following a judge-alone trial.

The case involved a fatal shooting during a bar altercation, captured on CCTV.

The trial judge rejected Ahmed’s claims of self-defence and provocation, finding his testimony not credible or reliable.

On appeal, Ahmed argued that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in assessing the CCTV evidence and misapplied the law regarding his subjective beliefs.

The Court of Appeal found no such errors and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Malcolm Copeland’s appeal from his conviction for second degree murder.

The appeal centered on whether the trial judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the partial defence of provocation.

The court held that there was no air of reality to the defence of provocation, as the evidence did not support that Copeland lost self-control and acted on the sudden before his passion could cool.

The court found that the evidence was consistent with self-defence, not provocation, and that the trial judge properly applied the law.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Osama Filli’s appeal from his conviction for manslaughter in the stabbing death of Nahom Berhane.

Filli, who was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder after trial, challenged the trial judge’s findings on self-defence, the use of mental health evidence, and the reasonableness of the verdict.

The appellate court found no error in the trial judge’s assessment of the threat, the opportunity to retreat, or the use of mental health evidence, and held that the verdict was supported by the evidence and reasoning.

This decision addresses charges against Muhammed Batchilly for assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon contrary to a release order under the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Batchilly assaulted a person with a weapon, it did prove he possessed a knife in breach of his release conditions.

The judgment carefully analyzes witness credibility, reliability, and the essential elements of assault with a weapon, including the requirement that the victim reasonably apprehend the accused's present ability to effect their purpose.

The court also considers the defence of self-defence but finds it unnecessary to rule on it due to insufficient evidence on a key element of assault.

This decision concerns the manslaughter charge against Ian Rooney for the unlawful death of Yu Kun Xie.

The Crown alleged that Rooney's disproportionate response to Ms. Xie's aggressive behavior, including a blow to her face, caused a fatal brain injury, and that his failure to seek timely medical help constituted criminal negligence.

The trial judge found Rooney's evidence unreliable but accepted that Ms. Xie assaulted him and that his response was in self-defence and reasonable under the circumstances.

The judge further found that although Rooney's cancellation of 911 calls was reckless and a marked departure from reasonable conduct, the Crown failed to prove causation between this conduct and Ms. Xie's death.

Consequently, the manslaughter charge was dismissed.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Omar Ashraf Elkhodary guilty of assaulting Vicky Moscoe by pushing her during a confrontation over posters depicting child hostages.

The court carefully analyzed video evidence and witness testimony, rejecting Elkhodary's claim of self-defence.

The court applied the modern self-defence framework under Section 34 of the Criminal Code, emphasizing the accused's purpose and reasonable belief of threat.

It concluded Elkhodary's actions were motivated by a desire to remove the posters rather than to defend himself, and that no reasonable grounds existed to believe force was being used or threatened by the complainant.

The decision concerns a defence motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on a charge of second degree murder.

The accused, Daniel Keefe, argued that the evidence could not support a finding of second degree murder and that only manslaughter should be left to the jury.

The court reviewed the evidence, including witness testimony, the 911 call, and expert pathology evidence, and applied the legal test for a directed verdict.

The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence on which a properly instructed jury could convict of second degree murder, and dismissed the motion.

The appellant, Andrew Haley, appealed his convictions for assault and assault with a weapon, arguing that the trial judge erred in refusing to order disclosure of a video depicting a prior altercation involving the complainant.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the video was "obviously relevant" to the defence and should have been disclosed.

The failure to disclose violated the appellant’s right to make full answer and defence, and a new trial was ordered.

This criminal trial addressed charges against Gianni Deluca, including discharge of a firearm, firearm possession, and possession of fentanyl and fluorofentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found that Deluca acted in self-defence when discharging the firearm, leading to an acquittal on that charge.

However, the court rejected Deluca's explanation that he acquired the satchel containing the firearm and drugs during the altercation, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed these items prior to the incident.

Consequently, Deluca was found guilty of the drug and firearm possession charges, including breaching a weapons prohibition order, but not guilty of possessing proceeds of crime.

The appellant appealed his convictions for discharging a firearm with intent to wound or prevent arrest and attempted murder, and his sentence.

The charges arose from a violent encounter with police where the appellant fired shots at officers during an arrest attempt.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's self-defence claim, finding he was lawfully arrested, used unreasonable force, and had no reasonable grounds to believe the police were acting unlawfully.

On appeal, the court found no error in the trial judge's credibility findings or the rejection of self-defence, including the assessment of the appellant's subjective fear of police.

The court also upheld the sentence, finding the trial judge properly considered the collateral consequences of the appellant's injuries (sustained during arrest) as not mitigating, given they flowed from his own conduct.

Furthermore, the court found the trial judge adequately weighed anti-Black racism and mental health issues as slight mitigators, and correctly applied principles regarding "Duncan credit" for pre-sentence custody.

Both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The defendant, Holly Denise Dean, faced multiple charges of assault and assault with a weapon (pepper spray) arising from a landlord-tenant dispute.

The court found the complainants' evidence credible and the defendant's testimony inconsistent and unreliable.

The court rejected the defendant's claims of self-defence under s. 34 and defence of property under s. 35 of the Criminal Code, concluding that her actions were unreasonable and aggressive.

The defendant was found guilty on all charges.

This judgment re-affirms a finding of guilt for assault causing bodily harm after the case was re-opened to hear new defence evidence.

The court had previously found the defendant guilty, and the defence sought to re-open the case after locating a new witness.

The new witness's testimony was found to be unreliable due to intoxication, marijuana use, and inconsistencies.

The court concluded that the defendant's response to the complainant's initial slap was an unreasonable and excessive use of force, not constituting self-defence, and re-affirmed the conviction.

This criminal trial concerned Richard Jason Boswick, charged with uttering threats to cause bodily harm to Kevin Metcalf.

The alleged threat was made in a 2.5-minute segment of a 90-minute video posted online, where Boswick referred to shooting Metcalf with a rubber-coated marble.

Boswick argued his comments were not directed at Metcalf but a general group, were hypothetical, or were political banter, and raised a self-defence claim.

The court found that the words objectively constituted a threat directed at Metcalf (or a group including him), that conditional threats are still threats, and that intoxication did not diminish their significance.

The self-defence claim was rejected as there was no reasonable ground for belief of imminent force from Metcalf.

The court found the Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and registered a conviction.

The accused was charged with assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code for an incident occurring on August 3, 2010, at a Fernbrook Homes office in Burlington, Ontario.

The accused and his wife, frustrated with unresolved defects in their home purchased from Fernbrook, attended the office to speak with the building manager.

During the encounter, the accused became extremely angry, verbally abused staff members with profanities, and made physical contact with the office administrator, Amanda Newberry.

The accused admitted to pushing or "shushing" Ms. Newberry away with a sweeping arm motion but claimed it was a reflex action or that the contact was trifling.

The trial judge found the accused guilty of assault, rejecting the defences of involuntary action, self-defence, and the de minimus doctrine.