Self-defence

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault for stabbing the complainant four times during a physical altercation at a homeless shelter.

The Crown alleged the defendant initiated the confrontation and used excessive force.

The defendant claimed self-defence, asserting the complainant attacked him unprovoked and he stabbed in response to being pinned to the ground and punched repeatedly in the head.

The court found the defendant not guilty, determining that while the defendant initiated the confrontation by following the complainant, once the physical fight began, the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe force was being used against him, acted with the subjective purpose of self-protection, and the use of force was reasonable in the circumstances given the defendant's inability to escape and the ongoing threat posed by the larger, stronger complainant.

The court ruled on the admissibility of expert psychiatric evidence and hospital records in a first-degree murder trial involving two sisters charged with killing their mother.

The accused sought to introduce seven hospital records as business records and expert opinion evidence from a forensic psychiatrist regarding the accused's mental health condition, the effects of chronic abuse, and related psychiatric concepts.

The Crown opposed both applications on grounds of hearsay, prejudicial effect, and necessity.

The court admitted the hospital records as business records and qualified the expert to provide opinion evidence on psychiatric assessment, diagnosis, causes, and impacts of mental disorders, while restricting the expert from opining on the specific conduct of the accused.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Antoine Bouchard on January 23, 2022, in Thunder Bay.

The accused admitted to shooting the victim but claimed self-defence, asserting that the victim and two others were attempting to rob him while armed.

The Crown presented forensic evidence, including post-mortem examination findings and ballistics analysis.

Key witnesses included the alleged robbers and the accused.

The court found that the accused reasonably believed force was imminent, acted for the purpose of self-defence, and that his response was proportional to the threat faced.

The accused was acquitted of second-degree murder.

This is a ruling on the admissibility of defence expert opinion evidence in a criminal trial involving two sisters charged with killing their mother.

The defence sought to call Dr. Danièle Bélanger, an expert in Vietnamese society, gender, family, and migration, to provide cultural context evidence.

The Crown opposed the admission of this evidence.

The trial judge conducted a voir dire and ruled that the expert evidence was admissible, finding that it met all threshold requirements under the Mohan framework and that the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effects.

The evidence was found to be logically relevant to issues of credibility, motive, intent, and self-defence, and necessary to assist the jury in understanding the accused's state of mind and the cultural context in which they operated.

The court ruled on whether the defences of self-defence and provocation should be put to the jury in a case where two sisters admitted to killing their elderly mother.

The accused claimed they acted in self-defence based on a lifetime of physical and verbal abuse, which escalated in the week preceding the killing.

The court found an air of reality to the self-defence defence for both accused, considering the chronic abuse, the accused's cultural background, their mental health conditions, and the modified objective test applicable to self-defence.

The court rejected the provocation defence due to insufficient specificity regarding the triggering act and the lack of evidence that the accused acted "on the sudden."

The accused was charged with four counts of assault against his spouse arising from incidents occurring between December 2018 and February 2019 during the breakdown of their relationship.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the testimony of the complainant.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable and fraught with significant gaps in memory, credibility issues including evidence of extortion attempts, and demonstrated animus toward the accused.

The court acquitted on counts one through three due to reasonable doubt regarding consent and self-defence.

However, the court convicted on count four based on security footage corroborating the complainant's account of a forceful push in a parking garage, finding the accused's response disproportionate to the complainant's attempt to take custody of their child.

A young person charged with multiple serious offences including sexual assault, assault with a weapon, and firearm-related offences sought access to youth records (occurrence reports) involving the complainant.

The defence sought access to establish the affiant failed in her duty of disclosure in the Information to Obtain, to demonstrate the complainant's history of violence and dishonesty for cross-examination purposes, and to support a self-defence plea.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Youth Criminal Justice Act provides a presumptive rule of non-disclosure with limited exceptions, and that the defence had not met the stringent test required for access to youth records where no charges were laid or the access period had expired.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from two separate incidents of domestic violence against an intimate partner.

The first incident on August 1, 2019 involved assault causing bodily harm, and the second on November 11, 2019 involved assault with a weapon.

The accused also faced charges for breaching probation conditions and a recognizance.

The court found the accused guilty of assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, breach of probation, and breach of recognizance.

The court acquitted the accused of harassment and uttering threats, finding insufficient evidence on those charges.

The decision emphasizes the pattern of controlling and aggressive behaviour by the accused toward the complainant.

The accused was charged with theft, threatening death, assault with a weapon, and robbery following an incident at a Home Depot store.

Loss prevention officers observed the accused allegedly hiding two Milwaukee tool batteries under his sweater and exiting without paying.

When they attempted a citizen's arrest, the accused resisted, brandished a box cutter, threatened to kill one officer, and fled.

The court found the accused guilty of assault with a weapon and threatening death, but acquitted him of theft and robbery due to reasonable doubt regarding whether he actually left the store with the merchandise.

The court upheld the lawfulness of the citizen's arrest under section 494 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and assault against his father, assault with a weapon against his sister, and two counts of failure to comply with probation orders.

The offences arose from a violent incident in the family home in the early morning hours of October 17, 2019.

The Crown called two witnesses—the father and sister—whose testimony was corroborated by security footage, a 911 recording, and photographs of injuries.

The accused did not testify or call evidence.

The court found the accused guilty of assault and assault with a weapon but rejected the aggravated assault charge, finding instead the lesser included offence of assault causing bodily harm.

The court acquitted on the failure to comply charges based on the de minimus principle.

Two young persons were jointly charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a stolen motor vehicle.

A third count of mischief was charged against one accused alone.

The incident occurred in Windsor on March 14, 2019, when the accused parked a stolen vehicle in a parking lot.

The property manager confronted the accused, sprayed brake fluid in his face, and a physical altercation ensued.

During the fight, the complainant was stabbed by an unknown assailant.

The court acquitted one accused of all charges due to insufficient evidence.

The other accused was acquitted of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon on grounds of lawful self-defence, but convicted of possession of the stolen vehicle and mischief.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm against his estranged wife.

The defendant admitted striking his wife three to four times in the face, causing significant injuries including two black eyes and broken nasal bones.

The defendant raised a self-defence claim under Criminal Code section 34, arguing he acted to protect his three-year-old son from imminent harm.

The Crown conceded there was an air of reality to the defence.

The court found that the defendant subjectively believed his son's safety was at risk and that this belief was objectively reasonable given the circumstances, including the complainant's prior threat of self-harm, her volatile behavior that evening, and her deliberate destruction of his clothing.

The court concluded the force used was reasonable in the circumstances and acquitted the defendant.

The accused, a teacher, was charged with assault with a weapon.

The defence brought a third-party records application seeking disclosure of school records and police records relating to the complainant's history of violent or aggressive conduct and credibility issues.

The court applied the two-stage O'Connor test to determine disclosability.

At stage one, the court found the records likely relevant to the defence of self-defence.

At stage two, the court balanced the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy interests.

The court ordered disclosure of school records documenting violent disposition and misconduct from age 12 onwards, and police occurrence reports meeting the criteria under section 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Strict conditions were imposed on the use and retention of disclosed materials.

The accused was charged with assaulting the complainant on December 2, 2018, outside a hockey rink.

The incident arose from tensions between the parties in youth hockey circles.

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

The court found the accused's credibility undermined by significant testimonial inconsistencies and rejected the self-defence claim.

The court found the accused was the aggressor who initiated the physical altercation by confronting the complainant as he arrived at the rink with his son.

The accused was found guilty of assault.

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.

The court held three voir dires to determine whether hearsay statements from three witnesses who were unavailable to testify could be admitted for the truth of their contents.

The defence sought to admit statements from Aaron Downs, Salvatore Graziano, and Idil Farah regarding an alleged assault involving the accused and a complainant.

The Crown conceded necessity for all three statements.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, requiring proof of both necessity and threshold reliability on a balance of probabilities.

The court granted the defence application with respect to Downs' statement but denied the applications regarding Graziano's and Farah's statements.

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace following a stabbing incident at the intersection of Rossland and Salem in Ajax.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of the victim, Joshua Lawrence, who claimed he was stabbed without warning while making a friendly greeting.

The defendant claimed self-defence, asserting that Lawrence approached him with an open box-cutter knife.

The court found the victim's testimony unreliable and accepted the defendant's account.

The defendant was acquitted of the assault charges on the basis of self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code, but convicted of possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace under section 88(1), as the defendant could have avoided the confrontation by contacting police.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to establish sufficient evidence to commit two accused to stand trial for second degree murder in the death of Trey Theriault, who sustained eight stab wounds during an altercation.

The accused admitted presence and participation in a physical fight but argued insufficient evidence of intent to kill.

The court applied the Sheppard/Arcuri test for committal, examining whether a reasonable jury could infer guilt from the evidence.

The court found sufficient evidence on all essential elements of second degree murder: causation (stab wounds to vital organs), unlawful act (armed assault without justification), and intent (inferred from the nature and number of wounds).

Both accused were committed to stand trial.

The defendant was charged with assault following an incident in a Toronto apartment.

Three independent witnesses observed from across the street what they described as the defendant repeatedly striking the complainant about the face and head.

The defendant and complainant testified that the incident involved only a heated verbal argument that escalated into brief physical contact, with the complainant pushing the defendant and the defendant restraining her without striking her.

The court resolved the credibility conflict by finding the three rooftop witnesses credible and reliable, concluding that their contextual remove from the parties enhanced rather than prejudiced their reliability.

The defendant was found guilty of assault, with the court rejecting any defence of self-defence as the force used was objectively excessive.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and break and enter following a violent altercation in downtown Brantford.

The victim, who was already blind in one eye, suffered a ruptured left eye resulting in permanent blindness after being attacked by the accused and his uncle.

The accused claimed he acted in defence of his uncle under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected this defence, finding that the victim was the one being attacked without provocation and that the accused joined in a one-sided beating of a vulnerable victim.

The break and enter charge was dismissed by Crown concession, but the accused was convicted of aggravated assault as a principal to the offence.