K. Robertson

Two police officers were charged with assault and assault with a weapon following the arrest of a fleeing suspect.

The suspect had engaged in a high-speed pursuit and attempted to hide under a barbecue.

The officers used a Taser and multiple leg strikes to subdue him.

The court found that while the initial use of force was justified under s. 25 of the Criminal Code due to the dangerous and dynamic circumstances, the final leg strikes delivered after the suspect was immobilized and pulled out from under the barbecue were gratuitous and constituted unjustified assaults.

Both officers were found guilty of assault level one.

The accused, charged with historical sexual offences against his second cousin, brought an application under section 278.7 of the Criminal Code for the production of the complainant's third-party clinical and counselling records.

The complainant conceded the first stage of the test, allowing the judge to review the records.

After reviewing the records and balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy interests, the court ordered limited production of portions of the records that substantively referenced the alleged incidents.

The accused, a police officer, was charged with assault causing bodily harm following the arrest of an intoxicated suspect.

The officer used a 'grounding' technique, resulting in a facial laceration to the suspect.

The court reviewed video evidence and found that the suspect was compliant at the time force was applied, contradicting the officer's testimony that the suspect was reaching for his waist.

The court concluded the use of force was unnecessary, disproportionate, and unlawful, and that the resulting injury constituted bodily harm.

The accused was found guilty.