Court Information

Court: Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough – Toronto Date: September 27, 2017

Between: Her Majesty the Queen And: Richard Snyder-McDonald

For the Crown: P. Kotanen For the Defendant: M. McGregor

Heard: September 15, 2017

Reasons for Judgment

RUSSELL SILVERSTEIN, J.:

A. Introduction

[1] The accused is charged with assault with a weapon (a chair) and assault causing bodily harm. The alleged victim of these offences is Edith McDonald, the mother of the accused.

[2] The parties agree that on February 28, 2017 Edith McDonald was struck on the head with a chair held by the accused and suffered a gash requiring 10 stitches to close. The only issue is whether the accused intended to strike his mother with the chair.

B. Evidence

(a) Introduction

[3] The Crown called four witnesses; Edith McDonald, her other son, Erich McDonald, Erich's wife, Sandra McDonald and Constable Ryan Hudson, the first officer to attend the scene.

[4] The defence called one witness; the accused himself.

[5] All the evidence and submissions were heard in one day and the matter was adjourned for judgment.

(b) The Evidence for the Crown

[6] Edith McDonald (Edith) is 90 years of age. She testified essentially as follows:

[7] The accused is her adopted son. He was living in the basement of her house on February 28, 2017. He had been residing there for approximately 15 years. She and the accused had what she described as a "little argument" that day, although she could not recall what the argument was about. The accused got angry, went into the kitchen, and brought a heavy oak chair back into the living room where they had both been when the argument erupted. He lifted the chair high over his head and brought it down on Edith's head with all his might.

[8] Edith was shocked. She was cut and bled profusely.

[9] Edith made the following salient assertions in cross-examination:

[10] Edith and the accused loved each other very much and there had never been any prior incidents of violence between them. Edith was largely self-sufficient and didn't need the accused's help to get by. The accused sometimes helped out with some things but Edith was responsible for taking her own medication and the accused did not assist her in that regard.

[11] Edith does not suffer from dementia and although she wears glasses, her visual perception and hearing are good.

[12] Edith confirmed that the accused was having problems with chronic pain, but didn't understand what had upset the accused so much that day. In particular, she had no recollection of the accused having received a letter from the Workers Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) that day. Nor did she recall the accused showing concern for her after the blow was struck. All she could remember regarding the aftermath of the blow was that the accused was "gone" afterwards.

[13] Erich McDonald (Erich) testified essentially as follows:

[14] Erich is the brother of the accused and admitted to feeling some animosity towards him.

[15] Erich spoke to the accused on several occasions after the incident. The accused's explanation to Erich as to what had occurred kept changing. On at least one occasion the accused explained to Erich that the chair had never even left the floor. The accused admitted to Erich that he and Edith had had an argument of some sort. The accused never mentioned to Erich that he had lost his WSIB payments.

[16] As concerns Edith, in Erich's opinion she shows early signs of dementia.

[17] Sandra McDonald (Sandra) testified essentially as follows:

[18] Sandra is married to Erich. Edith came to live with them after the incident, although she is now in a home for the elderly. She and her husband had to adjust Edith's medications after she moved in with them since it appeared that she had not been properly following her medication regime when she was living with the accused.

[19] Sandra asked the accused what had happened to Edith. On one occasion he told her that he and Edith had had an argument, that tempers got raised and that he had not meant to throw the chair. On another occasion the accused denied having picked up the chair at all. He seemed more concerned about the injury to his foot than the injury to his mother.

[20] In Sandra's opinion, Edith has some difficulty with general conversation but tends to recall traumatic incidents clearly.

[21] Constable Ryan Hudson responded to a radio call and arrived at the home of the complainant shortly after 4 pm on the day in question. As he was half-way up the driveway he observed the accused come out from behind the house. When he asked the accused what had happened the accused said that he and his mother had had an argument but that his mother was okay and everything was fine now. The accused went on to say that he and his mother have blowouts from time to time.

[22] At about the same time the officer saw Edith come to the screen door with blood all over the right side of her face and her shirt. He arrested the accused.

(c) The Evidence of the Accused

[23] The accused testified essentially as follows:

[24] The accused is 53 years of age and has been on disability since falling off a roof in 2009. At the time of the incident he was on prescription medication, including Demerol.

[25] He lived in the basement of his mother's house and helped her with cooking, shopping and medical appointments.

[26] On the day in question a letter from the WSIB arrived. Because he is illiterate he asked his mother to read it to him. It said that his application for further benefits had been denied. He got extremely angry and picked up a chair that was right near where he and Edith were standing. He wasn't sure what his intentions were with the chair, but he accidentally dropped it from chest level onto his mother's head and his foot. Until the letter arrived, he had not had any sort of dispute with his mother.

[27] The accused disputed the evidence of Constable Hudson and said that he told Officer Hudson that "we had received some bad news". This was not put to the officer in cross-examination.

[28] The accused has a criminal record stretching back to 1979 for numerous offences of dishonesty, among others. I have considered it only as it affects his credibility as a witness at this trial.

[29] Cross-examination of the accused revealed the following:

[30] He denied being angry at Edith. He was only angry about the WSIB refusal. Indeed, he had never argued with his mother before. As for his telling Officer Hudson that they had argued, he meant that they had had a discussion, since to him an argument and discussion are the same thing. As for his comment to the Officer that "everything was fine", he did not recall saying that but, if he did, he meant that now that the ambulance was coming, everything was going to be okay. He went on to say that he didn't even know that Officer Hudson was a police officer.

[31] The accused denied making inconsistent statements to his brother and sister-in-law. When asked if he had apologized to his mother for accidentally dropping a chair on her head he said that he couldn't recall.

C. Analysis

[32] The accused is presumed innocent and need prove nothing. The burden is on the Crown throughout to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[33] The accused testified that his mother's injuries were caused accidentally. If I believe him he must be found not guilty. For an assault to have occurred the striking of his mother must be intentional.

[34] Even if I do not believe him, I must ask myself if his evidence nonetheless raises a reasonable doubt. And even if it does not, because proof of intention is based on circumstantial evidence, as is usually the case, I must examine the evidence called by the Crown and ask if the only rational inference to draw is that the accused intentionally struck his mother with the chair. An alternative rational scenario need not be the scenario testified to by the accused.

[35] I have carefully scrutinized the testimony of the accused. I do not believe anything that he said that is exculpatory. His testimony defies common sense. Much of what he said was inconsistent with statements he made to Officer Hudson, whose testimony I accept. It is also inconsistent with certain material evidence given by Erich and Sandra, which I also accept. His criminal record further erodes his credibility.

[36] Nor do I find that his testimony, when examined in the context of all the evidence, raises a reasonable doubt.

[37] The final issue remains: does the Crown's case make out an assault beyond a reasonable doubt, or is there a reasonable alternative explanation for Edith's injuries other than the guilt of the accused?

[38] Counsel for the accused makes several arguments:

(1) The injury to Edith is relatively minor considering the weight of the chair. If the accused had purposely struck Edith as she described, her injuries would have been more severe.

(2) Edith is 90 years old and her testimony is thus not entirely reliable.

(3) The accused's brother and sister-in-law are biased against the accused.

(4) The long history of love and peace between Edith and the accused supports the defence of accident. There is insufficient evidence of motive for the attack as described by Edith.

(5) The accused's physical disability makes it more likely that he dropped the chair by accident.

[39] I am not persuaded by any of these arguments.

[40] There are simply too many variables that might account for the relatively minor injuries to the complainant, only one of which is accident. The accused's physical weakness and possibly poor aim are two such variables. And, in any event, I find the balance of the evidence pointing to guilt too strong to be undermined by this apparent anomaly.

[41] Notwithstanding her age, I found the complainant's testimony to be forthright and focused.

[42] The feelings harboured by Erich and Sandra were freely admitted by them and, in light of the strong corroboration they offer each other, I do not discount their evidence as a result of this bad blood.

[43] As for the past history of their relationship and the common sense notion that a strong motive is required before a son will strike his mother over the head with a chair, I note that the evidence out of the mouth of the accused to other witnesses proves that they did indeed argue that day, and on other previous days. Moreover, the accused's alternative explanation for his anger, the WSIB refusal, was only vaguely and weakly corroborated, if at all. The same can be said about the extent of his disability.

[44] I accept Edith's testimony that the accused went into the kitchen to grab the chair and brought it back into the living room. If indeed the accused had simply wanted to fling the chair in anger I would have expected him to do so in the kitchen, especially given his claimed disability.

[45] I find further that the behavior of the accused after the incident, both in his dealings with the police and his family is indicative of guilt. His failure to apologize to Edith, his prevarication to his family and his misleading statements to the police contribute to the finding that this was no accident.

D. Conclusion

[46] In the result I find the accused guilty on both counts.

Released on September 27, 2017

Justice Russell Silverstein