Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2023 11 07 Court File No.: Windsor 20-1077

Between:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

ROBERT PATTERSON

Before: Justice S. G. Pratt

Heard on: 12, 20, 21 December 2022, 21 March, 27 April, 5 September 2023 Reasons for Judgment released on: 7 November 2023

Counsel: Andrew Telford-Keogh..................................................................... Counsel for the Crown Alyssa Jervis............................................................................... Counsel for the Defendant

Pratt J.:

[1] Robert Patterson, hereinafter the Defendant, is charged with one count of assault causing bodily harm on Brandon Cassidy, hereinafter the Complainant. Counsel for the Defendant argues his actions were justified as he was defending himself from someone who had entered his home. The Crown argues his actions were unreasonable in the circumstances and that the evidence proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[2] These reasons explain why the Defendant will be found guilty.

Admissions

[3] Several admissions were made at the outset of trial. Identity, date, jurisdiction, voluntariness of utterances made by the Defendant, relevant photographs, medical records, and the continuity of exhibits were all conceded.

Issues

[4] This case turns on the applicability of s. 34 of the Criminal Code. The issues to be determined, therefore, are as follows:

(1) Is there an air of reality to the Defendant’s claim of self-defence?

(2) Did the Defendant reasonably believe that force was being used against him or another person, or that a threat of force was being made against him or another person?

(3) Did the Defendant’s conduct arise for the purpose of defending or protecting himself or another person from the force or threat of force?

(4) Was the Defendant’s conduct reasonable in the circumstances?

[5] While s. 34 is framed as an analysis of the Defendant’s beliefs and subsequent actions, it is not for the Defendant to prove he acted in self-defence. If he is able to show an air of reality to his claim of acting in self-defence, it will be for the Crown to prove he did not so act, and that proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt.

[6] Once an air of reality is shown, the Crown need only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any one of the three components listed above were not present for the defence to fail (see: R. v. Randhawa 2019 BCCA 15 at paragraph 34).

Issue 1: Is there an air of reality to the Defendant’s claim of self-defence?

[7] The test to determine if an air of reality exists for a claim of self-defence is not onerous. As stated by former Chief Justice McLachlin at paragraph 49 of R. v. Cinous 2002 SCC 29, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 3:

The correct approach to the air of reality test is well established. The test is whether there is evidence on the record upon which a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could acquit.

[8] A Defendant need not show that the evidence is sufficient to warrant an acquittal; he must only show that an acquittal could reasonably follow. In applying this test, I must take the evidence in its totality and assume the evidence favouring the defence to be true. An air of reality may come from the Defendant’s own evidence, other defence evidence, the Crown’s evidence, the factual circumstances of the case, or any other evidential source (see: Cinous, paragraph 53).

[9] In the present case, the Defendant testified that he and his partner Curtis Bilyea were living in a house they rented from the Complainant at 2244 Chandler Avenue, Windsor. While this tenancy started out positively enough, by May 2020 their relationship with the Complainant had deteriorated sufficiently that they were in the process of moving out. They owed, according to the Complainant, $6,000 in back rent. On the day the charge arose, the Defendant and Mr. Bilyea were actively moving their belongings out of the house, into a truck, and into a new residence. The Complainant testified to being told they had vacated the residence. When he went to the house, he found it vacant. The U-Haul truck that had been parked there previously was gone. He entered the house through a window.

[10] The Defendant testified that he received a call from a friend advising him that his dogs, which should still have been inside the Chandler residence, were running in the street. He immediately took a taxi to the house. When he arrived, he went into the house and searched for the dogs. He did not find them, but he did find the Complainant. He asked the Complainant where his dogs were. He said the Complainant responded by pulling out the Defendant’s eyebrow ring and striking him. He said he swung back, and eventually took a knife from a box to defend himself.

[11] Later in his testimony, the Defendant said the Complainant told him the dogs were with his (that is, the Complainant’s) mother. The locks on the front door were being changed.

[12] As the Defendant said, “I only swung at him after he swung at me. Once he stopped and he backed up, and the dogs came in, I backed off.”

[13] Mr. Bilyea testified to being present for the altercation. He said the Complainant tried to intimidate the Defendant and was getting in the Defendant’s face. There was a brief scuffle and then, “all hell broke loose”.

[14] In summary, then, the Defendant testified that it was the Complainant who began the physical altercation by pulling out his eyebrow piercing. Mr. Bilyea said the Complainant was attempting to intimidate the Defendant by getting in his face. It was in response to this conduct that the Defendant took physical action against the Complainant.

[15] At this stage of my analysis, I do not have to believe the defence evidence. I only need to consider if it could reasonably lead to an acquittal. I must assume the defence account of the incident is true.

[16] That evidence is that when the Defendant entered what had been, or perhaps still was, his residence, he was confronted by the Complainant. The Complainant tried to intimidate him and pulled out his eyebrow piercing. It was then that the Defendant struck the Complainant. Assuming that evidence to be true, I find there is an air of reality to the claim of self-defence. A trier of fact, if they accepted the defence evidence, could reasonably find the Defendant not guilty on the basis of self-defence.

[17] The answer to the first issue is yes. The burden is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendant was not acting in self-defence.

Issue 2: Did the Defendant reasonably believe that force was being used against him or another person, or that a threat of force was being made against him or another person?

[18] While this is a self-defence case, I must consider the competing narratives of the Complainant and Defendant in accordance with the principles of R. v. W.D., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. If I believe the defence evidence or am left with a reasonable doubt by it on each element of self-defence, I must acquit. Only if I find the Crown has disproved one or more elements of the defence beyond a reasonable doubt should I then find self-defence to be inapplicable.

[19] I will review the trial evidence as part of this issue, but my review and analysis will inform the result of each remaining issue in these reasons.

[20] The Defendant testified to a very difficult relationship with the Complainant. He and Mr. Bilyea had been living on Dougall Avenue when they met the Complainant. He said the Complainant learned their then-landlord was causing trouble for them. He was asked by his counsel if the Complainant then offered them one of his rental properties. He responded, “He kind of forced us”. He said the Complainant took advantage of the situation but did not explain how he and Mr. Bilyea were “forced” to move into the Chandler residence.

[21] Shortly after moving in, a problem arose with the house’s heating system. The Defendant said the city advised the system was out of date and they shut off the gas service to the property as a result. The Defendant said the Complainant made no attempt to fix the problem, and so the house had no heat. He said the Complainant was a constant presence at the property, showing up to do gardening at 4am, calling them, and writing childish notes on their cheques. On one occasion, a friend of the Defendant’s had to physically remove the Complainant from the house. It got to the point where the Defendant wanted only to deal with the Complainant’s mother Rosalie Cassidy regarding payment of rent.

[22] When the heat was cut off and the Complainant wasn’t taking any steps to fix the problem, the Defendant said they stopped paying rent. A court date was set with the Landlord and Tenant Board, but it was delayed because of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Defendant testified that he and Mr. Bilyea actually settled their outstanding rent with Ms. Cassidy in February but did not pay additional rent after that. He was asked if the amount owing at the time of the incident could have been $6,000 and he wasn’t sure. That amount would have represented approximately five months of rent.

[23] By the day of the incident, the Defendant and Mr. Bilyea had secured a new residence. They’d had possession of it for three days and were in the process of moving their belongings. The Defendant had spent the night before the incident at the new residence. He testified to getting a phone call from a friend, Jeff Hill, that their dogs were loose. Hill told him it appeared his landlord, the Complainant, was there. He took a taxi to Chandler Avenue rather than go in the U-Haul truck they were using to move. When he got to the residence, he waited in a nearby parking lot for Mr. Bilyea to arrive in the truck so he didn’t confront the Complainant alone.

[24] The Defendant said he entered the house and immediately began looking for the dogs. He said he checked the entire house, including the attic, looking for them. On being unable to find them, he asked the Complainant where there were. In response, he said the Complainant reached out and pulled his eyebrow piercing off his face. This started a physical altercation between them.

[25] This initial account of what happened on the Defendant’s arrival was not entirely corroborated by Mr. Bilyea’s evidence. Mr. Bilyea testified that he entered the house first. He said the Complainant saw him approach and tried to shut the door. Mr. Bilyea testified that he thought it was a home invasion and so he pushed against the door and entered the residence. He argued with the Complainant about their legal rights. It was then that the Defendant entered. He said the Complainant tried to intimidate the Defendant and got in his face. Mr. Bilyea did not testify to the Defendant searching the house for the dogs. He testified to the scuffle breaking out almost immediately.

[26] Returning to the Defendant’s account, he said that after he asked the Complainant where the dogs were, the Complainant pulled out his piercing and punched him in the face. He swung back at the Complainant. He said that as the Complainant was punching him, he found a knife belonging to his son in or on a box. He used the knife to defend himself from the Complainant’s attacks.

[27] His evidence regarding this knife was entirely inconsistent. At first, he said the knife was sitting on a box in the living room. He picked it up and used it. In cross-examination, he said the box was closed and that he was going to use the knife to open it. He then immediately said the box was already open and he didn’t use the blade to open it. He then said he didn’t know if he used the knife to open the box. I note this discovery of the knife and opening the box apparently took place while the Complainant was raining blows on him.

[28] To police, the Defendant apparently said the knife was in his pocket and that he took it out to use it against the Complainant. In his testimony, when confronted with that statement, he said he didn’t recall putting it in his pocket or taking it out. He said he had been using it to cut packing tape.

[29] Towards the end of his cross-examination, the Defendant admitted he was likely incorrect when he testified that the knife had been on a box when he picked it up.

[30] The Defendant was asked about his experience in boxing. He had trained in boxing for about 2 ½ years from the ages of 11 – 13. He agreed that he had training in punching and dodging punches, and that his fists could be dangerous. He testified that of the 20 times the Complainant swung at him, he was able to dodge 19 of them.

[31] When asked about the knife, this exchange took place:

CROWN: You don’t remember how you got the knife?

WITNESS: No. I know how I got the knife, but, the knife was already in my hand when he assaulted me. I didn’t go reaching for it.

CROWN: And it was closed.

WITNESS: Could have been, yes.

CROWN: And you told us that you were assaulted by Mr. Cassidy and that you opened the knife. Right?

WITNESS: Yeah.

CROWN: Conscious decision you made.

WITNESS: Yes.

CROWN: Because you were going to stab Mr. Cassidy.

WITNESS: I guess.

[32] This evidence creates a problem for the Defendant. First, he says the knife was in his hand before he was assaulted. This contradicts his earlier testimony that he asked the Complainant where his dogs were and the Complainant pulled out his piercing and punched him. Initially he said it was after that that he spied the knife on the box. Here, he said the knife was already in his hand when the physical altercation began. Those can’t both be true.

[33] Second, he admits he opened the folding knife because he had the intention of stabbing the Complainant. By this evidence, rather than rely on his previous boxing training, he went immediately to using a weapon to defend himself against an attack, 95% of which he testified he was able to evade.

[34] Finally, regarding the knife, this is also from his cross-examination:

CROWN: You didn’t need to use the knife.

WITNESS: No.

CROWN: Could have used your fists.

WITNESS: Could have.

CROWN: You, I’m going to suggest to you, that you would have every confidence that you would be able to subdue Mr. Cassidy with your fists.

WITNESS: Sure.

CROWN: But you didn’t do that.

WITNESS: No I didn’t.

CROWN: Could have asked your friends for help.

WITNESS: Yes.

CROWN: You didn’t do that.

WITNESS: No I didn’t.

CROWN: Could have called police.

WITNESS: Could have.

CROWN: Didn’t do that.

WITNESS: No I didn’t.

[35] I will return to these points when I consider the reasonableness of the Defendant’s actions.

[36] The Defendant initially testified that the Complainant told him at the outset of their confrontation that Ms. Cassidy had taken the dogs. Later, he said he didn’t know where the dogs were until they ran into the house after the altercation. To police, he said he went outside onto the porch after the altercation, and that is when he saw Ms. Cassidy let the dogs out of her vehicle. They ran up to him on the porch. He was asked if that was different from his earlier testimony, and he agreed it was.

[37] He also took an unusually firm stance in cross-examination regarding who told him the Complainant was at the Chandler residence to begin with. In chief he was asked if he’d been called by one of the people helping them move, and he said no, the call came from Jeff Hill. In cross-examination, he was asked to confirm his earlier evidence that the call came from Mr. Hill and he denied ever mentioning him by name. Even when directed to the trial transcript of him naming Mr. Hill, he disputed that assertion and said it was Mr. Bilyea, not him, who’d identified Mr. Hill. While Mr. Bilyea did indeed reference Mr. Hill, the Defendant did as well. I do not know why he would so strenuously deny such an innocuous point even in the face of a transcript.

[38] Mr. Bilyea testified to pushing into the house as the Complainant was trying to keep him out. He said the Defendant entered soon after and a verbal argument ensued. Regarding the physical altercation, he said first that he didn’t see what happened. Then he seemed to choose his words carefully. He said that at some point a weapon was pulled out and there were stabbing motions. He did not identify who pulled out the weapon or who made the stabbing motions. It’s clear his passive language was meant to assist the Defendant.

[39] In cross-examination, Mr. Bilyea confirmed that he did some work for the Complainant. There were times when rather than paying rent, he would pay in kind with hours worked to offset the rent they owed.

[40] He testified to the harassing behaviour of the Complainant as their landlord. He said the Complainant called him a pedophile. The Complainant would try to intimidate them, antagonizing the Defendant by asking “what are you going to do, you’re 100lbs soaking wet”. The Defendant also testified to this behaviour, and specifically to that comment being uttered by the Complainant on multiple occasions.

[41] He agreed that when they confronted the Complainant, the Defendant was more upset than he was. They were all yelling. He said he was told later by the Defendant that the Complainant had pulled out his eyebrow piercing. There was another inconsistency between Mr. Bilyea’s evidence and the Defendant’s evidence on that point: the Defendant said he had three eyebrow piercings, and that one was pulled out. Mr. Bilyea said he had only one such piercing. The photos of the Defendant’s face, filed as an exhibit, show two intact eyebrow piercings, one over each eye. There are also two drops of blood, in line with each other, next to his left eyebrow piercing. This could well be the result of a third piercing being removed. Mr. Bilyea also said he never saw the Complainant reach for the Defendant’s face. He did see him reach towards the Defendant with both hands at shoulder height. This is what started the physical clash.

[42] Crucial to how events unfolded is Mr. Bilyea’s evidence of the stabbing. He said the struggle between the Complainant and Defendant began with both parties standing. He saw stabbing motions he eventually acknowledged were made by the Defendant. The Complainant fell to the floor. As he was falling, the Defendant continued stabbing at him. After he was down, the Defendant crouched over him and kept stabbing. The Complainant was holding one of the Defendant’s arms at that point, while the Defendant was stabbing with his other arm.

[43] Eventually they separated, and the Complainant got back to his feet. He asked the Defendant if he’d stabbed him, then ran outside. As he was running out, he turned to the Defendant and said, “you’re absolutely crazy”. Mr. Bilyea could see blood on the Complainant’s face. He said it “didn’t even look like he had an eye”.

[44] In summary, Mr. Bilyea testified to yelling by the parties. He said the Complainant reached towards the Defendant. The Defendant produced a knife and started stabbing. The stabbing continued even after the Complainant fell to the floor. He could not testify to the Complainant landing any blows whatsoever on the Defendant. He said he did not see any weapons in the Complainant’s possession.

[45] I also heard from the Complainant. He confirmed that the Defendant and Mr. Bilyea were his tenants at 2244 Chandler Avenue. He testified to the tenants owing significant back rent as they stopped paying around the time the pandemic struck. He testified that on 18 May, he was told by a neighbour that the Defendant and Mr. Bilyea appeared to have vacated the residence. He went there with his mother Ms. Cassidy. The U-Haul truck and camper that had been parked there were gone. He entered the house through an open window and found most of their belongings had been removed. The house was in a terrible condition, he said, with dog feces “everywhere”. He asked his mother to call a locksmith to begin changing the locks, but then asked her to call Dennis Little, her partner, to help him do it personally.

[46] It was then that Mr. Bilyea arrived. The Complainant tried to keep him out of the residence but couldn’t. A minute later the Defendant arrived. When he got there, according to the Complainant, he already had the knife in his hand, oriented such that the blade was protruding from the bottom of his fist in what the Complainant called “a stabbing motion”. The Defendant asked him where the dogs were. He told him they were with his mother and would be back. He said within 20 seconds of the Defendant’s arrival, he stabbed the Complainant in the face. The Complainant fell to the floor and was held down by someone. The Defendant continued to punch and stab him. He said he was struck about 25 times. He managed to roll out of the living room and left the residence bleeding heavily from a severed artery in his arm. A nurse who happened to be nearby gave him first aid while they waited for emergency services.

[47] He was asked if he or Mr. Little took any physical action towards either the Defendant or Mr. Bilyea before the first stabbing. He said no.

[48] The Complainant also testified to many issues and complaints he had regarding the Windsor Police Service and the Crown Attorneys’ office. He testified to police on scene using a homophobic slur against him and to three officers “manhandling” his mother. He said they also threatened to arrest his mother if she filmed any of his interaction with police. He admitted to calling one officer “c-minus” and said his statement to police had been forged. He spoke of ongoing harassment by the police. It was abundantly clear he feels very aggrieved by the justice system.

[49] I pause to make two observations. Nowhere in her testimony did Ms. Cassidy ever mention being manhandled or physically touched in any way by any police officers, or that she was subject to arrest if she tried to take video of the event. All officers who were asked denied ever using any kind of slur against the Complainant or threatening Ms. Cassidy with arrest. PC Mohamad Abdul Hamid, for example, testified that he didn’t even know Ms. Cassidy was on scene. The evidence of the Complainant regarding what happened in the aftermath of the stabbing is not corroborated by any other witness and is in fact rejected by police witnesses.

[50] The Complainant’s litany of grievances with the justice system is irrelevant to my determination of this case. I decline to comment on any of it except to remind myself that I can accept all, some, or none of any witness’s evidence. If I choose to reject one part of a witness’s evidence, or find it to be irrelevant and unhelpful, that does not mean I cannot accept other aspects of their testimony as proof of the facts alleged.

[51] Dennis Little testified to helping the Complainant change the locks at the Chandler residence. Mr. Little is the long-time partner of Ms. Cassidy. He said he had removed the old lock when Mr. Bilyea arrived. Mr. Bilyea asked where the dogs were but did not seem especially angry or upset. Shortly after he arrived, the Defendant did as well. His demeanour was much different and led Mr. Little to want to call police. He said he felt like things could “erupt quickly”.

[52] He tried to tell the Defendant where the dogs were. He said the argument led to the Defendant swinging at the Complainant. This led to the Complainant falling onto a couch. He saw the Complainant trying to get out of the house. He didn’t realize at first that the Complainant had been injured, he only learned that afterward. He testified that he saw 3-4 swings: one to the head and the remainder to the arms or body of the Complainant.

[53] He was asked if he saw the Complainant take any physical action against the Defendant prior to the Defendant swinging. He said no. The only physical action he saw the Complainant take was his attempt to hold the door closed and prevent Mr. Bilyea from entering the residence.

[54] Stephen Putt was a neighbour who witnessed the events of 18 May. He saw the Complainant arrive and told him the Defendant and Mr. Bilyea had been moving out. He saw the Complainant jump over a fence and enter the residence. He said the Complainant began putting items outside the house. When the Defendant arrived, an argument began between he and the Complainant. Mr. Putt said both were angry. He described the Defendant and Complainant as “pretty hostile” and “fired up”, respectively. Mr. Putt was standing at the front of the house, about 10-15 feet from the front door. He said he saw their confrontation and testified to the Defendant making a threatening gesture towards the Complainant with something small in his hand. After that gesture, they grabbed each other and fell. He said the Complainant then exited the house saying he’d been stabbed. He was covered in blood.

[55] Ms. Cassidy testified to going to the Chandler residence that day with her son. They took separate vehicles. She went to obtain new locks for the door and put the dogs in her van. When she returned to the residence, she saw the Complainant come outside with serious injuries.

[56] I also heard from various police officers. Aside from the taking of numerous photographs and statements, the main evidence from the police witnesses was the state of agitation of the Complainant at the time of their attendance. He was calling police “pigs” and demanding they help him. As I noted earlier, all denied using slurs against the Complainant, and being threatening or physical with Ms. Cassidy.

[57] In determining if the Complainant reasonably believed force was being used against him or another person, or that a threat of force was being made, I am assisted by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Khill 2021 SCC 37, [2021] S.C.J. No. 37. In that case, Justice Martin referred to this prong of self-defence as the “catalyst”.

[58] The catalyst is not concerned with what the Defendant did but rather with what he perceived. That perception must be judged in two ways: did the Defendant subjectively believe a use or threat of force was occurring, and was that belief objectively reasonable?

[59] The subjective portion of this test is the more easily applied of the two. Did the Defendant believe force was being used or threatened? If he raises a reasonable doubt on that point, he will have satisfied the subjective aspect of the test. If the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt he did not have such a belief, he will not.

[60] To answer this question, I must consider his evidence in the context of the totality of the evidence I heard. The Defendant testified to a difficult and tumultuous relationship with the Complainant. They had issues related to the tenancy but also had personal conflicts. The Complainant was, he said, harassing them to the point that he only wanted to deal with Ms. Cassidy, not with the Complainant. He said the Complainant verbally berated them. He had tried to intimidate the Defendant in the past with comments like, “what are you going to do about it, you’re 100lbs soaking wet”. This challenging situation was corroborated by Mr. Bilyea.

[61] Looking at the day of the incident, he is told the Complainant has entered his residence and that his dogs are running loose. When he arrives, he sees the Complainant in the house trying to change the locks. He confronts the Complainant about his dogs and the two start yelling.

[62] Did the Defendant subjectively believe force was being used or threatened by the Complainant? Based on the evidence I have heard, the answer must be no.

[63] The Defendant testified that the physical altercation began when the Complainant reached out and pulled off his eyebrow piercing. The difficulty with that contention is none of the three other people who saw the start of the physical conflict saw that happen. Mr. Bilyea only saw the Complainant reach out with both hands at shoulder level, as if to grab the Defendant by the collar. Mr. Little saw no movement at all from the Complainant before he was struck by the Defendant. Mr. Putt saw a threatening gesture made by the Defendant towards the Complainant before the melee began. None saw the Complainant exert or even threaten any physical force against the Defendant or any other person. I reject the Defendant’s evidence regarding the pulling out of his eyebrow piercing. I find the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not have a subjective belief that force was being used or threatened at the time of the incident.

[64] If I am wrong in that assessment, I find there is no objective grounds for the Defendant to have held that belief given the surrounding circumstances. Twice in his cross-examination he confirmed he was not intimidated by the Complainant. The reasonable person against whom the Defendant’s actions are measured, and envisioned by Justice Martin in Khill, carries the reasonable beliefs and history of the Defendant. There is nothing in the entirety of the evidence I have heard that would reasonably lead someone in the Defendant’s shoes to perceive the use or threat of force by the Complainant.

[65] The answer to this issue is no.

Issue 3: Did the Defendant’s conduct arise for the purpose of defending or protecting himself or another person from the force or threat of force?

[66] This prong of self-defence is referred to by Justice Martin as the “motive”. Were the Defendant’s actions undertaken to protect someone from the use or threat of force?

[67] As there was no use or threat of force by the Complainant, the Defendant’s conduct cannot have arisen in response to it. The answer to this issue must be no.

Issue 4: Was the Defendant’s conduct reasonable in the circumstances?

[68] Finally, Justice Martin considered the nature of a defendant’s conduct. This is the “response”.

[69] Even if I am entirely wrong in addressing the first two prongs of self-defence, I find the Defendant’s conduct to be unreasonable in the circumstances. Even if there was a use or threat of force, and even if the actions taken by the Defendant were to protect himself or others from that force, his response was unreasonable and out of all proportion to what he was facing.

[70] I begin this assessment by noting the issues presented by the Defendant’s own evidence. First, his evidence of where the knife came from was fluid and contradictory. The knife was first on a nearby box. Then it was in his pocket. Then it went from the box to his pocket. Then he couldn’t recall putting it in or taking it out of his pocket. His testimony conflicted with his police statement. His claim that he was looking at a packed box and found the knife sitting on top of it is at odds with his own account of how the physical altercation took place. He said they were yelling and that the Complainant pulled out his eyebrow piercing and punched him. He also said he was looking at what had been packed when he was struck by the Complainant. But he testified, “the knife was already in my hand when he assaulted me”. I reject all the varying claims the Defendant made regarding how he came to be in possession of the knife. I accept the evidence of the Complainant and of the independent witness Mr. Putt, both of whom testified to seeing a knife (in the Complainant’s evidence) and a small object (in Mr. Putt’s evidence) in the Defendant’s hand in the moments leading up to the altercation.

[71] The Defendant also admitted he did not need the knife to deal with the situation he was in. Given his boxing training, he agreed he had complete confidence in his ability to subdue the Complainant, if necessary, with his fists. Instead, he made the conscious decision to open the knife with the intention of stabbing the Complainant.

[72] Finally, even had I found the initial stabbing to be reasonable (which I don’t), the Defendant kept stabbing even after the Complainant fell to the floor. One of the several stab wounds suffered by the Complainant was to his left side, towards his back. There was nothing in any aspect of their interaction that would make repeatedly stabbing the Complainant, unarmed and on the floor, remotely reasonable.

[73] The answer to the fourth issue is no.

Result

[74] The events of 18 May 2020 were the culmination of a difficult relationship between the parties. There were numerous issues in the Defendant’s and Mr. Bilyea’s tenancy. The tenants were in the process of moving out when they heard their dogs had been let loose. The Defendant returned to the Chandler residence to find the Complainant inside and trying to change the locks before they’d finished moving out. Their belongings were on the lawn. The dogs were nowhere to be seen. The anger and resentment of the prior months boiled over in a violent attack on the Complainant.

[75] The Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant stabbed the Complainant multiple times, causing several serious injuries that are far beyond transient and trifling. He was not acting in self-defence when he did so. This was a direct application of force resulting in bodily harm to the Complainant. The Defendant will be found guilty.

Released: 7 November 2023 Signed: Justice S. G. Pratt