Reasons for Judgment

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: November 5, 2025

Court File No.: Hamilton 998 25 47105064

Between:

His Majesty the King

— and —

Nicolas Cappella

Before: Justice Davin M.K. Garg

Heard on: October 14-17, 2025

Reasons released on: November 5, 2025

Counsel:

Dayna Tinkham — counsel for the Crown

Jamie Stephenson — counsel for the accused Nicolas Cappella

GARG J.:

Overview

[1] It was the Saturday night after the Winona Peach Festival. As expected, the neighbourhood was more lively than usual. Victor Renzella's home sits in a residential neighbourhood, but its backyard abuts the parking lot of a Tim Hortons—a magnet for late-night gatherings. On this night, a group of young men, including the accused, Nicolas Cappella, had parked there with music blaring. For Victor Renzella, this was not a new irritation. He had been battling noise from that parking lot for 23 years, and his frustration boiled over when calls to turn down the music were met with vulgar defiance. Victor and his son Lucas drove over to confront the group. They did not find a respectful or passive crowd. They found Mr. Cappella, beer in one hand, baseball bat in the other, projecting a readiness for confrontation. Threats flew—"You want to get clapped?"—and Mr. Cappella swung his bat at them. When Victor's other son Nicholas arrived, the confrontation erupted into a full-blown fight. It was during the fight that Mr. Cappella struck both Victor and Lucas with the bat. Victor suffered severe injuries to his face.

[2] Several individuals could be criticized for their conduct in the parking lot that night. But my task is not to pass judgment on the group. My task is to decide whether the Crown has proven any of the charges against Mr. Cappella beyond a reasonable doubt.

[3] For the reasons that follow, I find that Mr. Cappella caused the injuries to Victor Renzella. He acted unreasonably when he struck him in the head with a baseball bat. The strike was not immunized by Mr. Cappella's claim that he was defending his friends. I find that Mr. Cappella committed an aggravated assault against Victor. He did not, however, intend to kill him. I further find that Mr. Cappella assaulted Lucas Renzella when he swung the bat toward him. However, I do not hold him culpable for striking or injuring him. Finally, I conclude that Mr. Cappella is not guilty of uttering threats to harm the Renzellas, as I cannot reject the application of self-defence.

Issues

[4] This case raises the following issues (with my bottom-line conclusion in italics):

(1) Did Mr. Cappella wound Victor Renzella? Yes. The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Cappella caused Victor Renzella's injuries. The Crown has therefore proven the causation element of the aggravated assault offence.

(2) Was the aggravated assault permitted by defence of person? No. The Crown has disproven the defence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown has proven the charge of aggravated assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

(3) Did Mr. Cappella attempt to cause the death of Victor Renzella? No. The Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Cappella had the intention to kill.

(4) Is Mr. Cappella guilty of assault with a weapon because he struck Lucas Renzella with a baseball bat? No. The Crown has not proven that Mr. Cappella struck Lucas Renzella with the bat before the fight broke out. While Mr. Cappella struck Lucas with the bat during the fight, the Crown has not disproven self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

(5) Is Mr. Cappella guilty of assault with a weapon because he swung the baseball bat at Lucas Renzella without making contact? Yes. The Crown has disproven self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown has proven the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

(6) Is Mr. Cappella guilty of making death threats to Victor Renzella or Lucas Renzella? No. The Crown has not disproven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Cappella uttered the threats in self-defence.

General Principles

[5] The Crown bears the onus of proving each and every element of the offences charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Cappella carries no onus to prove or disprove anything. He is presumed innocent of all charges. The burden of proof never shifts to Mr. Cappella. It is not enough for me to believe that Mr. Cappella is probably or likely guilty of an offence. In that situation, I would need to acquit. While the Crown is not required to prove its case to an absolute certainty, proof beyond a reasonable doubt falls much closer to an absolute certainty than the balance of probabilities. The Crown's burden is onerous and unique to the criminal process. Reasonable doubt can arise from the evidence or from the absence of evidence.

[6] The various issues require me to conduct an analysis pursuant to the principles articulated in R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33. I must consider other reasonable possibilities or plausible theories that are inconsistent with guilt to decide whether an inference of guilt is the only reasonable inference. Inferences inconsistent with guilt do not need to arise from proven facts, as this would put an obligation on an accused to prove facts. Reasonable possibilities must be based on logic and experience applied to the evidence or the absence of evidence, not on speculation. My assessment of the circumstantial evidence and the process of drawing inferences are guided by the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Gibson, 2021 ONCA 530 at paras. 75-79.

Credibility and Reliability Findings

[7] I heard from six witnesses who were involved in some capacity in the encounter that night. The Crown called Victor, Lucas, and Nicholas Renzella. The defence called three of Mr. Cappella's friends: Hayden Cripps, Matthew Spadaro, and Leo Kantartzis. I do not find that any witness was deceitful in their testimony. However, the witnesses were unreliable on the specifics of what was said or done during the build-up and ensuing fight. No witness was a disinterested observer. Each was aligned with a side in a fast-moving, high-tension encounter. Heightened emotions, stress, and divided loyalties predictably impaired perception. I rely on the video footage of the encounter as the independent historian. Nevertheless, I can believe some, none, or all of a witness's testimony: R. v. S.H., 2011 ONCA 215 at para. 8. There are points where I rely on a witness because I am satisfied that their bias and emotions did not overwhelm their ability to provide credible and reliable testimony.

Issue #1: Did Mr. Cappella Cause Victor Renzella's Injuries?

[8] There is no dispute that Mr. Cappella struck Victor Renzella in the head with a baseball bat. There is also no dispute that Victor Renzella suffered serious injuries to his face that would easily constitute the wounding required to make out aggravated assault. The photographs of Victor's face show injuries under both eyes. There are serious injuries to his entire right eye and right cheek. The cut to the cheek had been stitched. There is blood in his nose and cuts to his lip. The hospital performed surgery within a few days of the incident and put two plates in Victor's face. The records show that he underwent extensive procedures: repair of a zygomatic fracture dislocation with three-point fixation, repair of the middle one-quarter of the face, orbital floor reconstruction, and open nasal bone reduction.

[9] The defence argues that the Crown has not met its burden to prove that Mr. Cappella caused the wounding. This argument rests on two planks. First, the defence argues that Mr. Cappella struck Victor Renzella in the back of the head. He thus could not have caused the injuries to his face. Second, soon after being struck by the bat, another person punched Victor in the face with a stiff uppercut. Taken together, I should have a doubt on causation.

[10] The element of causation asks whether Mr. Cappella's conduct was a significant contributing cause to the wounding: R. v. Theriault, 2020 ONSC 3317 at para. 226, aff'd 2021 ONCA 517; see also R. v. Nette, 2001 SCC 78. Causation has both a factual and a normative dimension. Factual causation asks whether the accused's conduct contributed to the result in a medical or physical sense. Legal causation is the normative inquiry into whether that contribution is significant enough to attract moral and legal responsibility. The requirement of a "significant contributing cause" ensures that liability is not imposed for trivial or incidental links but only where the accused's act meaningfully caused the prohibited consequence—in this case, the wounding; see R. v. Triolo, 2023 ONCA 221 at paras. 137-138.

[11] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the strike with the baseball bat was a significant contributing cause to the wounding. Importantly, I find as fact that Mr. Cappella connected with the right side of Victor Renzella's face and not the back of his head. I thoroughly reviewed all the video clips of the incident and watched them at regular speed and in slow motion. In the split second before the blow, given the position of Victor's head relative to the direction of Mr. Cappella's swing, it would have been unlikely for the bat to strike the back of the head on its path. Furthermore, Victor grabbed the front or side of his face before receiving the uppercut from the other party. Grabbing the area of his face that suffered wounding, before receiving any further blows, is a significant indicator of where Mr. Cappella's strike landed.

[12] I acknowledge that Victor Renzella first grabbed the back or top of his head. But his hands then shifted towards the front and side of his face before the subsequent uppercut, as visible on Exhibit 5 starting at 0:00:03 and Exhibit 9 at 0:00:52. In both video clips, Victor's right ear is visible and serves as a reference point for the parts of his head and thus the location of his hands. It is apparent that his hands were not positioned on the back of his head. His arm position—tucked towards his chest with a right angle between his upper and lower arm—also supports that his hand was on the front of his face.

[13] On the defence theory, Mr. Cappella struck Victor Renzella on the back of the head, causing no discernible injury, and the other party then uppercut him in the face, causing all the injuries. That theory is neither reasonably possible nor plausible. Mr. Cappella advanced several steps toward Victor and delivered a forceful blow to his head with an aluminum bat. There was nothing to block or absorb the impact. The only reasonable inference is that Mr. Cappella's strike was a significant contributing cause of the injuries. It may very well be that the uppercut also contributed to the injuries. But factual causation is not limited to the most significant cause: R. v. Maybin, 2012 SCC 24 at para. 20. Whether a later blow also had some role to play in the injury is of no legal consequence: R. v. Rocchetta, 2016 ONCA 577 at para. 20.

[14] In conclusion, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Cappella's strike factually contributed to the wounding and was significant enough to attract moral and legal responsibility.

Issue #2: Did Defence of Person Permit the Aggravated Assault?

[15] The defence argues that Mr. Cappella's strike to the head of Victor Renzella was permitted by the defence of a third party under s. 34 of the Criminal Code. The defence does not claim self-defence. I agree there is no air of reality to self-defence. Rather, the defence asks me to infer that Mr. Cappella was defending his friend Zach Pereira, who was engaged at the time with Lucas Renzella.

Factual Overview

[16] I will briefly summarize the events when the fight broke out. Victor and Lucas Renzella were verbally engaged with Mr. Cappella's group when Nicholas Renzella rushed on scene. Nicholas pushed someone as that person swung at him. The two then exchanged blows, triggering the broader fight.

[17] Lucas and Mr. Cappella began fighting one-on-one. I accept that Lucas was attempting to disarm Mr. Cappella, but Mr. Cappella maintained control of the bat. Victor pushed Lucas aside and positioned himself between Lucas and Mr. Cappella. Mr. Cappella swung the bat at Victor, who blocked the strike with his left arm. Photographs confirm an injury to that arm.

[18] Mr. Cappella retreated several steps, placing himself on the outskirts of the fray. Victor turned his attention away from Mr. Cappella and looked toward the area where others were fighting. I accept that Victor saw his son Nicholas engaged in a fight with multiple people. Victor moved toward that group and adopted an "active" stance; his hands were raised slightly near his waist. He did not assume a "fighting" stance; he neither clenched his fists nor raised his hands to shoulder level. It does not appear that Victor contacted anyone in that group, except possibly his son Nicholas. With Nicholas now lying on the ground, Victor looked toward his other son Lucas, who was fighting two people, one of whom was Zach Pereira. At this point, Mr. Cappella struck Victor in the head with the bat. Victor could not see Mr. Cappella approaching.

Statutory Provisions and Legal Principles

[19] Section 34(1) explains that a person is not guilty of an offence if:

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

I must consider the factors in s. 34(2) when assessing the reasonableness of the act.

[20] There are several important legal principles that guide my analysis. First, I cannot measure Mr. Cappella's actions to a nicety. I have the advantage of assessing his conduct from the calm of the courthouse, aided by multiple video clips from different angles that can be slowed and replayed. Mr. Cappella enjoyed no such luxury. He acted in real time amidst chaos without opportunity for subtle reflection: R. v. Cunha, 2016 ONCA 491 at para. 7.

[21] Second, Mr. Cappella was not obliged to testify. I accept that the evidence, including the video clips and testimony of Mr. Cappella's friends, can supply an air of reality to the defence: see e.g., R. v. Lam, 2025 ONSC 4534 at paras. 109-110, 135-140. Once an air of reality exists, the onus rests firmly on the Crown to disprove an element of the defence beyond a reasonable doubt: R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37 at para. 18. Mr. Cappella is not required to prove that he acted to defend someone.

[22] Third, the analysis examines the entire context. I must consider the conduct of the parties from the beginning of the incident to the end: Khill at para. 82. "This broad temporal frame allows the trier of fact to consider the full context of the accused's actions in a holistic manner": para. 83.

Analysis

[23] I conclude that defence of person does not apply to the charge of aggravated assault. My reasoning will centre on how the Crown has proven that Mr. Cappella's conduct was unreasonable. In other words, the Crown has disproven beyond a reasonable doubt the requirement that his actions be reasonable.

[24] The reasonableness condition aims to balance the security of the person defended with the security of the person acted upon. The standard casts a wide net of inquiry covering how the act occurred and the role that each person played. The objective standard is modified to consider some of Mr. Cappella's characteristics. However, my task is not to slip into his mind. The focus remains on what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances: Khill at paras. 62-65.

[25] I will review each factor from s. 34(2) to guide my analysis of whether Mr. Cappella's conduct was reasonable:

The Nature and Imminence of the Threat

[26] It is convenient to address the first two factors together. It is relevant that Victor Renzella had not yet laid hands on the people that Mr. Cappella was supposedly protecting. The screenshot of the video clip from Exhibit 9 at 0:00:50 shows the moment when Mr. Cappella had already begun his swing. Mr. Cappella is on the left. Victor is in the middle of the frame, looking at the three people standing and fighting. He remained some distance from them. The position of his hands did not suggest that he was going to punch them. While a defender is certainly not required to wait for an attack to materialize before responding, Mr. Cappella resorted to an elevated level of force to respond to a threat of force that was not particularly imminent. Mr. Cappella also had other means available to deal with the situation. I will address those when assessing the proportionality of his response.

Mr. Cappella's Role in the Incident

[27] Mr. Cappella's conduct in the build-up to the fight undercuts the reasonableness of his eventual response. I find that he was antagonistic throughout the encounter. To borrow the term from para. 84 of Khill, he was hotheaded. The screenshot of the video clip from Exhibit 3 at 0:00:48 shows him pointing the bat at the Renzellas. He followed it with taunting vocalizations ("ohh" and "ah ah"). He shouted, "You guys actually getting clapped up right now, right in front of your fucking [kids or cribs]. You wanna get clapped up in front of your fucking crib? I'll take my shit off right now".

[28] Whether Mr. Cappella's words attract criminal liability is a separate question that I will address later. Even if they do not, the words remain relevant: Khill at para. 84. They demonstrate that Mr. Cappella was not a passive bystander swept into circumstances he had no hand in creating. His behaviour aggravated tensions and sustained the volatility of the situation: Khill at para. 87. I reject the suggestion proffered by the defence witnesses that Mr. Cappella was merely joking. His words, actions, and demeanour on the video clips establish otherwise.

[29] I do not suggest that the Renzellas were friendly or benign observers during the build-up to the fight. They were aggressive in their own right. They came in hot. Lucas declared that they came there to "fix shit". However, Mr. Cappella not only reciprocated their hostility; he escalated it, injecting volatility into an already fraught situation.

Use of a Weapon

[30] Mr. Cappella was the only person that night who possessed a weapon. He used it to strike the unarmed and defenseless Victor Renzella. Mr. Cappella obviously knew that Victor was unarmed. Victor had nothing in his hands and made no movement to his waist. There is no suggestion that he could have been hiding something in his shorts or tank top. I also put no weight on the speculation from Leo Kantartzis and Matthew Spadaro that a Renzella brother might have possessed a weapon. The video clips provide no indication that any Renzella was potentially armed. Regardless of what the defence witnesses might have believed, I decline to infer that Mr. Cappella suspected his opponents were armed.

Size, Age, Gender, and Physical Capabilities

[31] When examining the personal characteristics of the parties, the defence focused on the evidence concerning Mr. Cappella's enlarged spleen. Because of the serious risk of splenic rupture from blunt trauma, he was advised to avoid contact sports. Apart from this condition, there was nothing about Mr. Cappella's size or age that placed him at a disadvantage that night. He was among the larger individuals involved in the altercation.

[32] Khill at para. 65 provides helpful guidance on how to factor Mr. Cappella's enlarged spleen into the analysis. I must ask: what would a reasonable person with a similar physical ailment have done in the circumstances?

[33] Mr. Cappella's ailment does not materially inform the defence of a third party. There is no suggestion that those he purported to protect suffered from any condition that required his urgent intervention. If anything, Mr. Cappella's medical vulnerability should have made him reluctant to engage at all. His escalation of the situation was inconsistent with his apparent need to avoid any physical contact. Mr. Cappella's ailment could have explained his reluctance to drop the bat. It could have explained him using the bat to keep people away from himself. It does not explain using the bat to prevent Victor Renzella from approaching a third party.

[34] Mr. Cappella's youth and level of maturity are also relevant considerations. Young men can be prone to impulsive or reactive decisions when emotions run high and judgment is clouded. The reasonable person in this analysis is not a monk meditating on a mountaintop. It is a young man whose decision-making may be more impulsive and less tempered by experience.

[35] There is no evidence of any history between Mr. Cappella and the Renzellas. Their encounter likely started across the fence when Victor Renzella was complaining about the noise, although I cannot speculate on Mr. Cappella's precise involvement at that point. My analysis principally begins when they first crossed paths in the parking lot.

Nature and Proportionality of the Response

[36] Mr. Cappella's disproportionate response plays a weighty role in my conclusion that he acted unreasonably. He delivered a full swing of an aluminum baseball bat to the head of Victor Renzella. His wind-up started with his arm stretched backwards and the bat at knee-level. Having moved to the outskirts of the fray, he advanced multiple steps to deliver the forceful blow. He struck when Victor was looking the other way. Victor's behaviour once the fight broke out was restrained. His actions were more defensive than offensive. The fact that Mr. Cappella gripped the bat with one hand did not diminish the force of the blow. The person that Mr. Cappella was said to be defending, Zach Pereira, was not in dire straits. He was not calling for help. He was holding his own against Lucas Renzella and enjoyed greater manpower on his side. The elevated force that Mr. Cappella employed was grossly disproportionate to what was warranted in the circumstances.

[37] I remind myself again that I cannot weigh to a nicety the conduct of a young man acting in the heat of the moment. Even with that caution in mind, I find that Mr. Cappella had alternatives available to him. He could have used the bat to push or cross-check Victor Renzella. He could have struck him in a different body part. He could have started by pushing Victor with his hands and still kept him away from his enlarged spleen. At no point did Mr. Cappella attempt to de-escalate the situation with words. Instead, he invoked violence and used taunts whenever he spoke.

Conclusion

[38] Defence of person does not apply to the charge of aggravated assault. The Crown has disproven its operation beyond a reasonable doubt. The absence of testimony from Mr. Cappella has no bearing on my conclusion. I draw no adverse inference from his decision not to testify. The vicious blow with the baseball bat to Victor Renzella was completely unreasonable and wildly disproportionate in the circumstances. His enlarged spleen did not grant him a license to indiscriminately strike Victor in the head.

[39] The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Cappella applied force to Victor Renzella without his consent. The force caused wounding. The Crown does not need to prove that the wounding was intentionally inflicted. The Crown has proven an objective foreseeability or risk of bodily harm from the blow: R. v. Theriault, 2020 ONSC 3317 at para. 225. The Crown has therefore proven the charge of aggravated assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue #3: Did Mr. Cappella Attempt to Kill Victor Renzella?

[40] The next question is whether Mr. Cappella attempted to kill Victor Renzella. The crime of attempted murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill, coupled with conduct done for the purpose of carrying out that intention: R. v. Boone, 2019 ONCA 652 at para. 49. Mr. Cappella's intent is the main issue here. The intention to inflict significant harm, combined with recklessness as to the consequence of inflicting that harm, does not suffice to establish the mens rea for attempted murder: Boone at paras. 51, 57.

[41] I outlined most of the relevant context when addressing the charge of aggravated assault. The Crown principally relies on the following evidence to prove the charge of attempted murder:

(1) Mr. Cappella made utterances before the fight indicating that he would kill the Renzellas. He can be heard on Exhibit 8 around 0:00:28 declaring, "I'll fucking kill you". He asked the Renzellas if they wanted to get "clapped up". Witnesses also testified to Mr. Cappella saying, "Don't come any closer or I'll kill you". Some witnesses described the threats as defensive in tone, intended to keep the Renzellas at a distance.

(2) Mr. Cappella executed a vicious blow with an aluminum bat to Victor Renzella's head. He took multiple steps and struck with force. He attacked when Victor's attention was elsewhere, making him unable to defend himself. One could argue that Mr. Cappella waited to strike until Victor was looking the other way.

(3) Mr. Cappella fled the scene and did not render Victor any aid.

[42] The Crown has not discharged its burden to prove the charge of attempted murder. Intent to kill is not the only reasonable inference. Indeed, I am quite certain that Mr. Cappella did not intend to kill Victor Renzella. He intended to cause significant harm and was reckless to the consequences. In reaching this conclusion, I will assume for the sake of the analysis that Mr. Cappella's flight is probative on the issue of intent: see R. v. Campbell, 2018 ONCA 837 at para. 12; but also see R. v. Rodgerson, 2015 SCC 38 at paras. 37-38.

[43] The evidence does not establish the mens rea for attempted murder. Mr. Cappella only delivered a single blow, albeit a forceful one to the head, that left Victor on his feet. Mr. Cappella fled the scene soon thereafter. That sequence undermines the inference that he intended to kill Victor. Had he truly intended to kill, I would have expected him to strike again when his target remained upright and was vulnerable; see e.g., R. v. Raymond LeRoy, 2022 NSSC 272 at para. 133 (e). The Crown asks me to infer intent from the earlier death threats. That chain of reasoning is too simplistic. A person who utters threats and later commits a serious assault does not necessarily intend to kill. While I rejected earlier the notion that the threats were jokes, they appear to have been the product of bravado and youthful posturing rather than a genuine expression of homicidal intent. Finally, placing undue weight on the precise timing of the strike as proof of intent dissects the scene in a way that ignores its chaotic reality.

[44] I must consider the evidence in its totality: R. v. Curry, 2014 ONCA 174 at paras. 52-53. I must evaluate the cumulative effect of the threats, the vicious blow, the timing of the blow, and the post-offence conduct. Examined holistically, I am left in doubt on whether Mr. Cappella intended to kill Victor Renzella.

Issue #4: Did Mr. Cappella Commit Assault for Striking Lucas Renzella?

[45] Mr. Cappella stands charged with using a weapon to assault Lucas Renzella. The evidence discloses multiple potential routes to liability on this count. Here, under Issue #4, I will analyze whether Mr. Cappella is culpable for striking Lucas Renzella with the baseball bat. Later, under Issue #5, I will address whether he is culpable for swinging the bat at him without making contact.

[46] The evidence identifies two occasions when Mr. Cappella might have struck Lucas with the bat. I will examine each in turn.

Striking Lucas Renzella Before the Fight Broke Out

[47] The Crown relies on Lucas Renzella's testimony that the first physical blows occurred almost immediately after he and Victor approached Mr. Cappella. Lucas stated that Mr. Cappella swung the bat and struck him twice on the left side near his shoulder and ribcage. This assault is said to have occurred before the wider fight erupted. It was not captured on any of the video clips but was supported by Victor's testimony.

[48] I am left in doubt that Mr. Cappella struck Lucas with the bat before the fight broke out. Lucas's evidence on this point shifted in a material way. In his initial statement to the police, and months later when he spoke to them again, Lucas did not say that he had been struck twice before the fight broke out. He relayed this information for the first time at trial. When confronted with the omissions, his explanation was not compelling. While he might have been flustered during the initial statement, the second one was taken months later in calm conditions and after an opportunity to reflect. The inconsistency is not peripheral; it goes to whether the alleged force occurred and preceded the ensuing disorder.

[49] The difficulties are not confined to that inconsistency. Lucas's evidence was unclear on where and how the alleged strikes could have occurred. At points he accepted that there was effectively no space to swing a bat between the two vehicles through which he and his father entered, yet elsewhere suggested that the blows occurred in that area. Furthermore, the plausibility of Lucas's account is strained by what follows on the video: he continued to speak animatedly, gestured broadly, and advanced toward Mr. Cappella without any outward indicia of the "seven-out-of-ten" pain he attributed to a rib strike. Later, it required only a single push by Nicholas Renzella for the wider fight to erupt—yet, on Lucas's version, two earlier bat blows of fairly significant force did not trigger any comparable reaction. Those positions are difficult to reconcile.

[50] None of this analysis leads me to find that Lucas or Victor gave deceitful testimony. The encounter was chaotic and sincere witnesses can be mistaken. In that context, the video record is the most reliable objective record available. It does not capture the strikes that Lucas described at trial. I am left in doubt that Mr. Cappella struck Lucas with the bat before the broader fight broke out.

Striking Lucas Renzella During the Fight

[51] Mr. Cappella struck Lucas with the bat once the fight broke out. These strikes might have caused his injuries. I can see the strikes on the video clips that show the opening moments of the fight. The strikes ended when Victor intervened.

[52] The strikes during the fight cannot ground culpability for the assault because I am not satisfied that the Crown has met its burden of disproving self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt. I will examine each element of the defence.

The Catalyst: s. 34(1)(a)

[53] The first question examines the catalyst: did Mr. Cappella subjectively believe, on reasonable grounds, that force was being threatened against him? The Crown has not disproven this condition. The video clips support a reasonable inference that Mr. Cappella perceived an imminent threat. Lucas Renzella was advancing toward him, and Mr. Cappella's response was directed at the perceived use of force. From what I can tell, the bat strikes occurred only after Lucas physically engaged with him.

[54] I am not suggesting that Lucas acted with undue aggression. I accept his testimony that he was trying to disarm Mr. Cappella of his bat. Nevertheless, from Mr. Cappella's perspective, he faced an individual closing in with arms raised—a posture that could reasonably be interpreted as threatening.

The Motive: s. 34(1)(b)

[55] The second question examines the motive: did Mr. Cappella strike Lucas for the purpose of defending himself from the threat of force? The Crown has not disproven this condition. It is a reasonable inference that Mr. Cappella was responding to Lucas's use or threat of force. Even though Mr. Cappella had been antagonistic in the moments leading up to the fight, I cannot find that his strikes were motivated by vengeance. He was not striking Lucas merely because the chance had come to inflict the harm he had already intended.

The Response: s. 34(1)(c)

[56] The third and final question examines Mr. Cappella's response: was it reasonable in the circumstances? Parts of my earlier analysis concerning the strike to Victor's head continue to apply. But the outcome here turns on what is different. I will focus on those distinctions to illustrate my conclusion that the strikes to Lucas were reasonable.

[57] The blows to Lucas were more restrained than the one to Victor. There is no evidence that Mr. Cappella struck Lucas in the head. The force applied was comparatively modest. The proximity between Lucas and Mr. Cappella limited the force of each swing, to some extent. The strikes occurred while the two were locked in a physical struggle, with Lucas focused on Mr. Cappella. At no point did Mr. Cappella advance on Lucas and deliver an unprovoked swing; his actions were reactive and sufficiently proportionate to the immediate struggle.

[58] In asking what a reasonable person with a similar physical ailment to Mr. Cappella would have done in the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Crown has not disproven that it was reasonable for Mr. Cappella to defend himself with the bat.

Conclusion

[59] I am left with a reasonable doubt that the Crown has disproven self-defence in relation to Mr. Cappella's bat strikes against Lucas Renzella during the fight. I appreciate that the strikes to Lucas and the subsequent strike to Victor were only about five seconds apart. I must avoid parsing the chaos during that brief interval to conclude that Mr. Cappella's mindset shifted neatly from "defender" to "aggressor". But I emphasize two points. First, I made no positive finding that Mr. Cappella was defending himself when he struck Lucas; rather, the Crown failed to meet its burden on that issue. Second, even a defender must respond reasonably. I was not satisfied that the Crown had proven that the strikes to Lucas were unreasonable. The circumstances of the later blow to Victor's head were materially different, compelling me to reach the opposite conclusion.

Issue #5: Did Mr. Cappella Commit Assault by Swinging at Lucas Renzella?

[60] At various points during the build-up to the fight, Mr. Cappella can be seen on the video footage swinging the bat toward Lucas Renzella without making contact. The Crown only relies on one such swing to establish culpability for assault with a weapon. This swing occurred around the outset of the encounter. I must decide whether self-defence applies and whether the Crown has proven the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Factual Overview

[61] Exhibit 8 captures the swing in question between 0:00:00 and 0:00:02. The screenshot shows Mr. Cappella's back with the bat in his hand. Lucas Renzella, in the red shirt, has his hands in front of his face. The clip shows Victor and Lucas Renzella walking through the gap between a Jeep and a white car. Mr. Cappella is facing them. I find that this clip begins at or near the outset of the encounter between Mr. Cappella and the Renzellas.

[62] At that moment, the parties were about a few feet apart. Mr. Cappella swung the bat toward the Renzellas while taking a small step forward. Mr. Cappella gripped the bat with one hand. The motion was not a full swing; it could be described as a wave. At its apex, the bat rose to about head level, while Mr. Cappella's hand reached shoulder height. Lucas immediately raised both hands in a defensive posture, as if to block a possible strike.

Application of Self-Defence

[63] I conclude that the Crown has disproven beyond a reasonable doubt the application of self-defence. Specifically, I find that the Crown has disproven the catalyst and response conditions.

The Catalyst: s. 34(1)(a)

[64] I am not sure what Mr. Cappella believed. Whether he thought the Renzellas were threatening force is uncertain. What is certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, is that any such belief was not held on reasonable grounds.

[65] As outlined earlier in these reasons, I accept that the Renzellas did not arrive on friendly terms. The blaring music and dispute over the fence meant that Victor was already angry before he left his house. There is evidence that he drove into the parking lot at some speed.

[66] Nevertheless, the Renzellas' agitated state did not supply a reasonable belief that they threatened force at the outset of the encounter when Mr. Cappella swung the bat. There is no evidence that they drove anywhere near Mr. Cappella, nor any basis to infer that he observed how they entered the parking lot. The Renzellas parked and got out to discuss the situation. They had not touched anyone, invaded personal space, or uttered threats of violence. Nothing in their conduct at this early point justified a belief that a threat of force was forthcoming.

[67] I do not accept the defence claim that someone from the Renzella property shouted death threats from across the fence. The witnesses at this trial exaggerated the opposing group's aggression and minimized their own. Hayden Cripps, for example, testified that Mr. Cappella never swung at the Renzellas nor "took a step forward or swung forward to engage with them". This claim was plainly contradicted by the video evidence. Matthew Spadaro, for his part, was driving when words were exchanged over the fence. He admitted that he "couldn't hear that much". Yet he attributed specific death threats to those across the fence. His credibility on this point was seriously undermined in cross-examination. The alleged threats are also inconsistent with the Renzellas' words and tone on the video during the early stages of the parking lot encounter. Their attitude was tense but not in line with people who had been issuing death threats.

[68] It was reasonable for Mr. Cappella to believe that he was being confronted. But it is not reasonable to perceive every confrontation—even with a frustrated party—as a threat of force. The rule of law demands some minimum threshold before a person can resort to physical force. The threshold was not met here. The Renzellas had not yet done anything that allowed Mr. Cappella to reasonably believe that they were threatening force.

[69] The defence emphasized how the Renzellas' stated purpose for attending the parking lot was to have the music turned off. Mr. Cappella's group complied almost immediately after the Renzellas exited their vehicle, if not shortly before. Yet instead of going home, the Renzellas continued to engage and move towards Mr. Cappella's group. However, human behaviour does not adjust with mechanical precision to changing circumstances. In a tense, unfolding situation, individuals require time to perceive developments, process them, and decide on a new course of action. The Renzellas' continued presence, viewed in the totality of the circumstances, did not support a reasonable belief that they threatened force when Mr. Cappella swung the bat.

The Response: s. 34(1)(c)

[70] Having concluded that the Crown has disproven the catalyst condition of self-defence, my assessment of the reasonableness of Mr. Cappella's response can be brief. In the alternative, I am satisfied that the Crown has also disproven the reasonableness condition.

[71] I begin by recognizing the factors that support the reasonableness of Mr. Cappella's response. Notably, I can tell that Mr. Cappella tempered his swing with the bat. It was more like a wave. My impression is that he had no real desire to hit the Renzellas. He was pulling his punches, so to speak.

[72] Two related facts drive my conclusion that the response was unreasonable: the speed with which Mr. Cappella introduced a weapon into the situation; and his decision to brandish that weapon before facing any meaningful apprehension of force.

[73] On the first fact, I infer that Mr. Cappella decided to arm himself with the baseball bat at some point after the argument over the fence and before the Renzellas arrived in the parking lot. No one gave direct testimony on him retrieving the bat, but he clearly had the bat once the Renzellas arrived. It is not as though he already had the bat when his group was congregating in the parking lot (the group was not playing baseball at that time). Rather, he made a conscious decision to retrieve it.

[74] On the second fact, I find that Mr. Cappella decided to swing the bat at the Renzellas very early in the encounter. Much of what I outlined when assessing the catalyst applies here. Even if Mr. Cappella reasonably believed that the Renzellas threatened him with force, any such threat of force was minimal and restrained in the brief interval before he swung a weapon at them.

[75] I must consider the relevance of Mr. Cappella's enlarged spleen and how a reasonable person sharing a similar ailment would have responded. One argument is that it explains why he grabbed and swung the bat, when such conduct would be premature for somebody else. One problem with this argument is that I see no basis to find that the enlarged spleen played any role in Mr. Cappella's decision-making. The swing was not protective. Throughout the encounter, he did not cover his torso or disengage to avoid risk. The swing was antagonistic and escalatory, increasing the likelihood of a physical confrontation. Given that the reasonableness analysis is objective, it might be that this point fits better into the catalyst or motive conditions of self-defence. In any event, even accounting for his ailment, it does little to assist the objective reasonableness of his premature response.

[76] Mr. Cappella had several other courses open to him. I remind myself that he was a young man making real-time decisions in a tense encounter. But those circumstances do not immunize his conduct from scrutiny. He did not need to engage with the Renzellas at all. He could have increased his distance rather than standing within a few feet. He could have limited himself to words or tried to calm the situation, like Leo Kantartzis attempted to do (who is also a young man I might add). I do not accept the defence argument that the Renzellas were blocking his retreat. The availability of these non-forceful options weighs against the reasonableness of Mr. Cappella swinging the bat when he did.

Proof of the Offence

[77] The final question is whether Mr. Cappella's swing of the bat establishes assault with a weapon. The Crown must prove an underlying assault and that it was committed while using a weapon. I find that the Crown has proven the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

[78] One path to assault is s. 265(1)(b): a person commits assault when, by an act or gesture, they attempt or threaten to apply force to another, and they have—or cause the other to believe on reasonable grounds that they have—the present ability to effect that purpose. The relevant mens rea lies in the intent to threaten; the Crown need not prove an intent to carry out the threat: R. v. Horner, 2018 ONCA 971 at paras. 14-16.

[79] Applying these principles, the swinging or waving of the bat toward Lucas Renzella at fairly close range, coupled with a step in his direction and Lucas's position confined between two cars, amounted to a threat by act with present ability. The moderated nature of the motion did not detract from its aggressive and weaponized character. Lucas's recoil and bracing also reflected a reasonable belief in Mr. Cappella's present ability to apply force. Finally, I am satisfied that Mr. Cappella intended to threaten. It is the only reasonable inference from his conduct. My earlier finding that Mr. Cappella did not want to hit Lucas does not undermine this element of the offence. Having rejected self-defence, the offence is complete.

Conclusion

[80] I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Cappella assaulted Lucas Renzella with a weapon. He is not, however, liable for striking or injuring Lucas.

Issue #6: Is Mr. Cappella Guilty of Uttering Death Threats?

[81] The final two counts charge Mr. Cappella with uttering death threats to Victor and Lucas Renzella.

Factual Overview

[82] The threats occurred after Mr. Cappella swung the bat at Lucas Renzella. The threats continued until the fight broke out. I rely on the video to decide what words were uttered. The witness testimony is not sufficiently reliable to determine any utterances unless it conforms to what I can hear on the video.

[83] After Mr. Cappella swung the bat, he rapidly retreated. The swing clearly provoked the Renzellas. It caused them to shout, "You think you're a fucking tough guy? … Tough guy with the bat". It led them to fixate on his continued possession of the bat. They issued calls to put it down. The parties moved into the open area of the parking lot away from the vehicles.

[84] Slowly but surely, the Renzellas advanced on Mr. Cappella and his group. As the Renzellas gestured towards Mr. Cappella, the latter asked in a high-pitched tone, "You guys want to fucking die? … Don't come closer … Don't come closer or I'll fucking kill you". As others tried to calm the situation, Mr. Cappella shouted, "You guys actually getting clapped up right now, right in front of your fucking [kids or cribs]. You wanna get clapped up in front of your fucking crib? I'll take my shit off right now". Mr. Cappella then swung the bat again, which intensified Victor's attention on the bat and his calls to put it down. Nicolas Renzella soon arrived on scene and the fight broke out.

Application of Self-Defence

[85] I conclude that self-defence can apply to a charge of uttering threats. Section 34(1) begins, "A person is not guilty of an offence if …" [emphasis added]. The language is all-encompassing. There is no textual, contextual, or purposive basis to carve out the offence of uttering threats.

[86] Even though Mr. Cappella played a provocative role throughout the encounter, I am not satisfied that the Crown met its burden to disprove that he uttered the threats in self-defence.

The Catalyst: s. 34(1)(a)

[87] The Crown has not disproven that, at the time of the utterances, Mr. Cappella subjectively believed on reasonable grounds that the Renzellas were threatening him with force. While I rejected the catalyst condition during the earlier bat swing, the circumstances had shifted. The Renzellas were now visibly agitated. Their comment "You think you're a fucking tough guy?" functioned as "fighting-words" language. Mr. Cappella had retreated and did not materially advance during the relevant timeframe. It was the Renzellas who kept closing the distance.

[88] The Renzellas had not made physical contact with anyone. I do not think that Victor or Lucas were looking to fight. I accept their evidence in this regard. But by this point, their ongoing presence in the parking lot raised a valid question about their motives. It was now reasonable for Mr. Cappella to believe they were motivated to apply force.

The Motive: s. 34(1)(b)

[89] The Crown has not disproven that Mr. Cappella uttered the threats for the purpose of defending himself from a perceived threat of force. His highly charged language must be assessed alongside him repeating "don't come closer". It is a reasonable inference that those words were meant to deter approach and avoid a fight.

[90] There is arguably some tension between my earlier finding that the words were antagonistic and my finding here that they were uttered for a defensive purpose. But the findings are compatible. Describing the words as antagonistic is not the same as finding that Mr. Cappella intentionally baited the Renzellas into a fight. Mr. Cappella's manner of trying to make the Renzellas back down was hotheaded, but his subjective aim remained sufficiently defensive in nature.

The Response: s. 34(1)(c)

[91] The Crown has not disproven that Mr. Cappella's response was reasonable. Of significance is that the response was verbal, not physical. The foul language was unrestrained, taking the form of evocative death threats. Yet the response was restrained. He shouted, he warned, he created distance, he did not strike. Self-defence does not require civility; it requires reasonableness. During this volatile moment, Mr. Cappella chose speech over contact. That distinction helps explain why I adjudged certain bat swings unreasonable, yet I consider the threats reasonable.

[92] The threats were also proportionate to the Renzellas' ongoing advance. The video from Exhibit 9 best reveals their steady march from one side of the parking lot to the other. The music had now been turned off for some time. The Renzellas still wanted something—whether an explanation, recognition of harm, respect for the neighbourhood, or an apology—but they never precisely articulated what would satisfy them. In that context, it was reasonable for Mr. Cappella to respond with words to forestall their advance.

[93] There are factors that weigh against the reasonableness of Mr. Cappella's response. He continued to hold the bat. By his words, he implicitly threatened to use it. I also cannot ignore that the Renzellas' aggression escalated because Mr. Cappella had swung the bat at Lucas. That prior act contributed to the volatility of the exchange.

Conclusion

[94] It is a close call whether self-defence should apply on the charges of uttering threats. But any residual uncertainty must be resolved in Mr. Cappella's favour. The Crown has not discharged its burden to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Verdicts

[95] Mr. Cappella is found not guilty of attempted murder (count 1), uttering a death threat to Victor Renzella (count 3), and uttering a death threat to Lucas Renzella (count 4). He is found guilty of assault with a weapon (count 2) and aggravated assault (count 5).

Released: November 5, 2025

Signed: Justice Davin M.K. Garg