Court File and Parties

Date: November 5, 2025

Court File No.: 4810 998 23 48112777

Ontario Court of Justice

Between:

Her Majesty the King

— and —

Mussadique Anwer

Before: Justice David Porter

Trial heard: August 26, August 28, and September 19, 2025

Submissions heard: October 24, 2025

Reasons for Judgement: Dated November 5, 2025

Counsel:

• S. Abrahams for the Crown
• J. Rabinovitch, counsel for the Defendant

Reasons for Judgement

Porter J.:

Charges and Background

[1] Mussadique S. Anwer ("Mr. Anwer") is charged with two offences which were allegedly committed in relation to his wife Fatima Saghir on August 2, 2023; assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code and that, in committing an assault on Fatima Saghir he choked, suffocated, or strangled her contrary to section 267(c) of the Criminal Code. The Crown elected to proceed summarily.

[2] Fatima Saghir ("Ms. Saghir") is currently 25 years of age and for the past two years has worked part-time as a sales associate at Rogers. She was born in Pakistan and came to Canada in December 2021. She was previously married to Mr. Anwer in an arranged marriage which occurred when she was 18 years old in Pakistan.

Crown Evidence

Ms. Saghir's Testimony

[3] She testified that on August 1, 2023 she spent the evening with friends in Toronto, which ended at about 12 a.m. when she took the bus to the Finch TTC station to go home.

[4] Her plan was to take the Yonge subway to the York Mills station and ask her husband, Mr. Anwer, to drive from their home at 236 Albion Rd. to pick her up. She messaged him on WhatsApp and told him that she would leave, go to the Finch station and take the subway to the York Mills subway where he could pick her up.

[5] Upon arriving at the Finch station, she found that the subway was no longer in service between the Finch and York Mills station and she texted him to pick her up at the Finch station.

[6] She testified that when he arrived to pick her up he accused her of lying by saying that there was no subway service and they got in an argument in his car. She insisted she was not lying and told him if he did not believe her to check Google maps to confirm what she had said.

[7] After driving for a few minutes, they were stopped at a red traffic light. He was screaming at her and suddenly struck her on the right side of her face with a backhanded gesture from his position in the driver's seat. She testified that as she was in the passenger seat, with her face turned towards him in the argument, he made contact with her on the right-hand side of her face. She said he punched her six or seven times with a hard force on her face.

[8] She testified that as they were stopped at the red light, she tried to unbuckle her seatbelt and get out of the car and she tried to open the door. She opened the door and yelled for help.

[9] As she did this, Mr. Anwer reached across the front seat and tried to close the door.

[10] He then reached with his left hand and put it on her neck and was choking her for three or four seconds. She testified that it was hard, but because she was moving her head and he was driving, she did not pass out from this.

[11] She testified that he then pulled the car into a side street and reached over with his right hand and pushed her head down forcibly onto the dashboard. She was crying and yelling during the assault. She was telling him to stop.

[12] After Mr. Anwer parked on the residential street, she opened the door and ran away. He chased her, caught up to her, grabbed her and picked her up with one hand on her waist and one on her legs, and carried her back to the car where he pushed her into the car.

[13] She struggled and ran away back towards the major road where they had been driving and saw 4 men gathered outside a house. She told them that he was hitting her and asked them to call 911. Mr. Anwer had chased her and caught up to her and told the 4 men she had asked to call 911 that it was a family matter and there was no need to call 911.

[14] Ms. Saghir called 911 and the police attended upon her that night.

Photographic and Medical Evidence

[15] The Crown filed in evidence seven photographs Ms. Saghir testified she took of her face August 2, 2023 in the very early morning when she returned home, and an additional photograph later that afternoon.

[16] The photos show bruising and swelling on the right side of her face, three blood spots in her right eye, scratches on her right eyelid, and swelling under her right cheek and right portion of her upper lip. Close-up photos of her mouth show a bruise inside her mouth and in her top lip. In total, the photos are confirmatory of Ms. Saghir's evidence that she had been assaulted, as they show swelling of her whole right cheek, the right side of her lips, scratching on her eyelid and redness on the right side of her face.

[17] She testified that she saw her doctor on August 3, 2023 and the observations in the doctor's medical note of that date were filed in evidence on consent as Exhibit 2. The doctor's note recorded the following observation by the physician: "bruise and swelling of right upper lip with swelling of right side of face and small subconj hemorrhage of right eye."

Cross-Examination of Ms. Saghir

[18] In cross-examination, Ms. Saghir testified that there were arguments with Mr. Anwer in their marriage. He was constantly suspicious that she was consuming alcohol, and partying. She testified that she "never did that."

[19] She testified that she had Indian non-Muslim friends and he did not like her having non-Muslim friends. She testified that he did not want her to go out and work, and he did not want her to bring her non-Muslim friends home.

[20] By the time of the incident of August 2, 2023, they had made an agreement that the marriage would end. She testified that they lived separate and apart in the same house at this time.

[21] She acknowledged that she had had one glass of wine at 5 p.m. the night that she asked him to pick her up, and the incident occurred, and acknowledged that when he saw her, he demanded to know whether she had been drinking.

[22] She told Mr. Anwer that she had not been drinking, even though she had had one glass of wine, as she did not want him telling her parents and her relatives, which would cause embarrassment for her. In court, she denied that she had had a lot to drink and that this made her unsteady on her feet.

[23] She testified that Mr. Anwer accused her several times that she had been drinking and said to her that he could smell it on her.

[24] She denied saying to Mr. Anwer in Urdu "shut the hell up."

[25] In cross-examination, she confirmed details of her evidence in chief including that when they were stopped at the red light, Mr. Anwer struck her in the face, and she tried to get out of the car, but she could not get her seatbelt unbuckled, and Mr. Anwer grabbed the door to stop her getting out.

[26] She testified that after he stopped the car on the side street, Mr. Anwer reached over and pushed her head down, causing her to hit her forehead on the dashboard. She testified that she had her seatbelt and shoulder strap on. There was some inconsistency in her evidence on this point as she also agreed in cross-examination that, at this point, the car was still in motion. She recalled that after he did this Mr. Anwer parked the car.

[27] She testified in cross-examination she said to Mr. Anwer "Are you going to kill me?" and then she got out of the car and ran away.

[28] She denied the suggestion put to her that when she ran from the car, she tripped and fell to the ground that and that it was in those circumstances that Mr. Anwer picked her up. She testified that she believed that when Mr. Anwer grabbed her, he was trying to stop her from talking to the 4 men from whom she sought assistance.

[29] She acknowledged that in her statement given to the police shortly after the incident she was asked whether she had suffered any injuries and she said that night that she had not. She testified that she felt some pain but she had not observed the injuries until later that evening when she noticed the bruising to her face and took the photographs filed in evidence at home.

[30] In re-examination, Ms. Saghir acknowledged that in her Muslim faith people found to be consuming alcohol are judged negatively, and both in her initial evidence to the court, and to Mr. Anwer that night, she stated that she did not consume alcohol, when in fact she had a glass of wine that night, because she knew he would tell her whole family, including her parents, that she had consumed alcohol, and this would be upsetting to her parents.

Defence Evidence

[31] Mr. Anwer testified and denied that he assaulted Ms. Saghir in any way that night.

[32] He acknowledged that by the date of the alleged offence there was considerable conflict in the marriage. He testified that he had become suspicious and doubtful about the honesty of Ms. Saghir.

[33] He testified that she would tell him that she was at work but he knew that she was somewhere else. He volunteered that he placed a Samsung air tag tracking device on her keys to find out where she went. Occasionally, she told him she had left work but she would not answer the phone and let him know where she had gone.

[34] He acknowledged that by August 2, 2023, they were living in the same house but living separately. He testified that often she would end up staying out until 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. and sometimes she never came home at all.

[35] He was surprised by the fact that he ended up believing that she was consuming alcohol and partying because she came from a conservative Muslim family and that was not part of their culture. While he never saw her drink alcohol, he was suspicious that she had done so and sometimes believes she was intoxicated by alcohol.

[36] He would sometimes be asked by her to pick her up in front of a bar where she had been socializing in Toronto and she appeared not to be acting normally. He was sufficiently concerned about these issues that he involved the elders in his family and her family about the issue. He indicated that she told him that it was a forced marriage and she wanted out of the marriage.

[37] He testified that on August 1, 2023 she told him she was going downtown and he offered to pick her up at the end of the evening. He testified that she asked him to pick her up at the York Mills subway station around 10:45 p.m., he arrived about 10 to 15 minutes late and waited, but she was not there. He texted her to find her where she was and got no reply.

[38] She eventually replied at 12:30 a.m. after he had waited for about an hour. She told him that the subways are not running and she was still at the Finch station. He testified he went into the subway to see if it was running and he told her that the subways were running.

[39] He went to the Finch subway station and saw her at about 1:00 or 1:30 a.m. He testified that she was not walking straight. He testified that she smelled so much of alcohol that he could not stand the strong smell of alcohol. He did not make a comment right away but he had suspected even before she arrived that she had been drinking. As she got in the car, he tried to fix her seatbelt to get closer to see whether he could smell that she had been drinking.

[40] He confronted her and asked her if she had been drinking and she said no.

[41] They drove for a while and he demanded again to know if she had been drinking and she denied it. He accused her of lying when she said the subways were not running. She denied that she had been lying.

[42] He denied striking her at all and testified that she said to him in a very loud voice in Urdu "shut the hell up."

[43] When they were stopped at a red light, she started shouting yelling and screaming in the middle of their heated argument. He acknowledged that he was also speaking loudly.

[44] She started to open the door to get out of the car and he asked her what she was doing as they were in the middle of the roadway. She was yelling and screaming, and he told her to relax.

[45] After they were passed by some fire trucks he drove down a side street, stopped the car and he turned the light on in the car. He said that she screamed at him "you are going to kill me" even though he had not threatened her or struck her in any way.

[46] His counsel asked if he had any idea why she was saying this, and he had no answer.

[47] He testified that Ms. Saghir got out of the car and ran away screaming "you have ruined my life". She tripped on a curb and fell to the ground, after which he picked her up and took her back to the car telling her "you're safe there's nothing to worry about don't make a scene". After he placed her back in the car she ran away again, and when they approached four people outside a house she said "he hit me he hit me" which he denied.

[48] When she asked the men in the group to call 911, Mr. Anwer told them that they did not need to do this, that they were married and this was a family matter.

[49] He denied absolutely striking her, hitting her, punching her, choking her or engaging in any conduct that could explain the bruising on her face shown in the photographs filed in evidence. He testified that she fled from the car as she was acting irrationally, and there was no reason for her to flee.

Cross-Examination of Mr. Anwer

[50] In cross-examination, Mr. Anwer acknowledged that by the date of the alleged incident Ms. Saghir was living a life independent of him and he did not like this. It was not what he expected married life to be because they had come from the same educated and conservative culture. He regarded her friends as bad influences with whom he believed she drank alcohol. He had not expected her to be out drinking in their marriage and it affected the marriage. He acknowledged that Ms. Saghir brought up the idea of divorce, but he did not want a divorce.

[51] He acknowledged that when he picked her up on the night of August 1, 2023, he drove to the Finch TTC station and waited over an hour for her. When she got into the car, he smelled a strong smell of alcohol and acknowledged leaning over to put on her seatbelt to confirm that there was a strong odour of alcohol from her. He testified that he asked her if she was drinking and she stayed quiet he said. He acknowledged the smell of alcohol was repulsive. He could not stand it. He testified that he asked her 3 to 5 times if she had been drinking and stated that she did not answer.

[52] He testified that he was not angry because she had done this before, but this time his suspicion was very high that indeed she had been drinking. He had observed her walking towards the car and he suspected that she was drunk. The manner of her walking made him think that she was intoxicated. He denied that he was angry.

[53] When confronted with the fact that he testified in his examination-in-chief that she had denied drinking when he asked her that night, he acknowledged that maybe she had denied drinking.

[54] He thought that she was lying to him because, contrary to what she had told him, the subways were running. He acknowledged that he accused her of lying about the subways. He told her the subways are running and you can go and look yourself to see it. He testified that he was very polite and was not shouting.

[55] He stated that he wanted her to admit that she had been drinking, that this was upsetting him, and that is why he kept asking her the same question. He testified that she spoke to him in Urdu and made a statement equivalent to the English phrase "shut the hell up."

[56] He acknowledged that as they drove home and, after he stopped the car, Ms. Saghir tried to get out of the car and he acknowledged that she was trying to get away from him, but testified that there was no reason for her to want to do this as all they were doing was having a heated argument.

[57] He acknowledged that in the course of the argument she said "you are going to hurt me, or you are going to kill me" but testified that he had done nothing physical to her to cause her to make this statement.

[58] He acknowledged that after they were stopped on the side street, she ran out of the car running away from him, but explained that she tripped and fell on the ground. He denied that he got out of the car and chased her, stating he only ran towards her after she had fallen. He was confronted with his evidence in chief that after she got out of the car he chased after her.

[59] He testified that after he helped her back to the car, as soon as he closed the car door, she opened the door and ran away. He acknowledged when she ran to the group of men she might have said "he hit me."

The Law

[60] In R. v. Morrissey, Doherty J.A. stated:

"Testimonial evidence can raise veracity and accuracy concerns. The former relate to the witness's sincerity, that is, his or her willingness to speak the truth as the witness believes it to be. The latter concerns relate to the actual accuracy of the witness's testimony. The accuracy of a witness's testimony involves considerations of the witness's ability to accurately observe, recall and recount the events in issue. When one is concerned with a witness's veracity, one speaks of the witness's credibility. When one is concerned with the accuracy of a witness's testimony, one speaks of the reliability of that testimony. Obviously a witness whose evidence on a point is not credible cannot give reliable evidence on that point. The evidence of a credible, that is, honest witness, may, however, still be unreliable."

[61] The law governing the assessment of the credibility and reliability of witnesses, is summarized by Watt J.A. in R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56, at paras. 41-42:

"[41] Credibility and reliability are different. Credibility has to do with a witness's veracity, reliability with the accuracy of the witness's testimony. Accuracy engages consideration of the witness's ability to accurately

i. observe;

ii. recall; and

iii. recount

events in issue. Any witness whose evidence on an issue is not credible cannot give reliable evidence on the same point. Credibility, on the other hand, is not a proxy for reliability: a credible witness may give unreliable evidence: R. v. Morrissey (1995), 22 O.R. (3d) 514, at 526 (C.A.)."

[62] In R. v. W(D), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 at pp. 757-758, the Supreme Court of Canada has instructed that the following principles apply in a criminal case in which there is conflicting evidence on the elements of the offence charged:

"It is incorrect to instruct a jury in a criminal case that, in order to render a verdict, they must decide whether they believe the defence evidence or the Crown's evidence. Putting this either/or proposition to the jury excludes the third alternative; namely, that the jury, without believing the accused, after considering the accused's evidence in the context of the evidence as a whole, may still have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

In a case where credibility is important, the trial judge must instruct the jury that the rule of reasonable doubt applies to that issue. The trial judge should instruct the jury that they need not firmly believe or disbelieve any witness or set of witnesses. Specifically, the trial judge is required to instruct the jury that they must acquit the accused in two situations. First, if they believe the accused. Second, if they do not believe the accused's evidence but still have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt after considering the accused's evidence in the context of the evidence as a whole. See R. v. Challice (1979), 45 C.C.C. (2d) 546 (On.t C.A), approved in R. v. Morin, supra, at p. 357.

Ideally, appropriate instructions on the issue of credibility should be given, not only during the main charge, but on any recharge. A trial judge might well instruct the jury on the question of credibility along these lines:

First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.

Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.

Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused."

[63] In his seminal extra-judicial article "Doubt about Doubt: Coping with R. v. W.(D.) and Credibility Assessment" 22 Can. Crim. L. Rev 31, David Paciocco summarizes the principles underlying the W(D) reasoning as follows at p. 34:

"(1) Criminal trials cannot properly be resolved by deciding which conflicting version of events is preferred;

(2) A criminal fact-finder that believes evidence that is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused cannot convict the accused;

(3) Even if a criminal fact-finder does not entirely believe evidence inconsistent with guilt, if the fact-finder is left unsure whether that evidence is true there is a reasonable doubt and an acquittal must follow;

(4) Even where the fact-finder entirely disbelieves evidence inconsistent with guilt, the mere rejection of that evidence does not prove guilt; and

(5) Even where the fact-finder entirely disbelieves evidence inconsistent with guilt, the accused should not be convicted unless the evidence that is given credit proves the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

[64] As David Paciocco notes, in applying the W(D) framework, evidence favourable to the accused is not to be assessed in isolation from the conflicting evidence offered by the Crown. Evidence in a criminal trial must be considered as a whole: Doubt about Doubt, supra, at p. 47; See also R. v. Hull, [2006] O.J. No. 3177, at paras. 5-6 (Ont. C.A.)

Analysis

Count 1: Assault

[65] I have carefully considered the evidence of Mr. Anwer to determine if I believe his evidence or, pursuant to R. v. W.(D.), supra, even if I do not believe it, it leaves me with a reasonable doubt about his guilt of the offences charged.

[66] I reject as incapable of belief his denial that he assaulted Ms. Saghir. His evidence also does not raise a reasonable doubt about the truth of Ms. Saghir's allegation that he assaulted her.

[67] He had no plausible explanation for the bruising on her face which was evident in the photographs filed in evidence taken that evening, and the next day, and which are consistent with the assault Ms. Saghir testified was perpetrated upon her by Mr. Anwer.

[68] His evidence is incapable of belief when he claims that he did not assault Ms. Saghir. It is incapable of belief, in light of his admission that she fled from him after saying "You are going to kill me" or "Are you going to kill me".

[69] His denial that he was angry with her is incapable of belief in light of his admission that he was convinced that she had been drinking, and his conclusion that she was lying to him about this, and lying to him that the subway was not running.

[70] Considering the totality of the evidence, I find that Mr. Anwer engaged in controlling behaviour in relation to Ms. Saghir. In his evidence, he acknowledged using a Samsung app attached to her keys to trace where she went when she was not with him. It is evident that he was preoccupied by a concern that she consumed alcohol from time to time and had become distrustful of her as he did not accept her denials that she was not ever consuming alcohol.

[71] I find that it was for this reason that he lashed out at her in anger on that occasion, believing that she had lied to him both about whether she had consumed alcohol and whether the subway had stopped running as she said.

[72] Counsel for Mr. Anwer argues that aspects of her version of the assault are implausible given the fact that she and Mr. Anwer were held down by seat belts throughout, and he submits that it was unlikely that Mr. Anwer could have reached across the car and assaulted her while continuing to drive as she alleged.

[73] Whether or not she was entirely accurate about the car continuing to be in motion on the side street where he reached across and grabbed her neck, as she agreed in cross-examination at one point, in my view is immaterial.

[74] I was impressed with Ms. Saghir as a witness. She answered the questions directly and acknowledged that she lied to her husband that night about whether she had had anything to drink, explaining that she feared he would tell her family causing significant upset for her and her family.

[75] Counsel submits that she was untruthful with the court in her evidence that she never drank alcohol, and that this should cause the court to reject her evidence of the assault as unreliable.

[76] I accept her explanation that she initially said this, and only in re-examination admitted drinking alcohol occasionally, as she feared Mr. Anwer would tell her conservative Muslim family this, and she would be viewed poorly by them as a result. In my view, this does not undermine her credibility generally.

[77] Counsel submits that Ms. Saghir's description of the details of the assault are implausible, noting her claim that the assaults occurred while both she and Mr. Anwer had their seatbelts on, and that it was implausible that he could have pushed her head into the dashboard while seat-belted, and that it was implausible that some of the assault could have occurred while the car was moving.

[78] Considering the totality of the evidence, I do not find that her evidence is implausible. I accept her explanation that as she was arguing with Mr. Anwer, she was facing him, so that his back-handed punch hit the right side of her face where she was injured. On the evidence heard, I am not persuaded that, because she had a seat belt including a shoulder strap on that it was therefore unlikely or impossible for Mr. Anwer to have pushed her head into the dashboard as counsel suggested in submissions.

[79] Most of the assaultive contact occurred while the car was stopped at the red light, and in my opinion the fact that the car may have been still moving on the side street, and the fact that she was seat-belted did not undermine the credibility of her claim that the assault continued with Mr. Anwer pushing her head into the dashboard, following which she fled to seek help.

[80] I accept her evidence that she was assaulted as she alleges. There is strong confirmatory evidence of these assaults in the photos filed in evidence, and the observations of her doctor the next day, both strongly confirmatory of her evidence that she was assaulted by Mr. Anwer as she alleges.

[81] I also find her emotional state when she fled the car, seeking the assistance of strangers and calling 911 as strong confirmatory evidence that she had been assaulted as she alleges.

[82] In R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, at para. 43, Fairburn, A.C.J.O stated:

"a complainant's emotional disintegration after an alleged offence may well be relevant to whether, as a matter of common sense, and human experience, the events occurred as described by the complainant."

[83] In summary, I reject Mr. Anwer's denial of assaulting Ms. Saghir as incapable of belief. His evidence also does not raise a reasonable doubt on the charge that he assaulted Ms. Saghir.

[84] Considering the totality of the evidence, I accept Ms. Saghir's evidence that she was assaulted as she alleged. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Anwer committed the assault alleged in Count 1 in the information and I find him guilty of that count.

Count 2: Assault by Choking, Suffocating, or Strangling

[85] Count 2 in the information charges that in committing an assault on Ms. Saghir, Mr. Anwer "did choke, suffocate, or strangle" Ms. Saghir.

[86] In this case, the Crown submits that the act of Mr. Anwer in grabbing Ms. Saghir's neck with his left hand and squeezing it strongly for 3-4 seconds amounts to proof that Mr. Anwer did "strangle" Ms. Saghir and the offence in s. 267(c) is proven.

[87] In R. v. A.K., [2023] O.J. No. 5854, Daviau J. recently considered the requirements to prove an assault by strangling in s.267(c) as alleged in Count 2.

[88] Daviau J. states at paras. 97-104 as follows:

"97 Crown counsel in submissions provided the case of R. v C.M., [2002] O.J. No. 4951, which suggests at Paragraph 96 that the offence of chokes, suffocate or strangle would be made out only where there is an interference with the victim's respiratory system, such as their ability to breath is impacted, and I quote:

98 "Thus, the Crown can prove the Assault by Choking offence even though bodily harm is not present. "Chokes", "suffocates" or "strangles" are not defined in the Criminal Code. Generally speaking, these elements are made out where the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused took some action "designed to block or constrict a person's airway, such as by squeezing the neck or throat, or covering the nose or mouth". To these elements, I would add the alternative that the offence can also be proven where there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused took some action which applies pressure to the respiratory system of the complainant such that her ability to breathe is interfered with in a meaningful way."

99 However, with the greatest of respect to my colleague, I find that to input a requirement that the person's airway needs to be constricted or the respiratory system interfered with in respect of all three modes of liability at 267(c) places the bar too high.

100 First, I note that there is no legal definition of the terms listed at 267(c) of the Code. It stands to reason then that Parliament included all three terms to cover a wide breadth of situations. If they were all meant to cover the same thing, then I take Crown counsel's point, Parliament could have simply indicated the offence to be assault where a personal's inability to breath is interfered with.

101 Second, I find further support for a definition of strangle that does not include the constricting of an airway by looking at the Court of Appeal's definition of strangle, albeit in an unrelated case. In R. v. Wilson, 2019 ONCA 564 at Paragraph 14, the court indicated, and I quote:

102 "The trial use of the term "strangle" and "strangulation" did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial. To "strangle" is simply to squeeze or constrict the neck, whether by manual strangulation, ligature or chokehold. In other words, it is a common expression which, when fairly read and understood in the context of the case, the jury would have understood to simply mean neck compression."

103 Third, I agree with my colleague, W. Goreman of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court, in R. v. Laite, [2023] N.J. No. 5 at Paragraph 137, at least in part, in finding that Section 267 (c) does not require the accused intended to constrict a complainant's airway or interfere with their ability to breath. Section 267 (c) incorporates the mens rea for assault, which is simply the application of force without consent, and in this section, by choking, suffocation or strangulation. I find that this can be made out if the accused person places their hand around a person's neck and applies force or strangles.

104 Here, I accept that the Crown need not prove an interference with Ar. K.'s ability to breath to make out assault by choking, suffocation or strangulation. I find that Mr. A.K. had his hand on Ar. K.'s throat and used force that caused Ar. K. to both lift up and go back onto the table. I find that when he did so he strangled her by causing a neck compression. In these circumstances I find that the offence of assault via strangulation has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A conviction will be entered on Count 4."

[89] In R. v. Leary, [2024] B.C.J. No. 2135, B. Smith J. of the British Columbia Supreme Court considered the meaning of "choke, suffocate or strangle" and states with respect to the mens rea of the offence at paras. 83-84:

"83 An assault which causes bodily harm and an assault in which the complainant is choked, suffocated or strangled are both subsections of s. 267 of the Code. Assault and assault causing bodily harm have the same mens rea. There is nothing in the wording of the section to suggest that an assault in which the complainant is choked, suffocated or strangled has any additional mens rea component.

84 Accordingly, I find that to prove assault by choking or strangling, the Crown must prove that Mr. Leary intentionally placed his hand or hands around T.M.'s neck and applied force, but need not also prove that in doing so he intended to constrict her airway or interfere with her ability to breathe."

[90] I agree with the decisions in R. v. A.K, supra, and R. v. Leary, supra, that the offence of choking, suffocating or strangling in committing an assault is made out where the accused places his or her hand or hands around a person's neck and applies force. I note that in R. v. A.K., supra, the offence was made out in circumstances where the accused caused neck compression on the victim sufficient to cause the victim to "both lift up and go back on to the table." The court found that the accused "strangled her by causing neck compression.": R. v. A.K., supra, at para. 104.

[91] With respect to the allegation in count 2 that Mr. Anwer choked suffocated or strangled Ms. Saghir, I accept Ms. Saghir's evidence that in the course of his assault, Mr. Anwer grabbed her by the neck hard, briefly for three or four seconds. She described his grip on her neck as "choking" in her evidence. She noted that because she moved her head, and Mr. Anwer was driving, she did not "pass out or anything." However, she described his grip as "hard" and lasting 3-4 seconds. I find that his grip involved neck compression, albeit of a relatively short duration.

[92] I accept Ms. Saghir's evidence that Mr. Anwer placed his hand around her neck and applied force to her neck for 3-4 seconds which involved neck compression for 3-4 seconds. I reject Mr. Anwer's denial that he choked Ms. Saghir in any way. Furthermore, his evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that in assaulting Ms. Saghir, Mr. Anwer applied neck compression to Ms. Saghir, and therefore strangled Ms. Saghir within s.267(c) of the Criminal Code and I find him guilty of the offence charged in Count 2.

Conclusion

[93] In conclusion, for the above reasons, I find Mr. Anwer guilty of the offences in counts 1 and 2 of the information.

Dated: November 5, 2025

Justice David Porter