ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. Smith, 2026 ONCJ 223 DATE: 2026 04 17 COURT FILE No.: Central West Region (Niagara) 998 24 21101477

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

Jason Smith

Before Justice J. De Filippis

Heard on February 6, 2026 Reasons for Judgment released on April 17, 2026

Mr. Bach................................................................................................ counsel for the Crown Mr. Prajs......................................................................................... counsel for the defendant

De Filippis, J.:

INTRODUCTION

[1] The defendant was charged with assault and assault with a weapon. This was a two-witness trial. I found him guilty with reasons to follow. These are my reasons.

[2] The victim in this matter is Ms. Jennifer Smith. She is the defendant’s sister. She is 50 years old. The defendant is 53 years old. The events occurred on April 9, 2024, in a triplex owned by Ms. Smith in the City of St. Catharines. At the time, the defendant lived in the basement unit and Ms. Smith lived on the main floor. The top unit was not inhabited.

[3] The defendant moved into the unit in Spring 2023. Ms. Smith arrived several months later. In the months leading up to the events in question the relationship between the parties was strained. On the day in question the defendant attacked his sister.

TESTIMONY GIVEN BY JENNIFER SMITH

[4] Ms. Smith testified that she had spoken to the defendant many times about the need for an electrician to do certain repairs on the main floor and basement units of the triplex and an appointment was made. She knocked on the door to the defendant’s unit when the electrician arrived and inadvertently knocked over an object on entering. She apologized. The defendant got up from his chair, picked up an axe and said, “get the fuck out”. Garette Ms. Smith followed him and said, “you can’t be coming at people with an axe”. The defendant went outside for a cigarette and returned to his room.

[5] The defendant attacked Ms. Smith She described it as follows:

He came upstairs to the common area and grabbed me by the hair and threw me to the ground and began hitting me with the butt of the axe, the bottom of the handle. It was a big axe. He used a lot of force in ripping the hair out of my head. I’m a pretty strong person but I couldn’t move. He kept saying “the devil can’t come in my place, the devil can’t come here”.

[6] Ms. Smith was hit with the axe on her back and leg as she was trying to get away. The defendant kept saying that the devil is at his feet. She added that, “I don’t feel he was trying to really hurt or kill me. He was angry and shouting about the devil. I was scared and in shock.” Suddenly, he let go of her and returned to his room. She found her glasses on the floor and called the police. She had that telephone number saved in her phone “because of past issues” with her brother.

[7] As a result of this attack, Ms. Smith had “chunks of hair” removed from her scalp. A few days later a “huge bruise” appeared on her leg. Her back was bothering her. She did not seek medical treatment.

[8] Ms. Smith concluded her testimony in chief by noting that the defendant “needs mental health help” and added,

I had wellness checks done. I had found him starving on the land. I got him to an Ottawa hospital. This was during COVID. He didn’t want to stay [and] he was not a harm to himself so he was discharged. I moved to St. Catharines, and I moved him in with me.

[9] Ms. Smith explained that the defendant had been living with his girlfriend and then went to live on land that he owns. He stayed there for almost two months. His girlfriend became concerned and contacted Ms. Smith. She found him and took him to her triplex in St. Catharines. The defendant was not paying his bills, including child support, and Ms. Smith wanted to be near him to assist. When it was put to her that this must have been difficult, she replied that, “I was happy to help him – he is my brother – what was difficult is not knowing how to help someone you love, I was concerned for his health and safety”.

[10] Ms. Smith agreed that when the defendant first arrived, he did “some renovation work” at the triplex at her request. He asked for reimbursement for the work he had done. Ms. Smith refused as she did not charge him rent and was covering his child support payments. She acknowledged that after the defendant sold his land, he paid her back for these expenses. He also repaid his parents for a large credit card debt they had assumed on his behalf.

[11] Ms. Smith denied that financial matters caused her relationship with the defendant to suffer. She said, “I have always loved him, [but] he needs help, [and] he was smoking too much pot”. In the months before the incident in question, the parties talked only occasionally because the defendant told her “’the devil had gotten to me’ and the devil was at his feet and dragging him away”.

[12] Ms. Smith agreed that the incident did not happen when the electrician was present and added, “if this is how it came out [in examination in chief], I did not mean it, the electrician came another time”. She denied that this confusion affects her recall of the attack upon her. She rejected the suggestion she fabricated the incident because of financial disputes and to have police remove her brother from her property.

TESTIMONY GIVEN BY JASON SMITH

[13] Mr. Smith testified that he is trained as a carpenter and writes books. He began renovations at his sister’s triplex before her arrival in September 2023. The parties disagreed over his efforts at renovations. The defendant explained that he endured “unbelievable abusive behaviour by Jennifer – that’s when we started fighting”. Soon they were no longer on speaking terms. The defendant added that,

I wanted to discuss boundaries. What is my suite, what is hers. Boundaries. [We] didn’t do so because her emotions were all over. She was always angry. There was a big hole in the roof over her bedroom. She was yelling at me over this. I wanted to talk to her about access to garage. We fought about it. She wasn’t logical and she took my keys away from me [and] because of her outburst, I said I will stay in the basement, and you can have the house but there are boundaries. We will not talk until we can discuss money and boundaries.

[14] The defendant described the incident in question as follows:

On April 9 [2024], I was working on my book because I am a writer. I went outside for a smoke. I avoid her because she is abusive. She slanders my name by saying I have issues. As I was trying the code to my apartment, I saw Jennifer running at me. That is when I said to her “Satan is below my feet in the name of Jesus”. What I meant is demons like in the Bible. Her fingers were at my door. It would have been over but the door wouldn’t lock. Jennifer came running from her apartment from the auxiliary and she entered my suite.

I kept saying “get out of my house, you are not welcome here unless you will sit down and discuss logically what we will do next”. She was hitting me. I grabbed her and pushed her upstairs. I said, “please God let me get this psychopath out of my apartment” and I grabbed her. It was like when I was ten years old and Jennifer was six. I grabbed her hair and part of her body and put her out the door and shut the door. I did not have an axe in my hand. I grabbed an axe to wedge it under the door to block it after she was out. I managed to move her up the stairs. I shut the door at the landing, and I could hear her phoning the police. I was in the midst of phoning them as well.

[15] The defendant collects old axes for specific jobs. He said that before moving to his sister’s triplex, he was “on the land at my farm building with those axes”. He denied hitting his sister with an axe or ripping out her hair. He concluded his examination in chief by noting that “I grabbed her because she entered my suite without permission and pushed her because she was hysterical and would not leave as he demanded”.

[16] The defendant insisted that he paid rent and paid for the renovations and added, “I was trying to do something nice for her, but she turned it on me and slanders me about issues”. When asked about his concern that his sister respect boundaries, he gave a rambling answer that was difficult to understand. He made it clear, however, that,

She [was] constantly trying to get into my apartment. She [was] constantly abusing me. Slander and abuse. I won’t tolerate it. On April 9 [2024], she came down yelling at me. I said, “Please dear God let me get this psychopath out of my apartment without hurting her”.

[17] The defendant was challenged about his assertion he pushed his sister up the stairs and wedged an exe in the door with reference to photographs that show a steep stairway and a door that opens the wrong way to permit the axe to be wedged as described. He replied that “it wasn’t easy” and added that, “She was pounding at the door. It did not make me angry. I don’t get angry”. The defendant produced a large handkerchief from his pocket and explained it “shows a chart with numbers and emotions - desire, shame, anger and different frequencies for each. I teach this. Love, joy, peace is the other side of the chart, and this is when you connect with the divine”.

ANALYSIS

[18] The Crown carries the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This fundamental principle of law means that if the defendant has called evidence, there must be an acquittal where the testimony is believed or where the testimony is not believed but raises a reasonable doubt. An acquittal will follow even if the defence evidence is rejected, but the remaining evidence fails to convince, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty (R. v. W(D), 1991 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742).

[19] Probable guilt is not the criminal law standard of proof - it is closer to certainty. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense which must be logically based on the evidence or lack of evidence (R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33). In applying the standard, I can accept some, part, or none of what a witness states. The testimony of a witness is assessed based on the person’s credibility and reliability.

[20] Defence counsel suggested that Ms. Smith conflated two events, one involving an electrician, and downplayed the value of renovations done by her brother. His main argument is that a criminal trial is not a credibility contest and that the defendant’s evidence must, at least, raise a reasonable doubt. In this regard, counsel noted that although the defendant “expresses himself in ways that are different than most people would use to frame their experience – he speaks in the spiritual realm – this doesn’t mean he is incredible or unreliable”.

[21] Crown counsel argued that Ms. Smith’s version of events is clear and logical. She explained the apparent confusion with respect to the electrician’s visit. Her genuine concern for the mental well-being of her brother underscores credibility and reliability. Counsel added that the defendant’s version of events cannot be believed, and in this regard, he could not have pushed his sister up the stairs or wedged the axe in the door in the manner he described.

[22] I agree with the Crown with respect to the assessment of the two witnesses. Ms. Smith said she was grabbed by the hair, pushed to the ground, and hit with the handle of an axe. She noted that during this confrontation the defendant made comments about the devil. I have no doubt she truthfully and accurately described what happened. Her testimony was not undermined. It proves the defendant is guilty of the charges. I am not troubled by her apparent confusion about two events, one involving a visit by an electrician. In this regard, although the defendant’s evidence was difficult to follow, he acknowledged an incident in which he grabbed his sister by the hair and body, during which he referenced Satan. This may be an admission of assault. In any event, to the extent I can make sense of his testimony, it does not raise a doubt about either charge.

[23] The Crown has discharged its burden of proof. The defendant is guilty.

Released: April 17, 2026

Signed: Justice J. De Filippis