COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-50000099-0000
DATE: 20210618
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
JOSEPH EMEKA ONYEACHONAM
Defendant
Counsel:
Brady Donohue and Justin Reid, for the Crown
Jordan Weisz, for the Defendant
HEARD at Toronto: April 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20 and 22, 2021
Low J. (orally)
[1] The accused, Joseph Emeka Onyeachonam, is charged with attempted murder of the complainant Jawhara Mahamoud.
[2] On July 10, 2018 at approximately 12:33 p.m., in the City of Toronto, Ms Mahamoud was found with life threatening injuries. It is alleged that the accused wounded Ms Mahamoud in the course of assaulting her and that he intended to kill her.
[3] The accused is charged with assault with a weapon of the complainant Gary Bishop.
[4] Early in the afternoon of July 10, 2018, both complainants were located by emergency personnel at 101 Kendleton Drive, Toronto, with significant injuries. Ms Mahamoud was found in the hallway of the east wing of the first floor. Mr. Bishop was found in the apartment that he occupied at that time, Unit 611. He was found by police in the course of their attempt to locate and arrest the accused.
[5] Neither complainant had summoned emergency services. Ms Mahamoud was unconscious. There is no explanation for Mr. Bishop not summoning emergency services.
[6] Mr. Bishop suffered a laceration on the left side of his head requiring some 11 staples. He had heavy contusions to his left abdomen that appear to be consistent with being struck repeatedly with a stick-like object. He also had a number of what appear to be minor contusions and lacerations to other parts of his body.
[7] The accused and the two complainants were known to each other. According to Mr. Bishop’s testimony, the accused, having nowhere else to live at the time, had been staying with him for several months, sleeping on his couch. Ms Mahamoud, a deaf person and referred to variously as the accused’s girlfriend or wife, sometimes also stayed over at Mr. Bishop’s apartment.
[8] While he is now in recovery, at the time of the events in issue Mr. Bishop was a heavy alcoholic and a user of crack cocaine and marijuana. He testified that he also has ADD and he admits that his memory is not good.
[9] Mr. Bishop testified that in the morning of July 10, 2018, the accused and Ms Mahamoud attended at his apartment some time between 10 a.m. and noon, that the accused was angry for a reason not known to him, that the accused punched Ms Mahamoud in the chest area a couple of times and that the two departed together. Later, according to Mr. Bishop, the accused returned and, in a state of anger, again for a reason not known to him, struck him on the head with a vacuum broom, hit him on other parts of his body, and left the apartment. He is unsure whether the accused returned again that day although at subsequent points in his testimony he stated that the accused returned and gave him a kiss.
[10] The security video evidence indicates that the accused did go to the apartment shortly following 12:25 and that he changed his trousers there. A video camera in the interior of an elevator in the building shows the accused getting on to the elevator at 12:25:14, exiting the elevator at 12:25:47 and turning left toward Unit 611. Footage at approximately 12:40 shows the accused getting back on the elevator at the 6th floor wearing different trousers.
[11] In his testimony, Mr. Bishop was very certain that the accused was the person who beat him and that the object with which he was beaten was a vacuum broom. He was also very certain in early parts of his testimony that he had no other visitors. The last claim was demonstrated in subsequent evidence to be untrue. When police went to Mr. Bishop’s apartment to look for the accused, Mr. Bishop had another male person in the premises with him and both were questioned by the police before being released.
[12] Mr. Bishop gave detailed testimony about the object with which he was alleged to have been beaten – a vacuum broom. Following the removal of Mr. Bishop to the hospital for treatment of his injuries, the apartment was photographed by Officer Chmela, the scene of crime officer. There is no evidence of a vacuum broom. One would expect that had a vacuum broom been the instrument of the attack that it would have been in the apartment and that it would have borne some blood stains. Officer Chmela photographed the scene at the apartment at great length and recorded every object that bore marks that could have been blood stains. There is no evidence of a vacuum broom being at the scene. Mr. Bishop alleged in his testimony that the police slipped up in not seizing the vacuum broom.
[13] Mr. Bishop testified at trial that the sequence of events of the morning was that the accused and Ms Mahamoud were both in his apartment some time shortly after 10 a.m., that the accused was angry and shouting at Ms Mahamoud, that he punched Ms Mahamoud a couple of times in the chest after which she left and then the accused left. Shortly after he gave that testimony, he stated that after punching Ms Mahamoud, it was the accused who left first and that then Ms Mahamoud left. Mr. Bishop testified that the accused returned alone subsequently and attacked him.
[14] This version of the sequence of events conflicts with the version of events he related to a police officer when he was treated at the emergency department on July 10, 2018. In that version, he stated that the accused assaulted him first, then subsequently came back to the apartment with Ms Mahamoud and that it was at that time that the accused punched Ms Mahamoud.
[15] Mr. Bishop was unsure where he had been the night before these events took place, whether he had been out drinking with friends or whether he had been at home. He acknowledged that the prior night may have been part of a multi-day party during which people came and went to his apartment to drink and to smoke crack and at which tempers sometimes ran high and violence broke out. He acknowledged that he may have drunk some 24 beers the previous night. He was not able to explain the presence of red stains that could have been blood stains in different parts of the apartment and not in his bedroom which he stated was the only location where the accused attacked him as he was sitting on his bed.
[16] I note as well the relative lack of disorder in the bedroom compared to the living room and the dearth of blood on the bed given the extent of his head injury.
[17] I did not find Mr. Bishop to be a deliberately mendacious witness but I found his evidence to be highly unreliable. His evidence was internally inconsistent, conflicted materially with earlier statements given by him on the same subject matter, and was, in some instances, contradicted by reliable external evidence. He gave confident and definitive evidence on a number of peripheral points (for example the accused’s possession of his only house key) from which he subsequently retreated. While he did not waver from his contention that it was the accused who beat him on the morning of July 10, 2018, given the unreliability of his evidence as a whole, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegation in Count 2 is true. There will therefore be an acquittal on Count 2.
[18] I turn now to Count 1.
[19] Count 1 alleges that the accused, on or about the 10th day of July in the year 2018, in the City of Toronto, did in assaulting Jawhara Mahamoud and thereby wounding her, attempt to murder her contrary to Section 239(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c C-46.
[20] An allegation of attempted murder couched in bald language would not ordinarily comprise included offences a requisite element of which is actual as opposed to attempted application of force. Here, however, the language of the charge is particularized to allege an actual application of force resulting in a wounding. A charge of attempted murder particularized in such fashion has imbedded within it the lesser and included offences of aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm and assault simpliciter: R. v. Ali, 2015 BCSC 2034.
[21] The court has had the benefit in this case of security video footage showing some of the interaction between the accused and the complainant Ms Mahamoud on July 10, 2018 and of some of the accused’s actions and movements following that interaction. The video images have put the court into the position of a witness to the event with the added benefit of the ability to view the images multiple times. This eliminates the filter of an eyewitness’s powers of perception, observation, recall and interpretation. It is conceded that the images depict the accused and the complainant Ms Mahamoud and that they are accurate and authentic.
[22] From the security video evidence, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused applied force to the complainant multiple times, that the complainant did not consent, that the accused knew that the complainant did not consent, and that the repeated application of force caused the complainant’s injuries or was a significant contributing cause of her injuries.
[23] From approximately 12:07 on July 10, 2018 until 12:15, with the exception of a few seconds when the accused stepped into the first floor hallway, the accused and the complainant were in the east stairwell together at the first floor level at 101 Kendleton Drive in Toronto. The complainant was unconscious. From the alcohol level later found in her blood when she was being treated in hospital, the likely cause of her unconsciousness was ingestion of alcohol. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant was incapable at any time in the above time frame of consenting to an application of force to her person.
[24] The defence has advanced a theory, without evidence, that the accused had an honest, if mistaken, belief that the complainant had consented to force being applied to her. This theory has no air of reality and I will deal with it no further. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was aware that the complainant was unconscious and therefore unable to consent. In any event, as a matter of law, a person cannot consent to an assault causing bodily harm.
[25] Exhibit 2 is a video recording from a security camera at the first floor landing of the east stairwell of 101 Kendleton Drive. It shows the complainant landing suddenly, face upward, on the landing between Floors 1 and 2. As she lands, the back of her head is seen coming into hard contact with the concrete. It is apparent that she is unconscious. Her red and white striped garment is pulled up around her neck as is her black bra and her black pants are pulled down.
[26] Immediately following the complainant coming into view, the accused comes into view. He is carrying a blue satchel over his shoulder decorated with “Mickey Mouse” figures. He kicks Ms Mahamoud in the back four times, three times in quick succession with his right foot and the fourth time with his left foot. The kicking motion sends Ms Mahamoud’s head in a forward and downward motion on to the stairs. Ms Mahamoud is left on her back with her head below her torso on the stairs.
[27] Using his foot under the complainant’s buttocks area the accused kicks Ms Mahamoud down the stairs. The complainant is leveraged into a backward somersault and she lands halfway down the flight of stairs. The accused follows and kicks her the rest of the way down the stairs. The complainant lands on her back on the first floor landing with her head abutting the door leading to the east wing hallway. The accused follows down the stairs and goes to the door.
[28] The accused looks into the east wing hallway through a small window in the door and pulls the door open against the complainant’s head. Unable to open the door further, the accused lifts Ms Mahamoud’s upper body away from the door and as he does so, appears to speak to her. He drops her head onto the concrete floor. He then appears to check her pulse and pokes his finger into her face twice.
[29] The accused stomps on what appears to be the complainant’s face four times in succession, pauses and stomps on her two more times. The stomping action causes the complainant’s head to move and her hair is seen in motion.
[30] An interval ensues when the accused is bent over the complainant and it is not possible to see what the accused is doing. The accused then looks into the hallway, goes into the hallway and returns to the stairwell very shortly thereafter. He moves the complainant a little farther from the door. At approximately 12:11 the accused receives a bottle of water from an unseen person in the hallway and he pours the contents of the bottle over the complainant. The accused stands back, his back to the surveillance camera, his right hand on his hip, and he looks down on the complainant.
[31] At approximately 12:12, the accused is crouching over the complainant and pressing down energetically on her torso. There are six such movements following which the accused does something out of view.
[32] Following this, the accused drags the complaint away from the door leading to the first floor hallway and toward the flight of steps leading down to an exit door. He bends over her and again does something out of view. The accused then stomps on the complainant’s chest and after a pause stomps on her five more times with his right foot. The accused appears to be trying to put maximum pressure on the complainant with his foot by preceding his stomping motions with a small jumping motion.
[33] The accused then drags the complainant father away from the hall door and punches her with his fist from above. He punches her four times. It is not possible to see the location on the complainant’s body where the blows land.
[34] At approximately 12:15, the accused drags the complainant into the east hallway, first by one foot, and then by both feet.
[35] Lorraine Allen, the resident of Unit 112 at 101 Kendleton Drive at the time of the event, testified that her attention was drawn to the hallway by a funny noise. She and her late spouse had an interaction with the accused. Ms Allen saw the accused dragging the complainant down the hall. The complainant was unclothed and Ms Allen thought she was dead. She heard the accused yelling. She heard the accused yelling to her spouse to help him. She heard him yelling to her spouse that he was stupid. Ms Allen had her telephone in her hand to call 911. She testified that the accused was “in her face”, asking her what she was doing. She testified that he seemed to be high on something and that he was frothing at the mouth.
[36] According to Ms Allen, the accused went back out into the stairwell and came back with a bra and another article of clothing. He threw these onto the complainant’s chest and he then left the hallway, leaving the complainant on the hallway floor. The articles of clothing were those around Ms Mahamoud’s neck when she was seen on the stairwell security camera images. The articles of clothing were subsequently located on the floor in the first floor hallway after Ms Mahamoud was taken to hospital for treatment.
Security video footage from the elevator lobby of 101 Kendleton Drive shows the accused exiting the hallway into the elevator lobby at approximately 12:22 and speaking briefly with a male in a white sleeveless tee shirt and a towel over his shoulder. The accused then goes back into the hallway. The accused is seen exiting the east hallway to the elevator lobby at approximately 12:25. He is still carrying the Mickey Mouse satchel over his shoulder and enters an elevator.
[37] Security footage within the elevator shows the accused getting on at the first floor level, pulling some objects out of his pocket, exiting the elevator on the sixth floor and turning left. Unit 611, Mr. Bishop’s apartment, is located to the left of the elevators as seen from the angle of the security camera.
[38] The same security camera shows the accused getting on the elevator at the 6th floor at approximately 12:40. He had been wearing trousers which had a long tear on right thigh when he got on the elevator at the first floor. At 12:40 when he re-entered the elevator at the 6th floor, he was wearing different trousers. He was carrying the Mickey Mouse bag and an article of clothing. The elevator footage shows the door opening at the first floor. Visible in the elevator lobby is a policeman. The accused stays on the elevator and goes to the ground floor level. He exits the elevator at approximately 12:41.
[39] The accused is seen on security video footage at the entry to 121 Kendleton Drive, an adjacent building in the apartment complex, shortly after 1:05 p.m. He pauses and appears to speak briefly to three females. At approximately 1:10 p.m., he enters the front door of 121 Kendleton Drive, pausing first to allow the females to enter before him. Two of them do so and the third does not.
[40] Security video footage from the inner vestibule of 121 Kendleton Drive shows the accused carrying the Mickey Mouse satchel and a white plastic carrier bag. At approximately 1:11 p.m., he goes to a bench in the vestibule where a large number of bags of buns have been piled. The accused picks up a bag, puts it down, handles another, takes a bun out of the bag, puts it into his own bag, takes another bun and bites into it.
[41] At approximately 1:12 p.m., he enters the hallway to the right of the bank of elevators in 121 Kendleton Drive, a hallway which appears to be the equivalent of the hallway in 101 Kendleton Drive where he had left the complainant. Very shortly thereafter, police officers enter the hallway and apprehend him.
[42] When police officers arrest the accused, they tell him he is arrested for aggravated assault but as they are not aware of the name of the complainant or her relationship to the accused, they do not name the person alleged to have been victim of the assault.
[43] The accused repeatedly asks of the officers having custody of him what he is being arrested for but indicates awareness that he is arrested in connection with his wife. In the scout car when in transport to the station, he says, inter alia,
Why you arresting me for my wife. I try to help my wife.
Why you treating me like I’m not helping my wife.
I didn’t do anything. I was only helping my wife out.
And
Why would I touch my wife? Why you arresting me? My wife was intoxicated. Why you arresting me?
[44] The scout car video, with audio, were played in in cross-examination of the arresting officer, Officer Saliba. The officer testified that she did not observe patent signs of intoxication in the accused when he was arrested and transported to the station. The scout car video images do not indicate compellingly whether the accused was intoxicated or not.
[45] The scout car video is revealing, however, in what is not present. The accused did not mention that his wife was unconscious. He did not disclose that he had left her on the hallway floor at 101 Kendleton Drive. He did not ask for help for his wife. He did not inquire as to her well-being. There is no evidence that upon being apprehended by police and out of camera and microphone range, the accused advised police of his wife’s condition, sought help for her or inquired after her well-being.
[46] While the accused was being arrested, Ms Mahamoud had been taken to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre where she was assessed and managed by the trauma team.
[47] Ms Mahamoud suffered serious injuries. Her head injuries were bilateral acute subdural and trace right sylvian fissure subarachnoid hemorrhage and significant peri-calvarial soft tissue injury/hematoma. Ms Mahamoud’s chest injuries were right sided 2nd to 5th rib fractures, left side 3rd and 4th rib fractures, pneumomediastinum and occult hemopneumothorax on the right and hemomediastinum. These injuries involve significant breaking of tissue and bleeding and constitute wounding. The injuries were life-threatening. The medical records indicate that on admission to hospital she had a Glasgow Coma score of 7. She was pregnant at the time and also had a laceration to the liver. She was treated in the intensive care unit until July 22 and remained in hospital until August 1, 2018.
[48] I am satisfied that the actions by the accused of repeated stomping on Ms Mahamoud, of punching her and of kicking her down a flight of stairs sending her into a backward somersault caused the injuries or were a significant contributing cause of the injuries.
[49] In argument, defence suggested that the head injuries were likely caused by the contact of Ms Mahamoud’s head with the concrete landing at the moment when she first came into view of the security camera and that it was not possible to ascribe that event to an act of the accused. Even if none of head injuries were caused by the accused’s attacks on Ms Mahamoud, the chest injuries involved wounding. It is a fortuity that Ms Mahamoud did not suffer grievous spinal injuries from being kicked down the stairs. Given the brutality of the beating that the accused inflicted on Ms Mahamoud, I am left with no reasonable doubt as to causation of her injuries.
[50] The defence position was that the accused was trying to help Ms Mahamoud. It was suggested that he was trying to get her out of the building, and that nudging her down the flight of stairs with his foot and dragging her was done with that end. It was suggested also that the accused was trying to revive Ms Mahamoud and that his various applications of force were done with that end.
[51] The suggestion was advanced that because the accused had a good or at least unobjectionable motive, the blows he visited on Ms Mahamoud were not acts of assault. An ill motive is not a requisite element of the crime of assault. The relevant intent is the intent to apply force.
[52] I am not, however, satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the specific intent to kill Ms Mahamoud. The Crown submits that the specific intent to kill should be inferred from the facts that the attack was brutal, that it was prolonged, and that the results were life- threatening. The presence of animus was evident from the earlier physical attack on Ms Mahamoud in Mr. Bishop’s apartment.
[53] While the interaction between Ms Mahamoud and the accused as caught on security videos lasted some 8 minutes, and there were multiple blows inflicted by foot and hand, the beating was not continuous. There were a number of pauses in the accused’s action. I am not satisfied that the accused’s acts were consistent with an intention to kill and not consistent with lashing out in anger at his spouse without an intention to kill.
[54] Had I been satisfied of a specific intent to kill, the defence of necessity raised for the first time in closing submissions would not be available, but as I find the accused not guilty of attempted murder, I will deal with the defence in considering whether there should be a conviction for aggravated assault, the requisite elements of which I find otherwise established beyond a reasonable doubt.
[55] In Morgentaler v. The Queen, 1975 8 (SCC), [1976] 1 S.C.R. 616, the Supreme Court discussed whether or not the defence exists at all. Dickson J. (as he then was) wrote, at p. 678:
On the authorities it is manifestly difficult to be categorical and state that there is a law of necessity, paramount over other laws, relieving obedience from the letter of the law. If it does exist, it can go no further than to justify non-compliance in urgent situations of clear and imminent peril when compliance with the law is demonstrably impossible.
[56] Subsequently, in the leading case on the issue, R. v. Perka, 1984 23 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232, the court held that a residual common law defence of necessity exists in Canada and set out the requirements and limitations of it.
[57] At p. 248, Dickson J. set out the philosophical rationale of the defence thus: “It rests on a realistic assessment of human weakness, recognizing that a liberal and humane criminal law cannot hold people to the strict obedience of laws in emergency situations where normal human instincts, whether of self-preservation or of altruism, overwhelmingly impel disobedience.”
[58] Three elements must be present for the defence of necessity to avail. First, there must be imminent peril or danger. Second, the accused must have had no reasonable legal alternative to the course of action that he took. Third, there must be proportionality between the harm inflicted by the accused and the harm that was avoided.
[59] At p. 251 of Perka, the court explained the first element – clear and imminent peril. Dickson J. stated, “At a minimum the situation must be so emergent and the peril must be so pressing that normal human instincts cry out for action and make a counsel of patience unreasonable.” This requirement tests whether it was unavoidable, given normal human instincts, for the accused to have acted at all in the way he did.
[60] The second element of the defence is the absence of a reasonable legal alternative. If there was a reasonable legal alternative course of action, there is no necessity for the accused to have acted as he did and the defence would fail.
[61] The third element is that there be proportionality between the harm inflicted and the harm avoided. The defence will not avail where the accused takes an action which causes a harm greater than the evil avoided.
[62] In R. v. Latimer, 2001 SCC 1, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3, the Supreme Court set out the nature of the tests for each of the three elements of the defence.
[63] The test as to whether there is proportionality between the harm done and that avoided is objective. The harm avoided must be either comparable to or greater than the harm inflicted.
[64] The test as to whether there is an emergent situation requiring immediate action and as to whether there is a reasonable legal alternative is a modified objective test in that the situation and characteristics of the accused are to be taken into account. The court stated, at para 33, “While an accused's perceptions of the surrounding facts may be highly relevant in determining whether his conduct should be excused, those perceptions remain relevant only so long as they are reasonable. The accused person must, at the time of the act, honestly believe, on reasonable grounds, that he faces a situation of imminent peril that leaves no reasonable legal alternative open. There must be a reasonable basis for the accused's beliefs and actions, but it would be proper to take into account circumstances that legitimately affect the accused person's ability to evaluate his situation. The test cannot be a subjective one, and the accused who argues that he perceived imminent peril without an alternative would only succeed with the defence of necessity if his belief was reasonable given his circumstances and attributes.” [Emphasis in original.]
[65] Bearing in mind that it is for the Crown to show that at least one of the three elements of the defence of necessity is absent, I am satisfied on the totality of the evidence and absence of evidence that the defence fails here.
[66] In considering the question of whether there was an emergent situation requiring immediate action, I find that while a state of unconsciousness reasonably calls for medical attention, there was clearly no need and no reasonable justification for the actions that the accused took. Assuming that the accused was aware that Ms Mahamoud was unconscious when her head hit the landing between the first and second floor, there was no scintilla of helpfulness in kicking her down the next flight of stairs. The situation not only did not cry out for such action, it cried out for the opposite, namely refraining from worsening Ms Mahamoud’s situation by acting in a way that would inflict further injury on her. I make the same observations with respect to the several acts of stomping on Ms Mahamoud’s body and punching her repeatedly. There is nothing of the involuntary in these actions. Normal human instincts do not cry out for kicking an unconscious person down stairs. Normal human instincts do not cry out for punching and stomping on an unconscious person.
[67] With respect to the second element of the defence, the absence of a reasonable legal alternative, I find that the most obvious and salient reasonable legal alternative was to refrain from kicking Ms Mahamoud down the stairs and to refrain from striking Ms Mahamoud at all. She would at least be no worse off. There was no reasonable basis and no plausible theory that these actions would or could avoid any imminent harm. There are a number of things that the accused could have done to be helpful to her-- all of which were legal-- such as calling 911, getting her into a position such that if she vomited, she would not choke, or, if the accused had no access to a telephone, getting a resident to summon help. In this case, instead of seeking medical help, the accused challenged Ms Allen when she was using her cell phone to call 911.
[68] It is suggested that the accused’s acts were done in an effort to revive Ms Mahamoud, and reliance is placed on the fact that the accused made motions pressing with both hands on her torso as if to do CPR compressions. I agree that those particular motions are ambiguous, and similar motions performed by a person with skill and knowledge on a person without a pulse would arguably be in aid of resuscitation. There is no evidence here as to (a) whether Ms Mahamoud ever lost a pulse and (b) whether the accused ever believed that that was the case and thus required chest compressions to restart her heart.
[69] In any case, there is no ambiguity in the kicks, the stomps and the punches.
[70] In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I take the accused to be a person of reasonable intelligence, life experience and ability. The only evidence to the contrary in this case was that of Ms Allen who opined that the accused appeared to be high on something and the scout car video and audio. There is no evidence that the accused laboured under a belief that if he kicked Ms Mahamoud down a flight of stairs, stomped on her and punched her multiple times, that this would be in any way helpful to her or that it would bring her back to consciousness. Such a belief, even if there was some evidence that he held it, would not assist because the belief is not reasonable.
[71] It is particularly telling that the accused abandoned Ms Mahamoud on the hallway floor and went about his business, changing his trousers, going to the adjacent building, chatting with three women at the entry area, taking a bun from one of the bags of buns left on the foyer, and eating it. It is also telling that when arrested, he made no disclosure to the police that Ms Mahamoud was lying unconscious and unclothed on the hallway floor in 101 Kendleton Drive. Nor did he inquire about her well-being or seek assistance for her.
[72] I find that the accused, when he kicked Ms Mahamoud down the stairs, when he stomped on her and punched her with his fist, was not acting out of a desire to be helpful to Ms Mahamoud.
[73] Finally, the third element of the defence is absent. Ms Mahamoud had a high level of blood alcohol and was unconscious probably as a result of the alcohol consumption when she first came into view of the security camera. As a result of the beating inflicted upon her by the accused, she sustained life threatening injuries that required a surgical procedure and a three week stay in hospital. There is no proportionality.
[74] I therefore find the accused guilty of aggravated assault upon Ms Mahamoud.
___________________________ Low J.
Released: June 18, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-50000099-0000
DATE: 20210618
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
JOSEPH EMEKA ONYEACHONAM
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Low J.
Released: June 18, 2021