Court File and Parties
Bracebridge Court File No.: CR-25-00000003-00AP Date: 2026-03-11
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
| Between: | |
| His Majesty the King | |
| -- and -- | |
| Adam Michael Busch | Appellant |
Melissa MacDonald, for the Crown
David M. Reeve, Counsel for the Appellant
Heard: February 23, 2026 (virtually)
Reasons for Decision
Regional Senior Justice Edwards
[1] This is a summary conviction appeal brought by Mr. Busch.
The Proceeding in the Ontario Court of Justice
[2] Mr. Busch was charged with committing an assault on Katherine Houtby. In his oral reasons of December 4, 2024, Meijers J. found Mr. Busch guilty of assault.
The Decision of the Trial Judge
[3] The evidence at trial consisted largely of the evidence Ms. Houtby; Constable Cochrane an OPP officer who arrived at the scene; and Mr. Busch.
[4] The essence of Ms. Houtby's evidence was that an argument had taken place between herself and Mr. Busch as a result of which Ms. Houtby shoved Mr. Busch in an effort to retrieve her phone. At this point Ms. Houtby testified that Mr. Busch struck her with his right hand on her face causing her nose to bleed.
[5] Constable Cochrane testified that when he arrived at the scene Ms. Houtby was emotional and had blood "all over her face".
[6] Officer Cochrane went up to the apartment where the altercation had taken place in an effort to locate Mr. Busch. Mr. Busch was asleep. Constable Cochrane had to force the door to access Mr. Busch. When Mr. Busch awoke Officer Cochrane described Mr. Busch as agitated, angry and violent.
[7] Mr. Busch testified that during the altercation with Ms. Houtby she grabbed his phone; threw it and began slapping him on his head and chest. Mr. Busch grabbed Ms. Houtby's phone and threw it out onto the patio. It was Mr. Busch's evidence that he placed his arm on Ms. Houtby's shoulder and pushed her away as she was flailing at him. It was his evidence that he made contact with Ms. Houtby's face; contact that was accidental and not intentional.
[8] The trial judge rejected Mr. Busch's evidence and observed that he gave two very different explanations of how he had caused Ms. Houtby's bloody nose. The trial judge rejected both explanations and observed that Mr. Busch gave lengthy off-topic answers and at times had to be reminded of what the actual question was.
[9] In his reasons for judgment at page 7 the trial judge concluded:
When considering all the evidence, a few things are very clear to me. Katharine Houtby was struck in the face such that when the police saw her, her face was covered in blood, so, obviously, a significant blow. Common sense says that that is a blow that is caused by a direct hit as opposed to a slip of the arm caused by raising her arm and grazing her face.
[10] The trial judge ultimately concluded:
I have heard two different versions of the event, but I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that a drunken, angry Mr. Busch struck his wife, causing her to bleed, locked her out of their condo, passed out such that the police could not wake him even after breaking the door down. I am aware of R. v. W.(D.), but I do not accept Mr. Busch's evidence, and it does not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind. Considering all the evidence that I do accept, especially as corroborated by Constable Cochrane, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty and he will be found guilty.
The Standard of Review
[11] It is well recognized that on an appeal, factual findings made by the trial judge are entitled to deference, absent palpable and overriding error. It is not the role of an appellate court to substitute its own views of the evidence -- see R. v. Sheahan, 2017 ONCA 159, at para 12. Fundamentally, an appeal is not a retrial -- see R v. Doyle, 2006 O.J. No. 315 CA at para 6.
Position of the Defence
[12] Counsel for Mr. Busch raises three grounds for appeal. The first is that the trial judge erred by misapprehending the evidence about the nature and extent of Ms. Houtby's injury. Tied in with this argument is the suggestion that the trial judge misapprehended Ms. Houtby's evidence about shoving Mr. Busch. Counsel for Mr. Busch argues that the trial judge erred by inappropriately commenting on Mr. Busch's review of the disclosure in the assessment of Mr. Busch's evidence. Finally, it is argued that the trial judges were insufficient.
Position of the Crown
[13] Counsel for the Crown argues that the trial judge's reasons explain why Mr. Busch's hit that struck Ms. Houtby's face was not accidental but rather was a direct hit. Counsel for the Crown argues that the trial judge having assessed the evidence simply rejected a defence that the hit was accidental.
[14] Counsel for the Crown rhetorically asked the question as to whether the verdict was reasonable and whether any miscarriage of justice occurred as a result of any misapprehension of the evidence by the trial judge.
[15] If the trial judge was wrong as it relates to the timeline, counsel for the Crown argues that such an error is only an error as it relates to the narrative and does not in any way impact on the credibility finding of the trial judge that what occurred was not an accident.
Analysis
[16] For the reasons that follow Mr. Busch's appeal is dismissed. There was no palpable or overriding as it relates to the trial judge's factual determinations. The trial judge rejected the evidence of Mr. Busch and found corroboration in Ms. Houtby's evidence that she was struck in the face causing her to bleed. Her evidence with respect to her bloody nose was corroborated by Constable Cochrane who observed blood on her face when he arrived at the scene. Simply put, the trial judge rejected the evidence of Mr. Busch and preferred the evidence of Ms. Houtby.
[17] What happened was not an accidental blow but rather was an intentional blow that caused Ms. Houtby to suffer a bloody nose.
[18] The findings of fact of the trial judge are owed deference and were open to him based on the evidence.
[19] Any factual errors made by the trial judge were minor errors in the narrative and do not detract from his fundamental finding that he did not believe that when Mr. Busch struck Ms. Houtby it was an accidental blow to her facial area; rather, it was an intentional strike that caused her nose to bleed. Any factual errors in the narrative identified by counsel for Mr. Busch did not result in any miscarriage of justice.
[20] As for the trial judge's comments about Mr. Busch having read the Crown disclosure, this arose in the context of his assessment of Mr. Busch's overall credibility. Mr. Busch's evidence was fundamentally found lacking in credibility largely because an accidental and incidental contact with Ms. Houtby's face would not have resulted in the substantial amount of blood observed by Constable Cochrane.
[21] The appeal is dismissed.
Edwards, R.S.J.
Date: March 11, 2026
Bracebridge Court File No.: CR-25-0000003-00AP
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
His Majesty the King -- and -- Adam Michael Busch, Appellant
Reasons for Decision
Regional Senior Justice Edwards
Released: March 11, 2026