R. v. Khesro-Mohamed-Rasheed, 2023 ONCJ 88
In the Ontario Court of Justice case of R. v. Khesro-Mohamed-Rasheed, the accused and his friend, Sulyman, was in Sulyman’s apartment with a woman. The hours were early, and they had a joint and a few shots of tequila. The two men got in an altercation concerning the woman’s presence on Sulyman’s bed. Rasheed struck Sulyman multiple times, and Sulyman suffered a swollen eye, fractured nose, a chipped tooth, along with multiple cuts on his face. Sulyman’s quality of life was severely impacted by his injuries, and so Rasheed was charged with assault causing bodily harm.
When considering the testimonies of the parties, the Court considered their credibility and reliability. Credibility and reliability are two standards by which Courts judge a witness’ testimony. The account by Sulyman was found to be credible, while Rasheed’s story had too many inconsistencies. Rasheed also raised the defence of self-defence, as his assault was in retaliation to a slap by Sulyman. However, Sulyman’s account of the slap was that the slap was disciplinary in their culture, and the Court found that the continuation of the beating in response to a slap to be unproportional and unreasonable. The accused was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm.
R. v. J.P., 2018 ONSC 7481
In the Ontario Superior Court case of R. v. J.P., the accused pled guilty to three counts of assault and two counts of sexual assault against his ex-intimate partner. The accused was Indigenous, and in the decision, the Court considered the Gladue report in contextualizing the crime. The court also considered several aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The complainant had also filed a Victim Impact Statement that described her suffering physically and emotionally.
Some of the mitigating circumstances include: the accused’s young age and lack of prior criminal record, the guilty plea, and sincere remorse, family support, and employment. However, a major aggravating factor was the abuse of a spouse or intimate partner. The offender was sentenced to a total incarceration period of 20 months, along with the order for DNA forensic analysis and a weapons prohibition. The accused also must pay the complainant $6240 as restitution.
R. v. Nelson, 2022 ONCJ 634
In the Ontario Court of Justice case of R. v. Nelson, the defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm. The accused had struck the complainant in the face twice, and she fell back onto the ground, unconscious. After assisting complainant, the accused quickly left the scene. The injuries the complainant suffered were a fractured jaw, a broken tooth, and associated bumps and bruises. The injuries were sufficient to be considered as “bodily harm”, as the complainant suffered emotionally, physically, and financially as a result of the attack.
In considering the appropriate sentence for the offender, the Court kept in mind that the defendant was a refugee claimant from Jamaica. This was the defendant’s first offence, and the Court had no goals of deporting Mr. Nelson. However, the ultimate sentence of 12 months imprisonment will result in the defendant’s deportation from Canada. This was, in the judge’s opinion, the most adequate sentence to address both aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. The nature of the assault and the injuries were extreme.