R. v. Guzzo, 2007 ONSC 36639
In the Ontario Supreme Court case of R. v. Guzzo, the complainant was the accused’s ex-girlfriend. Armed with a steak knife and brandishing it, Guzzo also had what appeared to be a handgun on him. Guzzo began to threaten his ex-girlfriend, asking for her to leave the apartment with him. A tenant in the apartment, Patti Marcellus, rushed to intervene. Luckily, no one was harmed. The ex-girlfriend, Ashley Biron, told the accused that she was not cooperating with the police. However, the witness did not lie to the police, and Guzzo was ultimately charged. The handgun was not found.
While considering the count of assault, the Court compared the accused’s actions with what was defined in the Criminal Code. Section 265(c) of the Code defined assault with a weapon as any attempt to threaten or accost someone while openly wearing or carrying a weapon (or an imitation of a weapon.) The Court found that any attempted threat or threat was tantamount to assault, and that Marcellus reasonably feared for her safety. Guzzo guilty was found guilty.
R. v. Khesro-Mohamed-Rasheed, 2023 ONCJ 88
In the Ontario Court of Justice case of R. v. Khesro-Mohamed-Rasheed, the accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm contrary to s. 267(b) of the Criminal Code. Rasheed and his friend, Sulyman, were in Sulyman’s apartment with an unnamed woman in the early hours of November 9, 2019. After having a joint and a few shots of tequila, the two men got involved in an altercation with each other. Rasheed struck Sulyman, and Sulyman suffered a fractured nose, swollen eye, chipped tooth, along with multiple lacerations on his face. The degree to which the complainant suffered was sufficient to constitute bodily harm, as the complainant’s quality of life was severely impacted by his injuries.
In their decision, the Court considered several factors, such as the credibility and reliability of the testimonies of both parties. Sulyman’s account was found to be credible, while Rasheed’s account was found to have too many inconsistencies. In addition, Rasheed also raised the defence of self-defence, as his aggression was a retaliation to a slap by Sulyman. However, the Court found the continuation of Rasheed beating Sulyman in response to a slap to be disproportional and unreasonable. Rasheed was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm.
R. v. Aguiar, 2022 ONCJ 621
In the Ontario Court of Justice case of R. v. Aguiar, the accused was charged with assaulting his son. The defendant raised the defence of section 43 of the Criminal Code, stating that a parent or schoolteacher may use force to correct a child if the force was not unreasonable under the circumstances. The complainant was nine years old at the time, and 11 years old at the time of his testimony. The altercation occurred after the Complainant was jumping on the couch, an activity the complainant knew was forbidden to him. Catching the complainant, the accused suspended the complainant off the couch, before banging his head on the wall ten times. The issue was whether this was an assault, and whether the actions of the accused were justified under s. 43 of the Criminal Code.
In their analysis, the Court agreed that what the accused did to the complainant constituted as assault. During his evidence and cross-examination, the accused’s reason for his response towards the Complainant was that the complainant had a broken collarbone that needed nursing. The Court, however, found that this was inconsistent with the severity of the force. The defendant was found guilty of assault.