The case stemmed from a confrontation over retrieving a dog
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has acquitted a man charged with aggravated assault after finding that he acted in lawful self-defence during a confrontation over a dog.
The incident occurred when the defendant went to retrieve a dog from an individual who was legally required to return the dog to his former girlfriend. Despite a court order, the individual had refused to comply, leading to the confrontation. The defendant and the individual recorded the interaction on their cellphones, and both called for police assistance. The verbal dispute escalated into a physical struggle, resulting in the defendant stabbing the individual twice in the abdomen. The individual survived the incident.
The defendant was charged with aggravated assault, and the case hinged on whether he acted in self-defence. The court needed to determine if the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not stab the individual in lawful self-defence.
The five-day trial featured testimony from both the complainant and the defendant, as well as evidence from the complainant's former partner, the landlord, security footage, and police officers involved in the investigation. The Superior Court also reviewed videos taken by both parties during the confrontation and a 911 call made by the defendant.
The court evaluated the circumstances of the stabbing under s. 34(1) of the Criminal Code, which outlines three essential elements for lawful self-defence: the accused must reasonably believe that force or a threat of force is being used against them; the accused's purpose for responding must be to protect themselves; and the accused's act must be reasonable in the circumstances.
The Crown argued that the defendant's credibility was questionable and that he did not believe he was under threat. They contended that the defendant initiated the altercation and used unreasonable force by stabbing the complainant with a hunting-style knife. However, the court found inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and concluded that the defendant's account was supported by video evidence.
The court noted that the defendant had gone to the apartment solely to retrieve the dog on behalf of his friend and had a copy of the court order and the friend's identification to prove his authorization. Despite the prolonged verbal dispute, it was the complainant who initiated physical violence by threatening and attacking the defendant.
The court concluded that the defendant acted in self-defence, finding that his belief in the threat was reasonable and that his response was proportionate, given the sudden and violent nature of the attack. The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were unreasonable.
As a result, the court acquitted the defendant of the aggravated assault charge, emphasizing the necessity of evaluating the context and dynamics of the confrontation when considering claims of self-defence.
