R. v. Dermody

R. v. Dermody

Court found the Crown proved identity, intentional application of force and bodily harm beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence of self‑defence possessed an air of reality and could justify the initial blows, but the accused exceeded defensive necessity in the second phase (re‑engaging after the complainant was non‑threatening and bent over), making subsequent force unreasonable and disproportionate; therefore the Crown disproved self‑defence for the latter portion and convicted under s.267(b).

Citation
2025 NSPC 36
Parties
Crown: His Majesty the King; Accused: Carolyn Dermody; Complainant: Pamela Hubley
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Assault Causing Bodily Harm (s.267(b) Criminal Code) / Trial Decision
Outcome
Guilty of assault causing bodily harm contrary to s.267(b) of the Criminal Code
Legal Topics
Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Self Defence, Use of Force, Evidence and Credibility, Video Surveillance Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Assault Causing Bodily Harm Self Defence Use of Force Evidence and Credibility Video Surveillance Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Crown

Carolyn Dermody

Accused

Pamela Hubley

Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Assault Causing Bodily Harm (s.267(b) Criminal Code) / Trial Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt each element of assault causing bodily harm under s.267(b)?
  2. 2 Has the Crown disproven the defence of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt?

Ratio Decidendi

Court found the Crown proved identity, intentional application of force and bodily harm beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence of self‑defence possessed an air of reality and could justify the initial blows, but the accused exceeded defensive necessity in the second phase (re‑engaging after the complainant was non‑threatening and bent over), making subsequent force unreasonable and disproportionate; therefore the Crown disproved self‑defence for the latter portion and convicted under s.267(b).

Court Disposition

Guilty of assault causing bodily harm contrary to s.267(b) of the Criminal Code