R. v. Paris

R. v. Paris

The court acquitted the accused of assault and uttering threats because the Crown failed to prove those offences beyond a reasonable doubt given delayed disclosure, the absence of a key witness (the complainant's son) and unresolved credibility issues; the court convicted the accused of breaching the Form 11.1 undertaking because the accused admitted the contact and failed to discharge the onus of proving a lawful excuse on the balance of probabilities.

Citation
2013 NSPC 57
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Michael Corwyn Paris
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal (summary) / Trial Verdict
Outcome
Convicted of breach of undertaking contrary to s.145(5.1) of the Criminal Code; acquitted of assault and uttering threats.
Legal Topics
Assault, Uttering Threats, Breach of Undertaking, Evidence and Credibility, Burden of Proof, Reasonable Doubt
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Bail and Undertakings Family Violence Assault Uttering Threats Breach of Undertaking Evidence and Credibility Burden of Proof +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Michael Corwyn Paris

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (summary) / Trial Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the complainant on 29 August 2012
  2. 2 Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused uttered threats to the complainant after 29 August 2012
  3. 3 Whether the accused breached a Form 11.1 undertaking by communicating with the complainant on 8 September 2012

Ratio Decidendi

The court acquitted the accused of assault and uttering threats because the Crown failed to prove those offences beyond a reasonable doubt given delayed disclosure, the absence of a key witness (the complainant's son) and unresolved credibility issues; the court convicted the accused of breaching the Form 11.1 undertaking because the accused admitted the contact and failed to discharge the onus of proving a lawful excuse on the balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Convicted of breach of undertaking contrary to s.145(5.1) of the Criminal Code; acquitted of assault and uttering threats.

Orders

  • Found guilty of breach of undertaking contrary to s.145(5.1) of the Criminal Code.
  • Acquitted of assault (s.266(b)) and uttering threats (s.264.1(1)(b)).