Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The trial judge correctly applied s.35, considered the totality of the evidence (including video), found the appellant's final push disproportionate and not reasonable in the circumstances, and the Crown disproved the defence beyond a reasonable doubt; therefore the conviction and sentence stand.
Source excerpt
The court acquitted Ryan Patrick Cador of aggravated assault after finding self-defence had an air of reality and the Crown did not disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
The trial judge's factual findings, supported by independent evidence (bloodstain evidence and injury pattern), discredited the appellant's account and established that striking Mr. Shaver while he was on the ground was not a reasonable act of self-defence under s.34; accordingly the conviction for aggravated assault stands and the 6-year sentence is not demonstrably unfit.
Source excerpt
There is no air of reality to the defence of self‑defence on Count 4 because the evidence, even if accepted, does not provide a basis from which a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could infer the accused's subjective purpose under s.34(1)(b); accordingly the defence must be excluded and not left to the jury.
Source excerpt
The trial judge reasonably found that although the appellant subjectively believed force was imminent, his motive was not defensive and his conduct was objectively unreasonable given his role in the incident, available alternatives and history with the complainant; those findings were open to the fact‑finder and entitled to deference, therefore the appeal is dismissed and the conviction is affirmed.
Source excerpt
Sentencing for manslaughter after a jury verdict: the court found the accused acted in self-defence with excessive force and imposed 18 months' imprisonment with ancillary orders.
The trial judge accepted the complainant's evidence and parts of the Good Samaritan's evidence, rejected the accused's account as not credible, found the accused intentionally (or recklessly) applied a downward push to the complainant causing her fall, and held that neither accident nor self‑defence had an air of reality sufficient to raise reasonable doubt; thus the Crown proved assault beyond a reasonable doubt.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Randhawa’s sentence appeal, holding that 18 months’ imprisonment was fit despite the near self-defence context and mitigating factors.
The Crown's repeated misstatement that striking the first blow automatically precludes self-defence, uncorrected by the trial judge, rendered the verdict unsafe; appeal allowed, conviction set aside and a new trial ordered (the trial judge's retrospective use of amended self-defence provisions was also erroneous but the uncorrected misstatement was dispositive).
Source excerpt
The court acquitted Omid Roudiani of aggravated assault, finding a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defence during a fast-moving late-night confrontation.
Explore more
