Aggravated Assault Lawyer in Ottawa

The mens rea attaches to the assault, not to the injury. The Crown must prove you meant to apply force. It does not have to prove you meant to fracture a skull. A punch you intended, producing an injury you never imagined, can still support a conviction.

That makes identification the stronger battleground in many files. Bar fights, group altercations, and swarm incidents produce contradictory witness statements and unreliable descriptions. Where several people were involved, the Crown must prove which of them caused the serious injury, and mistaken identity is a live defence rather than a technicality.

Self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code is a complete answer to aggravated assault. The test asks whether you believed on reasonable grounds that force was being used or threatened, whether you acted to protect yourself or another person, and whether your response was reasonable in the circumstances. Reasonable, not perfectly proportionate.

The court weighs size, history between the parties, whether a weapon was present, and how much time you had to think.

Consent is narrower. In R v. Jobidon, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a person cannot consent to the intentional infliction of bodily harm, so consent rarely answers a s. 268 allegation outside regulated sport.

Where police obtained evidence through an unlawful arrest or search, Charter motions and applications can exclude it under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Excessive force by the accused weakens self-defence; excessive force by police can end the prosecution.