DEFENCES

The following defences may be available to Assault, Domestic Assault, Assault with Weapon, Aggravated Assault, and Assault Causing Bodily Harm:
Self defence
Necessity
Accident
Lack of Intent
Not Criminally Responsible

THE LAW OF ASSAULT IN CANADA

In every criminal prosecution the Crown must prove several elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant doesn’t need to prove or disprove anything.  The burden stays on the Crown all the way through the case.  The following is a summary of the essential elements in Assault prosecutions:
Assault: (i) an application of force; (ii) intention to apply that force; (iii) absence of consent on the part of the victim; and (iv) identity of the defendant as the person who committed the assault.
Assault with a Weapon: the same elements as Assault with the addition of the use of a weapon. 
Assault Causing Bodily Harm: the same elements as Assault with the addition of bodily harm that is more than trivial or transitory.
Aggravated Assault: the same elements as Assault with the addition of wounding, maiming, disfiguring or endangering life.
Many cases result in acquittals because the Crown cannot prove one or more of the essential elements listed above beyond a reasonable.  Often the failure of the Crown’s case on an element(s) of the offence is the result of the credibility or reliability failings in their witnesses.  If you are charged with an Assault, Domestic Assault, Assault with a Weapon, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, or Aggravated Assault contact (416) 410-4814 for a free consultation or assessment of your case.
NATHAN GORHAM 
TORONTO DEFENCE LAWYER
  1. TORONTO | ASSAULT | LAWYER


Nathan Gorham is a criminal lawyer in Toronto and one of the founding partners of Rusuonik, O’Connor, Robbins, Gorham & Angelini LLP which is the largest criminal defence firm in Toronto.  He defends Domestic Assaults, Aggravated Assaults, Assaults with a Weapon, Assault Police, and Simple Assault charges in Toronto, Brampton, Newmarket, or Whitby.  


An Assault under the Criminal Code is an non consensual application of force.  A Domestic Assault is an Assault that occurs within a family or romantic relationship, whereas Assault with a Weapon is any Assault where a weapon is used.  Aggravated Assault is an Assault that causing wounding, disfigurement, or endangers life.  The potential sentences for Assaults range from discharges right up to 14 years in prison.


Below you will find some of Nathan Gorham’s experience defending all types of Assault charges.  If you have been charged with and Assault or related offence, or if you are the victim of an Assault and are seeking legal advice, contact (416) 410-4814 or gorham@criminaltriallawyers.ca for free consultation.

  1. EXPERIENCE *


Domestic assault charges withdrawn

  1. The defendant was charged with Domestic Assault.  It was alleged that he and his wife had been arguing as their marriage was falling apart.  One night his wife came home under the influence of alcohol and another argument ensued.  She alleged that the defendant threw her down the stairs.  The physical evidence did not support her claim.  The defendant maintained his innocence.  After negotiation the Crown agreed to WITHDRAW the charge well before a trial date had to be set. 


Domestic assault charges withdrawn

  1. The defendant was charged with Domestic Assault.  Him and his common law spouse got into an argument while they were driving to get groceries, and she demanded that he drive her back to the apartment.  The complainant alleged that she was assaulted.  The defendant maintained his innocence.  The Crown agreed to WITHDRAW the charge on the morning of trial.


Domestic Assault charges withdrawn

  1. The defendant was charged with Domestic Assault.  He and his girlfriend began to argue while they were driving home from a club. and violent struggled broke out.  Both people were injured.  The defendant maintained his innocence and that he was acting in self defence.  The Crown agreed to WITHDRAW the charge on the morning of trial.


“Not Guilty” of Assaulting the police

  1. The defendant was charged with Assault police.  3 police officers testified that they were trying to break up a fight in the entertainment district when M. ran up and jumped on one of the officer’s backs.  The defendant testified that his friend was trying to intervene in a fight to break it up when and officer grabbed him and threw him on the ground.  He tried to the tell the officer that his friend was not part of the fight, but the officer grabbed him and threw him on the ground.  Later they told him he was under arrest for assaulting the police.  The defence theory was that the police had roughed up the defendant and his friend because they mistakenly believed that they were part of the fight.  In order to protect themselves, they concocted a story about the defendant jumping on an officer’s back.  During cross examination several inconsistencies and implausibilities were established in the officers’ evidence.  The trial judge found the defendantNOT GUILTY of Assaulting a police officer.


“Not Guilty” of Assault with a Weapon, Robbery, and Forcible Confinement

  1. Three men were charged with Assault with a Weapon, Robbery, and Forcible Confinement.  The defendants became involved in a commercial dispute with the complainant.  The complainant alleged that he was attacked with an axe.  The defendants maintained their innocence and testified at trial.  The complainant’s evidence was undermined during cross examination and the jury found all three men NOT GUILTY of all offences.


“Not Guilty” of Aggravated Assault

  1. The defendant was charged with Aggravated Assault.  The complainant was stabbed in the lower back.  He was in the complainant’s apartment at the time.  He claimed that the defendant stabbed him for no reason.  The defendant testified that the complainant attacked during and argument and that he stabbed him in self defence.  During cross examination, the complainant was caught in several inconsistencies. The jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY of Aggravated Assault.


“Not Guilty” of Aggravated Assault

  1. The defendant was charged with Aggravated Assault.  The defendant ran into a Pizza Pizza and asked the attendant to call 911 because someone was attacking him.  A few moments later the complainant arrived at the front door bleeding from several stab wounds.  He claimed that he was stabbed by the defendant while he was walking down the road.  The defendant testified that the complainant tried to rob and that he acted in self defence.  The trial judge found him NOT GUILTY of Aggravated Assault.


“Not Guilty” of Aggravated Assault

  1. The defendant was charged with Aggravated Assault. He was working as a courier when a dispute with three other men arose concerning a parking spot.  The dispute escalated into a fight.  In the end, one of the men was stabbed twice in the stomach.  He testified that the defendant stabbed him for no reason.  His credibility was undermined through cross examination concerning several inconsistencies and contradictions.  The defendant testified that he stabbed the man while all three men were attacking him.  The jury found him NOT GUILTY of Aggravated Assault.


“Not Guilty” of Choking, Aggravated Assault, Criminal Harassment, and Assault with a Weapon

  1. The defendant was charged with Choking, Aggravated Assault, Criminal Harassment, Assault with a Weapon.  He and the complainant were in a romantic relationship.  The complainant alleged that X choked her, left hours worth of menacing phone messages, and later punched her in the face several times.  The defendant maintained his innocence and testified at trial.  The jury found him NOT GUILTY of all offences.


“Not guilty” of Aggravated Assault

  1. The defendant was charged with Aggravated Assault. The complainant was stabbed near the heart during a soccer match.  He had claimed that I. had deliberately stabbed him during a dispute over a foul.  The complainant had been convicted of three prior offences for using a knife against someone during a fight.  He testified that the complaint pulled the knife and began chasing him.  Other players tackled him to break up the fight.  When he stood up the was bleeding from the chest.  He must have fallen on the knife.  The jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY of Aggravated Assault.


“Not Guilty” of Assault Causing Bodily Harm

  1. The defendant was charged with Assault causing bodily harm.  The complainant’s nose was broken in a school yard fight.  He said that the defendant punched him first.  The defendant testified that the complainant was punching him and he protected himself.  The jury found him NOT GUILTY of Assault Causing Bodily Harm.


All information is true but names are changed to protect the confidentiality of former clients.

MAIN PAGE   -   RECENT SUCCESSES   -   FEES   -   CONSULTATIONS   -   LEGAL RESOURCES   -   ABOUT MR. GORHAM

TORONTO MURDER LAWYER   -   TORONTO DRINKING AND DRIVING LAWYER   -   TORONTO DOMESTIC ASSAULT LAWYER   - TORONTO SEXUAL ASSAULT LAWYER   -   TORONTO THEFT LAWYER  -   TORONTO DRUG LAWYER   -   TORONTO FIREARM LAWYER   -   TORONTO APPEAL LAWYER
  BRAMPTON CRIMINAL LAWYER   -   OSHAWA CRIMINAL LAWYER   -   NEWMARKET CRIMINAL LAWYER

Nathan Gorham - Toronto Criminal Lawyer - 2011 - Sitemap


  1. CONTACT


tel: 416.410.4814

fax: 416.598.3384

office: 416.598.1811

36 Lombard Street, Suite 100

Toronto, ON, M5C 2X3

gorham@criminaltriallawyers.ca

shapeimage_10_link_0
MAIN PAGE   -   RECENT SUCCESSES   -   FEES   -   CONSULTATIONS   -   LEGAL RESOURCES   -   ABOUT MR. GORHAM

TORONTO MURDER LAWYER   -   TORONTO DRINKING AND DRIVING LAWYER   -   TORONTO DOMESTIC ASSAULT LAWYER   - TORONTO SEXUAL ASSAULT LAWYER   -   TORONTO THEFT LAWYER  -   TORONTO DRUG LAWYER   -   TORONTO FIREARM LAWYER   -   TORONTO APPEAL LAWYER
  BRAMPTON CRIMINAL LAWYER   -   OSHAWA CRIMINAL LAWYER   -   NEWMARKET CRIMINAL LAWYER

Nathan Gorham - Toronto Criminal Lawyer - 2011 - Sitemap
MAIN PAGE   -   RECENT SUCCESSES   -   FEES   -   CONSULTATIONS   -   LEGAL RESOURCES   -   ABOUT MR. GORHAM

TORONTO MURDER LAWYER   -   TORONTO DRINKING AND DRIVING LAWYER   -   TORONTO DOMESTIC ASSAULT LAWYER   - TORONTO SEXUAL ASSAULT LAWYER   -   TORONTO THEFT LAWYER  -   TORONTO DRUG LAWYER   -   TORONTO FIREARM LAWYER   -   TORONTO APPEAL LAWYER
  BRAMPTON CRIMINAL LAWYER   -   OSHAWA CRIMINAL LAWYER   -   NEWMARKET CRIMINAL LAWYER

Nathan Gorham - Toronto Criminal Lawyer - 2011 - SitemapHome.htmlRecent_successes_main_page.htmlFees.htmlConsultations.htmlAbout.htmlToronto_Murder_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Drinking_and_Driving_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Sexual_Assault_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Sexual_Assault_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Theft_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Drug_Lawyer.htmlToronto_Firearms_Lawyer.htmlBrampton_Criminal_Lawyer2.htmlBrampton_Criminal_Lawyer2.htmlBrampton_Criminal_Lawyer2.htmlshapeimage_10_link_0shapeimage_10_link_1shapeimage_10_link_2shapeimage_10_link_3shapeimage_10_link_4shapeimage_10_link_5shapeimage_10_link_6shapeimage_10_link_7shapeimage_10_link_8shapeimage_10_link_9shapeimage_10_link_10shapeimage_10_link_11shapeimage_10_link_12shapeimage_10_link_13shapeimage_10_link_14shapeimage_10_link_15shapeimage_10_link_16
  1. *The summary of Mr. Gorham’s experience defending against assault allegations is intended solely demonstrate some of Mr. Gorham’s experience.   It is not intended as a legal advice.  Nor is it intended as legal, political or social commentary.  All results with obtained with strict adherence to legal and ethical guidelines. 


  1. *Every person charged with a criminal offence is presumed to be innocent.  Nothing in the summary is intended to convey that Mr. Gorham assisted a guilty person in escaping criminal liability.  On the contrary, in each case the defendant vigorously asserted their factual and legal innocence, and the defence was successful in securing “not guilty” verdicts or the withdrawal of the Sexual Assault charges.


  1. *The initials of each defendant is changed to maintain confidentiality.


*  Past success does not necessarily guarantee future success.  Every case is unique and dependant on its own factual circumstances.  Before providing a decision concerning chances of success a lawyer will need to consider all relevant facts.