Her Majesty the Queen (R.) and Gordon MacIsaac (Apl.)
The appellant (Apl.) and the complainant (Compl.) were both members of senior men’s “no-contact” hockey league, but belonged to different teams. On the day in question, these teams were facing off against each other with the Compl.’s team was up 2 points with less than a minute left in the game. The two players collided which resulted in the Compl. Being knocked to the ground and suffering several injuries. (para. 4)
The Apl. was charged with aggravated assault. (para. 5) It was the Crown’s positions that the Apl. deliberately blindsided the Compl. (para. 6) The Apl. held that the collision was accidental and unavoidable. (para. 12) …show more content…
of aggravated assault, after having rejected much of the evidence given on grounds that it was contradictory, contrary to trial judge’s understanding of hockey tactics, or inconsistent with the trial judge’s assessment of the injuries received by the Compl.
On appeal the Apl. submitted that the trial judge had failed to consider that the defence might have honestly believed that consent had been given even if that was a mistake (para. 30). The R. submitted that the trial judge did not make a mistake in the assessment of the evidence and that the defense’s argument, that there was a mistaken belief in consent, was inconsistent with the Apl. admittance that such hits fall outside what is expected in a non-contact hockey league. (para. 31)
a) Did the trial judge speculate beyond what was reasonable?
b) Did the trial judge reverse the onus of proof?
c) Did the trial judge make a mistake in not considering that the defence might have honestly believed that consent had been given even if that was a mistake? (para. 32)
a) The trial judge engaged in speculative reasoning while rejecting evidence which led to a conviction and denied the Apl. a fair trial, which justifies a retrial.
b) Not answered.
c) Not answered.(para.