Lesson Plan X: Assault

Question 1

Elements of Assault

Answer 1

1. Actus Reus (voluntary & conscious mind) –> commonly non-consensual application of force to another person
2. Mens Rea

Question 2

Assault Simpliciter

Answer 2

s.265(1): Intentional and non-consensual application of direct or indirect force to another person or threatening to do so, if the other person has reasonable grounds to believe they’ll follow through.

Question 3

Assault With a Weapon

Answer 3

s.267(a): Carrying, using, or threatening to use a weapon.

• Crown must prove BARD that budd intended to use the item as a weapon
• offence crystallizes at moment weapon is PRODUCED, NOT the moment harm is caused
• if injuries –> assault causing bodily harm/or aggravated

Question 4

Assault Causing Bodily Harm

Answer 4

s.267(b): Bodily harm that isn’t trifling or transitory.

Question 5

Aggravated Assault

Answer 5

s.268: anyone who wounds/maims/disfigures/endangers life of the complainant

• highest form of assault before murder

Question 6

Mens Rea for Assault

Answer 6

1. the intention to commit the underlying act (intention to cause force knowing no consent)
2. if the reasonable person would anticipate that from that underltying act, bodily harm could occur

Question 7

Vitiation of Consent

Answer 7

CC s.265(3): 4 ways:
1. forcing another person to consent by applying force to them
2. threats or fear of application of force
3. fraud
4. exercise of authority (ie: police officer)

Question 8

What are the 2 routes to liability for bodily harm/aggravated assault/manslaughter?

Answer 8

Desousa & Jobidon (not mutually exclusive –> can argue both)

Question 9

DeSousa Route to Liability

Answer 9

1. an unlawful predicate offence proven BARD
2. should the accused be found guilty of resulting harm based on the objective foreseeability of any bodily harm coming from the act? (ANY bodily harm, NOT the specific kind that happened)

Question 10

Jobidon Route to Liability

Answer 10

*limited to brawls where buddy intended and caused serious bodily harm

1. a scenario where the complainant is initially consenting to physical or sexual activity
2. the accused proven BARD to have had the subjective intention to cause bodily harm/or subjective foresight of the risk of bodily harm
3. also an objective foresight of the risk of bodily harm

Question 11

R v Dewey

Answer 11

Objective foreseeability is required for assault causing bodily harm, but NOT for the specific injury that occurred.

Question 12

What is the controversy surrounding the Jobidon reasoning?

Answer 12

Route came about for policy reasons –> no social utility for street fighting, deterrence, and sanctity of human body

Typically with bar fights, AR cannot be established as you need to prove no consent –> here, though, consent can be vitiated as one cannot consent to bodily harm

decision is essentially that there is NO consent to bodily harm

Question 13

R v McSorley

Answer 13

Analysis for professional sporting events (ie: hockey) –> B did not consent to being hit in the head with a stick, there was an intention to hit him in the head

Question 14

Why did the Jobidon route come about?

Answer 14

1. No social utility of street fighting
2. The deterrence rationale
3. The sanctity of the human body