• Vancouver at night

Assault Causing Bodily Harm

The Charge

Section 2 of the Criminal Code defines bodily harm as “any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of a person that is more than merely transitory or trifling in nature.” Effectively, any assault that causes more than a “very minor degree of distress” may result in a conviction for Assault Causing Bodily Harm. Assault Causing Bodily Harm is a hybrid offence meaning Crown counsel has the option of proceeding by indictment, where the maximum sentence is 10 years in jail. If the Crown chooses to proceed summarily, the maximum sentence is two years jail, less a day. There are no mandatory minimums for assault causing bodily harm. Non-custodial sentences are available.

To obtain a conviction for Assault Causing Bodily Harm, the Crown must first prove that there was an assault – that force was applied without the complainant’s consent and that the accused was not acting in self-defence. Additionally, the Crown must prove that the assault was the cause of an injury that is more than “minor” or “trifling.”

The Investigation

Assault Causing Bodily Harm investigations unfold according to the nature of how and when the police receive a complaint. For example, police may be called to a bar or nightclub when a concerned patron or server sees a fight break out. Police will attend the scene and make an arrest. In other cases, it may take hours, days or weeks for police to be notified. In these situations, police will contact the suspect by attending at their house or workplace. They may contact the suspect by phone. As investigators, the police will want to hear the suspect’s side of the story. As experienced lawyers, this is where we can help our clients understand their right to silence as guaranteed by the Charter.

When we are contacted by a suspect prior to their arrest, we can be of significant assistance. We will contact police to determine who the investigating officer is. We will then contact this officer to determine the nature of the investigation. Because of the laws concerning solicitor/client privilege, we can act as a “buffer” between police and our client. We are able to speak on your behalf without creating any evidence that could be used to incriminate you. We will strive to persuade police to not take you into custody at all or, alternatively, to release you as quickly as possible, with the least onerous conditions that are appropriate.

The Defence

Consent

As in a common assault charge, the Crown must prove that the complainant did not consent to receiving contact from the accused. For example, if a person is engaged in a fist fight that the other person agrees to take part in, and there is no resulting injury, the person is entitled to be found not guilty. However, it should be noted that the courts have held that a person cannot consent to receive bodily harm. Thus, consent is vitiated where an accused intentionally applies force that causes non-trivial bodily harm in the course of a fist-fight or brawl.

Self Defence

The law, under s. 34 of the Criminal Code, allows that if a person reasonably believes that force is being used (or threatened to be used) against them, the person is permitted to use reasonable force to defend themselves, or another person, so long as the force they use is not excessive. In other words, in the course of being attacked, a person may use reasonable force to defend themselves even if it results in bodily harm to the attacker. In determining whether the force used was excessive or not, the court will consider various circumstances, including:

  • The nature of the force or threat;
  • The extent to which there was an alternative to using force;
  • The size, gender and physical capabilities of the parties; and
  • The history and relationship of the parties.

In essence, self-defence is available as a defence to the extent the accused person, objectively, had to defend themselves (or another person). The force used must not be excessive. As lawyers with more than 30 years defending all types of assault charges, we have the experience to assess cases before they get to trial. In appropriate cases, we are able to persuade Crown counsel to not proceed with the prosecution, to proceed on a lesser charge, or to persuade the judge to grant a discharge, rather than enter a conviction against our client.

Recent Successes

R. v. R.F. – Richmond Provincial Court

, ,
Charge: Mischief, Causing a Disturbance
Issue: Our client was arrested and charged for disorderly conduct while on an international flight at Vancouver International Airport. What was a just and appropriate sentence in the circumstances?
Result: Upon advising the client to take rehabilitative steps, closely scrutinizing the facts of the case, and extensive negotiation with Crown Counsel, Mr. Gauthier persuaded the Crown to agree to a joint submission for a Conditional Discharge and restitution to the airline for lost time due to the delay of the flight, including negotiating the restitution amount to less than half of what the airline was claiming. No Criminal Record. No Flight Ban.

R. v. D.M. – Quesnel Provincial Court

,
Charges: Mischief(x2), Assault with aWeapon, Threatening.
Issue: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate given our client's rehabilitation.
Result: Mr Johnston was able to persuade Crown to enter stays of proceedings on the assult charges. After hearing Mr. Johnston's submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge.

R. v. D.H. – Fort Saint James Provincial Court

,
Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the information about our client's circumstances and the circumstances of the incident, whether it was in the public interest for the Crown to continue wit the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. R. A. – Vancouver Provincial Court

,
Charges: Uttering a Threat.
Issue: Given our client's circumstances and the circumstances of the allegation, whether it was in the public interest for Crown to continue the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown that persuaaded Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. C.W. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

,
Charges: Assault x2 (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the prosecution and whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel which led to Crown deciding to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. S.N. – Quesnel Provincial Court

,
Charges: Assault (by choking); assault; mischief to property.
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the prosecution and whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel which led to Crown deciding to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. S.G. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

,
Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether the police investigation met the Crown's charge approval standard.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to the RCMP investigator which ultimately led to police recommending that no charges be approved. No criminal prosecution. No further "no contact" condition. File closed.

R. v. M.L. – Prince George Provincial Court

,
Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was contrary to the public interest for our client to be discharged on conditions.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to the Court which resulted in our client being granted a conditional discharge rather than the conviction sought by Crown counsel.

R. v. M.R. – Vancouver Provincial Court

,
Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the information Mr. Mines provided to Crown about the circumstances of the alleged incident, whether there was a substatial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to not approve any charge with respect to this matter. No further bail conditions. No criminal record.

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.

J.W.

Thank you for your advice, guidance, and support throughout my journey. Your counsel has meant a great deal to me.
GML Team photo

R. v. R.F. – Richmond Provincial Court

, ,
Charge: Mischief, Causing a Disturbance
Issue: Our client was arrested and charged for disorderly conduct while on an international flight at Vancouver International Airport. What was a just and appropriate sentence in the circumstances?
Result: Upon advising the client to take rehabilitative steps, closely scrutinizing the facts of the case, and extensive negotiation with Crown Counsel, Mr. Gauthier persuaded the Crown to agree to a joint submission for a Conditional Discharge and restitution to the airline for lost time due to the delay of the flight, including negotiating the restitution amount to less than half of what the airline was claiming. No Criminal Record. No Flight Ban.
GML Team photo

R. v. N.D. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

,
Charge: Sexual Assault - SOIRA Early Termination Application
Issue: Whether our client was eligible to be removed from the Sex Offender Registry before the end of his 10-year term.
Result: Mr. Gauthier advised our client on steps to take to maximize the chances of success of the application in court. In court, upon hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the judge ordered that our client was no longer had to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. Client removed from the Sex Offender Registry.
GML Team photo

Mines & Company is now Gauthier & Mines Criminal Lawyers!

We are pleased to announce that Mines & Company  is now Gauthier & Mines Criminal Lawyers! This change marks an exciting chapter in our firm's growth. Ian, Michael, Patrick, and Madlena remain committed to providing exceptional advocacy…
GML Team photo

R. v. M.O.B. – Vancouver Provincial Court

,
Charge: Fraud Under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to prosecute and whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction in this ICBC fraud case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to refer our client to Alternative Measures and to not approve any charge upon our client's successful completion of community work. No criminal record.
GML Team photo

R. v. D.M. – Quesnel Provincial Court

,
Charges: Mischief(x2), Assault with aWeapon, Threatening.
Issue: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate given our client's rehabilitation.
Result: Mr Johnston was able to persuade Crown to enter stays of proceedings on the assult charges. After hearing Mr. Johnston's submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge.
GML Team photo

R. v. K.D. – Vancouver Provincial Court

,
Charge: Mischief to Property Under $5000 (domestic).
Issue: In light of our client's significant rehabilitation, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end.
GML Team photo

R. v. S.S. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

,
Charges: Trespassing at night; Voyeurism.
Issue: Given the significant rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether a jail sentence was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide materials and information to Crown and the Court which ultimately resulted in the Court granting our client a suspended sentence rather than Crown's initial sentencing position.
GML Team photo

R. v. C.F. – Creston Provincial Court

,
Charges: Sexual Assault; Sexual Interference.
Issue: The credibility and reliability of the child complainant and their family members who testified at this three day trial.
Result: After considering the evidence adduced by Mr. Gauthier's cross examinations of these witnesses, the trial judge agreed that the Crown's case was not strong enough to support criminal convictions. Our client was found not guilty and acquitted of both counts. No jail. No criminal record.