Courthouse: Ontario Court of Justice, St. Catharines
Counsel: Jordan Peach
Date of Judgment: September 9, 2026
Background
Mr. S was charged with two counts of assault, one count of assault involving choking, suffocating or strangling, and one count of theft relating to Ms. B’s passport. The charges arose from two separate incidents involving the parties, who had been in a relationship for several years.
The first incident occurred while Mr. S and Ms. B were camping at a beach. Both had consumed alcohol. Ms. B alleged that Mr. S pushed and pinned her during an argument. Mr. S provided a different account, stating that Ms. B was the aggressor and had bitten him on his left bicep. A photograph showing the injury to Mr. S’s arm supported his evidence. The second incident occurred at the parties’ residence in August, shortly before a planned trip to Mexico. Ms. B alleged that Mr. S pushed her against a wall, forced her to the floor and choked her until she could not breathe and lost consciousness. Mr. S denied choking her. He testified that Ms. B attacked him when he returned to the residence for his keys, and that he grabbed her arms and used force to protect himself during the physical confrontation.
Police photographs documented bruising to Ms. B, while Mr. S also had injuries, including the bite injury to his arm. Mr. S denied intentionally taking Ms. B’s passport, explaining that his possession of it was connected to preparations for the trip.
The Issue
The central issue was the credibility and reliability of the competing accounts of the physical altercations and whether the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. S committed the alleged assaults.
Ms. B acknowledged significant gaps in her memory surrounding the incidents and agreed that she had consumed alcohol. She described portions of the events as “hazy” and testified that she was not sober. Evidence also established that she had consumed alcohol for several hours before the August incident. The physical evidence raised further questions. Although Ms. B had bruising, there were no photographs showing bruising or marks to her neck or throat consistent with the forcible choking she described. Mr. S’s injuries, including the photograph of the bite to his arm, provided objective evidence supporting portions of his account. The timing of the first incident was also disputed. An Uber receipt established that the incident occurred on July 20 rather than July 13 as alleged in the charge.
The Strategy
The defence challenged the reliability of Ms. B’s recollection, particularly in light of her alcohol consumption and acknowledged memory gaps. The defence also relied on objective evidence, including photographs, the Uber receipt and evidence of Mr. S’s injuries, to support his account of what occurred. Mr. S’s evidence was detailed, chronological and consistent. He acknowledged conduct that was unfavourable to him, including using physical force against Ms. B, but explained that the force occurred during a physical confrontation and was necessary to protect himself. The defence relied on the law of self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code. Once there was an air of reality to self-defence, the Crown was required to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court accepted that a physical altercation occurred between Mr. S and Ms. B. The evidence established that Ms. B bit Mr. S and that Mr. S grabbed her arms, causing bruising. However, the Court could not determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. S had choked Ms. B or that the force he used was unreasonable in the circumstances. The Crown elected not to proceed with the theft charge relating to Ms. B’s passport and sought its dismissal.
Result
After considering the competing evidence, the Court found that the Crown had not proven the remaining assault and choking allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, Mr. S was found not guilty on all remaining charges.