R Vs Misaac Case Study
R. v. MacIsaac, 2015 ONCA 587
Facts
The appellant, MacIssac, was charged with one count of aggravated assault that occurred in a collision during a recreational non-contact ice hockey game. The appeal was upheld in the Ontario Court of Appeal in a decision written by Hourigan J.A., reasoning that the trial judge erred through impermissible speculation to reach their verdict.
The appeal concerns a collision between the appellant, who played for the Tiger-Cats and the complainant, who played for the Pirates. In the final 47 seconds of the game the collision occurred resulting in the complainant suffering several injuries including debilitating headaches.
The Crown deduced that the appellant deliberately hit the appellant when he was not looking in the left side of his head, however this position was recalled differently by the Crown’s three witnesses. The complainant testified that he skated behind his team’s net and was looking to his right when he was struck in the head by the appellant from his left. …show more content…
Another of the complainant’s teammates, Jonathan Clarke, stated that he saw the appellant deliver a hit with his arms raised, however he did not see the appellant’s skates leave the ice.
Jonathan Desjardins, a referee, testified that the appellant and complainant were facing each other, when the appellant jumped, raised his arms, and hit the complainant in the face. Desjardin noted that the although the pair were facing each other, the complainant would not have expected the hit.
The Crown’s witnesses all differed regarding the position of the puck at the time of the collision, however the neutral party, referee Desjardins, stated that the appellant and the complainant were both skating towards the
Facts
The appellant, MacIssac, was charged with one count of aggravated assault that occurred in a collision during a recreational non-contact ice hockey game. The appeal was upheld in the Ontario Court of Appeal in a decision written by Hourigan J.A., reasoning that the trial judge erred through impermissible speculation to reach their verdict.
The appeal concerns a collision between the appellant, who played for the Tiger-Cats and the complainant, who played for the Pirates. In the final 47 seconds of the game the collision occurred resulting in the complainant suffering several injuries including debilitating headaches.
The Crown deduced that the appellant deliberately hit the appellant when he was not looking in the left side of his head, however this position was recalled differently by the Crown’s three witnesses. The complainant testified that he skated behind his team’s net and was looking to his right when he was struck in the head by the appellant from his left. …show more content…
Another of the complainant’s teammates, Jonathan Clarke, stated that he saw the appellant deliver a hit with his arms raised, however he did not see the appellant’s skates leave the ice.
Jonathan Desjardins, a referee, testified that the appellant and complainant were facing each other, when the appellant jumped, raised his arms, and hit the complainant in the face. Desjardin noted that the although the pair were facing each other, the complainant would not have expected the hit.
The Crown’s witnesses all differed regarding the position of the puck at the time of the collision, however the neutral party, referee Desjardins, stated that the appellant and the complainant were both skating towards the