Aggressione con lesioni personali in Canada: spiegazione di pene e possibili difese.

Under federal Canadian criminal law, assault causing bodily harm is an offence codified under section 267(b) of the Codice criminale. To secure a conviction, the Crown prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed an intentional application of force without consent, that the complainant suffered bodily harm, and that the assault caused that harm. A conviction carries maximum statutory penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment on indictment, alongside non-mandatory minimum dispositions, potential discharges, and collateral orders.

At Pax Law Corporation, our criminal defence legal team examines the factual record, statutory thresholds, and evidentiary tests governing section 267 charges across Canada.

Statutory Definition and Legal Elements

To evaluate a charge under section 267(b), courts read the provision alongside the foundational provisions in the Codice criminale, specifically sections 2 and 265.

Under section 265(1)(a), a person commits a simple assault when, without the consent of another person, they apply force intentionally, directly or indirectly. Section 267(b) elevates the offence when that application of force results in “bodily harm.”

Sezione 2 del Codice criminale defines bodily harm as:

“Qualsiasi danno o lesione a una persona che interferisca con la sua salute o il suo benessere e che sia di natura più che transitoria o insignificante.”

The statute does not require the injury to be permanent, severe, or life-threatening. However, the Crown cannot merely show that a complainant sustained an injury; there must be a direct causal link establishing that the accused person’s intentional assault caused that specific injury.

Overview: Section 267(b) Legal Framework

The Mental Element: Is Intent to Injure Required?

A common inquiry in criminal litigation is whether the prosecutor must prove the defendant set out to inflict an injury. Under Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the answer is generally no.

In R v DeSousa, [1992] 2 SCR 944, the Supreme Court established that simple assault and assault causing bodily harm share the same underlying mental element (Mens rea). The bodily harm requirement operates to classify the severity of the offence based on the objective outcome. Consequently:

• The Crown must prove an intentional application of force without consent (s. 265(1)(a)).
• The Crown is not required to establish that the accused held a specific intention to bring about the precise bodily harm that occurred.
• An absence of intent to injure does not, on its own, constitute a recognized defence (De Sousa).

However, if the physical contact or application of force was purely accidental or involuntary, the foundational assault requirement under section 265(1)(a) is not established. As affirmed in R v Lifchus, (1997) SCC at para 27, the burden of proof rests entirely on the Crown throughout the trial to establish every constituent element beyond a reasonable doubt; it never shifts to the defendant.

Statutory Penalties, Sentences, and Discharges

Assault causing bodily harm is a hybrid offence, meaning the prosecution elects whether to proceed by indictment or summarily:

• Indictment Election: The maximum penalty is imprisonment for a period of up to 10 years (Code, s 267).
• Summary Election: The general penalty threshold is a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment for up to two years less a day, or both (Code, ss 267, 787(1)).

Under section 786(2), summary proceedings generally must be instituted within 12 months after the subject matter arose, unless the prosecutor and defendant agree otherwise.

These maximum statutory sentences mark legal limits, not automatic or mandatory minimums. Under section 718.3(2), a sentence is not a mandatory minimum unless specifically designated by statute; section 267 specifies no mandatory minimum term of imprisonment.

Sentencing Principles and Aggravating Factors

Sentencing judges must adhere to section 718.1, which mandates that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Relevant statutory aggravating factors include:

• Evidence that the offender abused an intimate partner (Code, s 718.2(a)(ii)).
• Previous convictions for offences involving violence within the past five years (Code, s 718.2(a)(viii)).

Conditional or Absolute Discharges

In appropriate cases, the court may consider granting an absolute or conditional discharge under section 730(1) instead of entering a criminal conviction. A discharge is available where the court finds it to be in the accused’s best interests and not contrary to the public interest. Because the statutory maximum for section 267 is 10 years (and not 14 years or life), discharges are not legally barred by statutory ceiling limits, though granting one remains subject to judicial discretion based on the circumstances of the case.

Recognized Defences Under Canadian Law

A defence to a charge under section 267(b) addresses the prosecution’s failure to meet its statutory burden, or raises an affirmative defence recognized in legislation and common law.

1. Failure to Prove Basic Elements

A defence strategy often involves challenging whether the evidence satisfies the legal definitions:

• Demonstrating that the force was applied involuntarily or accidentally.
• Demonstrating that the injuries do not meet the definition of bodily harm under section 2 (i.e., they are transient or trifling).
• Demonstrating an absence of legal causation between the act and the injury (Code, ss 2, 265, 267(b); Lifchus al paragrafo 27).

2. The Scope and Limits of Consent

Under section 265(3), consent is vitiated (invalidated) where the complainant submits or yields due to the application of force, threats of force, fraud, or the exercise of authority.

Furthermore, consent is not an absolute defence in all circumstances. In R contro Jobidon, [1991] 2 SCR 714, the Supreme Court established that consent cannot negate assault in an adult fistfight where the intentional infliction of non-trivial bodily harm occurs. In R contro Paice, 2005 SCC 22 at paragraphs 12 and 18, the Supreme Court refined this rule: for consent to be nullified in a consensual fight, serious bodily hurt must be both intended and actually caused. The mere intent to cause harm, absent the actual infliction of that harm, does not nullify consent. This limitation is confined to consensual fights and cannot be applied broadly to every scenario where an individual consents to physical contact.

3. Honest but Mistaken Belief in Consent

An accused may raise an honest but mistaken belief in consent under section 265(4). However, this defence requires sufficient evidentiary backing, and the court or jury must consider whether reasonable grounds existed for that belief when assessing its honesty.

4. Self-Defence and Defence of Others

Ai sensi dell'articolo 34 del Codice criminale, an individual is not guilty of an offence if:

1. They believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person, or that a threat of force exists (Code, s 34(1)(a));
2. The act is committed for the defensive purpose of protecting themselves or another person from that force (Code, s 34(1)(b)); and
3. The act committed is reasonable in the circumstances (Code, s 34(1)(c)).

Section 34(2) directs the court to consider contextual factors, including the imminence of the threat, the availability of other means to respond, the role of each party, the presence or use of a weapon, and the proportionality of the responsive force.

In R v Khill, 2021 SCC 37 at paras 37 and 125, the Supreme Court outlined this test in three distinct elements: the threshold belief in a threat, the protective mental purpose, and the objective reasonableness of the act. Once properly raised on the evidence, the Crown must negate at least one of these three elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

Collateral Consequences and Ancillary Orders

A conviction under section 267 triggers statutory collateral orders that go beyond immediate fines or custodial terms:

• DNA Data Bank Orders: Section 267 is listed as a primary designated offence under section 487.04(a)(ix). Pursuant to section 487.051(1), the sentencing court is mandated to make an order authorizing the collection of DNA samples when statutory conditions are met.
• Firearms Prohibitions: If the Crown proceeds by indictment, mandatory weapons prohibitions under section 109(1) can apply, requiring the court to make an order prohibiting the possession of firearms and related items where statutory preconditions exist.
• Victim Surcharge: Unless waived or varied, section 737(1)–(2.1) provides for victim surcharges ($100 for summary offences, $200 for indictable offences), which the court may reduce or eliminate upon finding undue financial hardship or disproportionate impact.

Whether a specific defence applies or what penalty may be imposed depends entirely on the factual record, the Crown election, and any prior criminal history. For legal support or case assessment regarding criminal charges, contact Società di Legge Pax.

+ 1-604-767-9529

Domande frequenti