This civil action was heard by Justice Diane M. Lahaie of the Ontario Court of Justice. The appellant Mr. Maclsaac is appealing his conviction of one count of aggravated assault on the basis that he did not receive a fair trial due to the trials judge speculative reasoning involved in achieving her verdict. The incident in question stems from a collision between the appellant and the complainant in a “no-contact” Ottawa senior men’s hockey league. The incident occurred at the end stages of the game, where the complainant, and the appellant collided causing the complainant lacerations to the face, two missing front teeth, and a concussion. The crown’s position was that the appellant intentionally hit the complainant on the head. The court heard a total of 11 witnesses, from both the crown and the defence. The complainant testified that he skated behind his own team’s net where he had his head facing towards the right, when the appellant struck him from the left hand side. David Winton, the goalie on the complainant’s team testified …show more content…
The appellant testified that he was attempting to steal the puck from the complainant, and they were very close to one another when they collided, so the complainant must have seen him coming. The defence called upon three of the appellant’s teammates, Kenneth Shouldice, Jason Shorey, and Ryan Robinson. Kenneth and Jason, both testified that they saw the appellant and complainant facing each other before the incident. Jason, also stated that he saw both individuals bracing themselves to hit one another. While Ryan, testified he only witnessed both of them skating towards the puck. All witnesses for the defence stated that the appellant’s skates did not leave the ice. In regards to skating past the opposing bench, the appellant testified that he only meant that injuries happen in sports, hence why we brought up the tripping incident