According to the latest Statistics Canada incident-based crime data , Canadian police services investigated 208,531 reports of simple assault in 2023 — the highest annual number since the agency began tracking these figures in 1998 — alongside 4,388 reports of aggravated assault . Under Canadian criminal law, assault does not require physical injury, and aggravated assault does not require a weapon. The charge tier you face determines your bail conditions, your sentencing exposure, your immigration status, and the Crown’s strategy before your case ever reaches trial. Understanding where your charge sits on that spectrum, and why it was laid at that level, is the first thing your defence lawyer needs to establish.
Assault is defined under s. 265 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The definition is broader than most people expect. You can be charged with assault without touching anyone. The three ways assault is committed are:
The critical threshold is intentional application of force without consent, or a credible threat of it. A shove, a raised fist that stops short of contact, blocking someone’s path while holding an object: all of these can ground an assault charge.
The most common misconception is that "nothing really happened" or "no one was hurt" means no criminal exposure. That is not how s. 265 works. The absence of injury is not a defence to simple assault. It may affect sentencing, but it does not negate the charge.
| Mode of Proceeding | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|
| Summary conviction | 2 years less a day |
| Indictable | 5 years |
The Crown elects how to proceed. That election is not the accused’s choice, and it happens based on factors including the accused’s record, the circumstances of the offence, and the Crown’s assessment of the file. Someone with no prior record charged after a bar altercation may face a summary proceeding. Someone with a prior record or aggravating circumstances may face indictment on what looks like a straightforward charge.
Assault causing bodily harm is charged under s. 267 of the Criminal Code. It sits between simple assault and aggravated assault, and the threshold that separates it from simple assault is the definition of "bodily harm" in s. 2 of the Criminal Code: bodily harm means any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with their health or comfort and is more than merely transient or trifling.
That definition does real work. A bruise that resolves in two days may be transient. A broken nose, a concussion, a fractured rib, or lacerations requiring stitches are not. The question is not whether the injury looks serious on paper, but whether it had a meaningful impact on the complainant’s health or comfort.
Concrete examples that courts have found to constitute bodily harm include:
| Mode of Proceeding | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|
| Summary conviction | 2 years less a day |
| Indictable | 10 years |
The Crown’s election matters enormously here. A 10-year maximum indictable charge carries immigration consequences that a summary conviction does not. Permanent residents and foreign nationals need to understand this distinction before entering any plea or accepting any resolution.
Aggravated assault is defined under s. 268 of the Criminal Code. It is an indictable-only offence with a maximum penalty of 14 years. The Crown must prove that the accused wounded, maimed, disfigured, or endangered the life of the complainant.
Those four limbs are worth examining individually.
Wounds refers to breaking the skin, typically through cuts, stab injuries, or lacerations. Maims refers to disabling a limb or organ. Disfigures refers to permanent or lasting alteration of appearance, including scarring, loss of teeth, or damage to facial structure.
Endangers life is the broadest and most frequently litigated limb.
Endangering life does not require visible injury. It does not require hospitalization. It requires that the conduct, objectively assessed, created a real risk to the complainant’s life. This is why strangulation and choking are frequently charged as aggravated assault, even when the complainant has no bruising and did not lose consciousness. Cutting off oxygen to the brain, even briefly, endangers life within the meaning of s. 268. The same logic applies to holding someone underwater, suffocation, and certain blunt-force strikes to vulnerable areas.
This is a critical point for anyone charged in a domestic context. At Mass Tsang, this is the distinction partner Brian Brody , who focuses on assault and domestic assault defence, walks new clients through in the first meeting: a choking allegation that results in no visible injury and no hospital visit can still ground an aggravated assault charge. The endangering life limb does not require proof of injury. It requires proof that life was put at risk.
| Offence | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Aggravated assault | Indictable only | 14 years |
There is no summary conviction route for aggravated assault. Every aggravated assault charge proceeds by indictment, which means Superior Court jurisdiction, longer timelines, and a more complex proceeding.
Consent operates as a defence to simple assault in limited circumstances. If two people agree to a fight, for example, consent may negate the assault charge, subject to the limits in s. 265(3) of the Criminal Code.
But consent has a ceiling. Under Canadian law, you cannot consent to the infliction of serious bodily harm or conduct that endangers your life. The Supreme Court of Canada addressed this in R. v. Jobidon, [1991] 2 SCR 714 , holding that public policy limits the scope of consent as a defence where the conduct causes serious hurt or non-trivial bodily harm.
What this means practically:
If you were charged with aggravated assault and your position is that the complainant agreed to the physical contact, that argument will not succeed at the aggravated assault level. Your defence lawyer needs to address the charge on other grounds: the severity of the injury, whether life was actually endangered, identity, credibility, or Charter violations.
The maximum penalties tell part of the story. The sentencing range within those maximums tells the rest.
| Charge | Section | Summary Max | Indictable Max |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assault | s. 265 | 2 years less a day | 5 years |
| Assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm | s. 267 | 2 years less a day | 10 years |
| Aggravated assault | s. 268 | N/A (indictable only) | 14 years |
At the aggravated assault tier, the gap between a conditional sentence and federal penitentiary time is enormous. A conditional sentence (served in the community under strict conditions) is available only where the sentence imposed is under two years, and the offence is not one for which a minimum punishment is prescribed. Aggravated assault carries no mandatory minimum, which means the full range from a conditional sentence to federal custody is theoretically available, but the sentencing starting point for serious aggravated assaults is typically measured in years of custody.
Factors that push a sentence toward the high end:
Factors a defence lawyer argues in mitigation:
The difference between a well-prepared sentencing submission and a generic one can be measured in years. That is not an abstraction. It is the difference between going home and going to a federal institution.
Aggravated assault charges that arise in domestic contexts operate in a materially different legal environment than the general assault framework. If you have been charged with aggravated assault against a current or former intimate partner, a family member, or someone in your household, you need to understand several things that the standard assault framework does not address.
Bail conditions are automatic and restrictive. In domestic assault cases, no-contact conditions and conditions requiring the accused to vacate the family home are imposed as a matter of course. Under Bill C-75 (2019) , the bail onus is reversed for an accused charged with an offence against an intimate partner where that accused has a prior conviction for violence against an intimate partner — meaning that accused must show cause why their detention is not justified, rather than the Crown having to justify detention. First-time allegations remain subject to the ordinary Crown-onus process, though the court must still consider the domestic context in setting conditions.
The Crown does not need the complainant’s cooperation to proceed. Domestic assault prosecutions in Ontario operate under a zero-tolerance policy. The Crown will proceed with or without the complainant’s participation, using prior statements, 911 recordings, officer notes, and medical records. A complainant who wants to recant or withdraw their statement does not control whether the charge proceeds.
Integrated Domestic Violence Courts at Old City Hall, College Park, Scarborough, North York, Etobicoke, Brampton, and Newmarket handle these files under a specialized framework. The Crown attorneys who appear in these courts are experienced in domestic violence prosecution. The judicial culture, the Crown’s approach to resolution, and the evidentiary standards applied are all different from a standard assault proceeding.
requires judges to consider ordering electronic monitoring as a bail condition in intimate partner violence cases and mandates ongoing judicial education on intimate partner violence and coercive control. See the bill’s legislative history for the full text. This is not hypothetical. It is being used.
If you are facing an aggravated assault charge in a domestic context, contact our domestic assault lawyers immediately. The bail hearing, which must occur within 24 hours of arrest, will shape the conditions under which you live for the next 12 to 24 months.
Under s. 36 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible to Canada on grounds of serious criminality if they have been convicted of an offence under a federal Act that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.
Aggravated assault (s. 268, maximum 14 years) meets that threshold. Assault causing bodily harm (s. 267, maximum 10 years on indictment) also meets that threshold when the Crown proceeds by indictment.
The practical consequences for a permanent resident convicted of aggravated assault include:
Even a charge that does not result in a conviction can complicate immigration matters, particularly if it triggers a CBSA review or appears on a record check. The charge alone can affect travel, border crossing, and sponsorship applications.
Foreign nationals on study permits, work permits, or visitor status face the same inadmissibility provisions and may be removed before any appeal process is exhausted.
If you are a permanent resident or foreign national charged with aggravated assault or assault causing bodily harm, your defence lawyer needs to understand immigration law consequences, not just criminal law consequences. The two are not separate problems. They are the same problem.
Here is what those strategies actually look like in practice, and what a defence lawyer at Mass Tsang does at each stage.
Self-defence is available where the accused believed on reasonable grounds that force was being used or threatened against them, and the act was committed for the purpose of defending themselves or another person, and the act was reasonable in the circumstances. The court applies an objective standard, asking whether a reasonable person in the accused’s situation would have perceived the threat and responded proportionately.
The reasonableness of the response is assessed against all the circumstances, including the nature of the threat, the size and strength of the parties, any history of violence between them, and whether the accused had other options. This is not a simple checklist. It is a contextual analysis that requires careful preparation and effective cross-examination of the Crown’s witnesses.
At the s. 267 and s. 268 levels, the severity of the injury is an element of the offence. The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the injury constitutes bodily harm (s. 267) or that the accused wounded, maimed, disfigured, or endangered life (s. 268). Medical evidence is central to this analysis, and it can be challenged.
Defence counsel can cross-examine medical witnesses on the nature and cause of the injury, retain independent medical experts to assess the evidence, and challenge whether the injury meets the statutory threshold. In cases where the Crown’s case depends on the "endangers life" limb, the defence can challenge whether the conduct objectively created a real risk to life, not merely a theoretical one.
This is where specialist criminal defence work separates from general practice. A Charter of Rights application can result in evidence being excluded under s. 24(2), and in serious cases, the withdrawal of charges entirely.
The most relevant Charter applications in assault cases include:
A successful s. 24(2) application can exclude key evidence, including statements made by the accused, physical evidence obtained in an unlawful search, or identification evidence obtained through an improper process. Without that evidence, the Crown may be unable to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
In many assault cases, the Crown’s case rests on the complainant’s testimony. Cross-examining the complainant on inconsistencies between their initial statement to police, their testimony at a preliminary inquiry, and their testimony at trial is a core defence strategy. Prior inconsistent statements, contradictions in the physical evidence, and motive to fabricate are all avenues that a skilled defence lawyer pursues.
In practice, this kind of cross-examination is often decisive in domestic assault and choking allegations: inconsistencies between a 911 call, the complainant’s statement to police, and the responding officers’ notes are frequently the basis on which a choking or assault charge is withdrawn or an accused is acquitted.
Not every case goes to trial. In some cases, the appropriate strategy is to negotiate with the Crown to resolve an aggravated assault charge to a lesser included offence, assault causing bodily harm or simple assault, with a negotiated sentence that reflects the actual circumstances of the case. This requires a thorough review of the disclosure, an honest assessment of the strength of the Crown’s evidence, and experienced advocacy in judicial pre-trial conferences.
A resolution that avoids a conviction for aggravated assault can preserve immigration status, employment, and a permanent resident’s right to remain in Canada. That outcome is not available to someone who enters a plea without understanding the full consequences.
The decisions made in the first days and weeks after a charge are the ones that matter most, before the Crown has locked in its position, before witnesses have been formally interviewed a second time, and before bail conditions have calcified into a long-term reality.
Do not give any statement to police. Not to clarify your version of events. Not to provide context. Not to explain what happened. Your right to silence exists precisely for this situation. Exercise it.
Retain a criminal defence lawyer immediately. If you have been charged with aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm, or any assault offence, contact us now. The consultation is free, confidential, and available 24 hours a day.
Mass Tsang has defended assault charges across Ontario, appearing personally at Old City Hall, College Park, the Superior Court of Justice at 361 University Avenue, and at courts in Brampton, Scarborough, North York, Etobicoke, Newmarket, Oshawa, Barrie, Burlington, Guelph, Richmond Hill, Vaughan, and Mississauga. Our lawyers know the Crown attorneys and the judicial culture at each courthouse. That institutional knowledge is part of your defence.
Yes. The "endangers life" limb of s. 268 does not require visible injury. Conduct that creates a real risk to the complainant’s life, including strangulation, choking, or suffocation, can constitute aggravated assault even where there is no bruising, no hospital visit, and no lasting physical harm.
Assault causing bodily harm (s. 267) requires proof that the complainant suffered hurt or injury that is more than merely transient or trifling. Aggravated assault (s. 268) requires proof of wounding, maiming, disfiguring, or endangering life. The injury threshold is higher for aggravated assault, and the maximum penalty is higher: 10 years for s. 267 on indictment versus 14 years for s. 268.
Self-defence under s. 34 of the Criminal Code is available as a defence to aggravated assault. The court will assess whether you believed on reasonable grounds that force was being used or threatened against you, whether you acted for the purpose of defence, and whether your response was reasonable in the circumstances. The reasonableness of the response is assessed objectively, against all the circumstances.
If you are a permanent resident or foreign national, a conviction for aggravated assault (maximum 14 years) triggers inadmissibility on grounds of serious criminality under s. 36 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This can result in a removal order and loss of permanent resident status. Assault causing bodily harm on indictment (maximum 10 years) also meets the threshold. You need a criminal defence lawyer who understands these consequences before you enter any plea.
A bail hearing must occur within 24 hours of arrest. For aggravated assault charges in domestic contexts where the accused has a prior conviction for intimate partner violence, the bail onus is reversed under Bill C-75: the accused must show cause why detention is not justified. Conditions imposed at bail, including no-contact orders and requirements to vacate the family home, will govern your life for the duration of the proceedings, which typically run 12 to 24 months. Retaining a lawyer before the bail hearing is critical.
In some cases, yes. Through negotiation with the Crown at a judicial pre-trial conference, it may be possible to resolve an aggravated assault charge to assault causing bodily harm or simple assault, depending on the strength of the Crown’s evidence and the specific circumstances of the case. This is a strategic decision that requires careful analysis of the disclosure and an experienced assessment of the Crown’s position. No lawyer can guarantee a particular result, but the quality of your legal representation materially affects the outcome.
If you were charged today, call us now. The consultation is free and confidential. Our assault lawyers are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
