Assault and Domestic Assault Lawyer in Toronto

Assault covers a wide range of conduct, from a push during an argument to an attack causing serious injury. The Criminal Code sets out several levels of the offence, and the charge laid has a large effect on bail, on the possible sentence and on whether early resolution is realistic.

• Assault (section 266): intentionally applying force, or attempting or threatening to, without consent.
• Assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm (section 267), which since 2019 also covers assault by choking, suffocating or strangling.
• Aggravated assault (section 268): wounding, maiming, disfiguring or endangering life.
• Uttering threats (section 264.1) and criminal harassment (section 264), which are often laid alongside assault.

Civitas Law is a team of legal professionals under the leadership of lawyer Nasibeh Mehrpouyan. We defend assault and domestic assault charges across Toronto and the GTA, in English, French, Farsi, Russian and Serbian.

There is no separate offence called domestic assault. The term describes an assault, threat or other offence alleged against a current or former spouse, partner or dating partner. These cases follow a distinct path in Ontario:

• Charges are usually laid by police. Ontario police are directed to lay a charge in intimate partner cases where they have reasonable grounds, whatever the complainant wants.
• The complainant does not decide whether the case continues. Only the Crown can withdraw the charge. A complainant who no longer wants the case to proceed can tell the Crown, but the decision is the Crown's.
• Bail conditions often keep you out of the home. No-contact and no-go conditions are common and can last for months.
• Choking, suffocation and strangulation allegations are treated very seriously. Since July 15, 2026, assaults involving choking, suffocation or strangulation carry a reverse onus at bail, so the accused must show why release is justified.
• Sentencing. Abuse of an intimate partner is a statutory aggravating factor under section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

The first and most urgent problem in many domestic cases is not the trial but the release order. A no-contact condition can mean you cannot go home, cannot speak to your partner and cannot see your children except as the order allows. Our team works on the release plan, a suitable place to stay and, where it is appropriate, a later bail variation to allow contact through counsel or for parenting exchanges.

A criminal charge often overlaps with a family law dispute about parenting time, support or the home. Statements made in one case can be used in the other, so the two need to be planned together.

Every case depends on its evidence and no outcome can be promised. Depending on the facts, the strength of the Crown's case and your history, the realistic options can include:

• Withdrawal of the charge by the Crown, sometimes after completion of counselling such as the Partner Assault Response program in eligible first-time domestic cases.
• A peace bond under section 810 of the Criminal Code: a court order to keep the peace and follow conditions for up to a year, which is not a criminal conviction.
• A discharge, conditional or absolute, which is a finding of guilt without a conviction.
• A trial, where the Crown must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and issues such as self-defence, consent or the reliability of the evidence are decided.

• Disclosure: the police synopsis, 911 recordings, body camera and other video, photos, medical records and witness statements
• Prior statements of the complainant and any inconsistencies
• Self-defence and defence of others under section 34 of the Criminal Code
• Injuries claimed and whether they match the allegations
• Your release conditions and whether they can be changed
• Immigration, employment and family consequences of every possible outcome

If you are not a Canadian citizen, tell us at the first meeting. Some outcomes that look minor in criminal court can have serious immigration consequences.

Book a consultation online (30 minutes, $150 plus HST, paid when you book) or call (647) 271-1646. The phone is answered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Office meetings are by appointment.

Section 267 takes the basic offence of assault and adds one of three features: a weapon, bodily harm, or choking. Each adds something the Crown must prove, and each raises the maximum penalty from five years for simple assault to ten years when the Crown proceeds by indictment, or two years less a day on summary conviction. These are hybrid offences, so the Crown chooses how to proceed, and a discharge remains legally available.

Assault with a weapon, s. 267(a). The Crown must prove the assault, and that you carried, used or threatened to use a weapon or an imitation of one while committing it. A weapon is defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code as anything used, designed to be used or intended for use in causing death or injury, or in threatening or intimidating a person. That definition reaches far past knives and guns. A phone thrown at someone, a shoe, a belt, a bottle, a set of keys, a pot or a car driven at a person have all been treated as weapons. The weapon does not have to touch the complainant: raising a bat while advancing is enough. What matters is how the object was used or meant to be used in that moment.

Assault causing bodily harm, s. 267(b). Here the Crown must prove the assault and that it caused bodily harm, defined in section 2 as any hurt or injury that interferes with health or comfort and is more than merely transient or trifling. Bruising that lasts, a cut needing stitches, a chipped tooth, a concussion or a sprain usually qualify; a red mark that fades in minutes usually does not. The Crown does not have to prove that you intended the injury, only that you intended to apply force and that bodily harm was an objectively foreseeable result. Medical records and photographs taken at the time are the usual evidence, and their timing and detail are often where the case turns.

Choking, suffocating or strangling, s. 267(c). Since 2019 the Code treats an assault by choking, suffocating or strangling as its own form of section 267, whether or not any injury is shown. These allegations also bring a reverse onus at bail, as explained in the domestic assault section above.

Which of these is laid depends on what the complainant reports and what the officers see at the scene, and the charge is sometimes reduced to simple assault when the disclosure does not support the weapon or the injury. Our review looks at whether the object fits the definition, whether the injury meets the threshold, and whether the force was lawful self-defence in the first place.

Aggravated assault sits at the top of the assault ladder, short of homicide. Under section 268, a person commits aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant. It is a straight indictable offence, so the Crown cannot proceed summarily, and the maximum sentence is fourteen years in prison. Because the maximum is fourteen years, a discharge is not available on conviction, and a sentence of custody is the usual result unless the circumstances are unusual.

The four words have settled meanings:

• Wound means breaking through the skin, so a stab wound, a deep cut or a bite that draws blood qualifies even if it heals cleanly.
• Maim means an injury that leaves the person less able to defend themselves, such as a lost finger or a limb that no longer works properly.
• Disfigure means a lasting change to appearance, such as a facial scar or a lost tooth, as opposed to swelling that goes away.
• Endanger life means the act put the person's life at real risk, for example a skull fracture, internal bleeding or a stab to the torso, even if the person made a full recovery.

What the Crown has to prove about your state of mind is narrower than people expect. It must show that you intended to apply force, and that a reasonable person would have foreseen bodily harm as a result. It does not have to prove that you meant to wound or disfigure anyone. That is why a single punch that causes a fall and a fractured skull can be charged as aggravated assault even where the person charged never meant real harm.

The procedure is different too. Because the maximum is fourteen years, you can choose to be tried in the Ontario Court of Justice or in the Superior Court of Justice by judge alone or by judge and jury, and a preliminary inquiry can be requested. Aggravated assault and the section 267 offences are often laid together, with the Crown prepared to accept the lesser one if the medical evidence does not support the greater. Sexual assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault are separate offences under sections 272 and 273 and are covered on our sexual assault lawyer page.

Our review in these cases centres on the medical evidence, the sequence of events shown by video and witnesses, who started the confrontation and whether you were defending yourself or someone else, and whether the injury actually fits one of the four words. Where it does not, the charge can be reduced. Bring every detail you remember to the first meeting.

Uttering threats is charged on its own and, very often, alongside assault or domestic assault, because the words said during an argument become part of the allegation. Under section 264.1 it is an offence to knowingly utter, convey or cause a person to receive a threat to cause death or bodily harm to anyone, to burn, destroy or damage property, or to kill, poison or injure an animal that belongs to a person. Threats of death or bodily harm are hybrid, with a maximum of five years on indictment; threats against property or animals carry a maximum of two years.

Two things surprise people about how the Crown proves it. First, it does not matter whether you meant to carry the threat out or had any ability to. Second, it does not matter whether the person was actually frightened, or even heard the words directly; a text, a voicemail, a social media message or words passed on by a third party all count. What the Crown must prove is that the words, read by a reasonable person in the full context, would be taken as a threat, and that you meant them to be taken seriously or to intimidate. Words shouted in anger with no intention that anyone take them seriously are not a crime, but that is an argument the defence has to make with evidence, not an assumption the court starts from.

Context decides these cases. The same sentence can be a threat between strangers and a bitter joke between old friends. The history between the people, the tone, the medium, what came immediately before and after, and whether the words were a response to a threat from the other side all matter. For clients who were speaking or texting in Farsi, Russian, Serbian or French, the translation in the police disclosure is itself evidence to be tested, because idioms that sound violent in literal English translation often carry nothing of the kind. Identity is another live issue in message based cases: the Crown must prove that you sent the message, not only that it came from an account or phone linked to you.

A threats conviction has the same consequences as any other criminal record, and for a non-citizen it can carry immigration consequences on its own. Where the words were spoken in an intimate partner context, the charge follows the domestic assault path described earlier, including no-contact release conditions. Our review of a threats allegation covers the full message history, not only the lines the police extracted, the complainant's own messages, any recording, and what was happening between the two of you at the time.

Many assault charges come out of a fight that the person charged did not start, or a situation where they pushed someone away to protect themselves or a family member. Section 34 of the Criminal Code is the defence that covers this, and since 2013 it has had one test for all situations. You are not guilty if three things are true:

• You believed, on reasonable grounds, that force or a threat of force was being used against you or someone else.
• What you did was for the purpose of defending or protecting yourself or that other person.
• What you did was reasonable in the circumstances.

The first part is about your belief, judged against what a reasonable person in your position would have believed. You can be mistaken, for example about whether the other person was reaching for a weapon, as long as the mistake was a reasonable one. The second part asks why you acted. Force used to get even after the danger had passed is not defence; force used to stop an attack that is happening or about to happen is. The third part is where most cases are decided, and section 34(2) lists the factors the court weighs: how serious and how close the threat was, whether other options were open to you, whether a weapon was involved, the size, age, gender and physical ability of each person, any history between you including past violence, and whether what you did was proportionate to the threat. There is no rule that you must retreat before defending yourself, but whether you could have is one of the factors.

Procedurally, self-defence works like this. Once there is some evidence that could support it, which can come from the complainant's own account, a witness or video rather than from you testifying, the Crown must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt by showing that at least one of the three parts fails. If the Crown cannot, you are acquitted. Section 35 provides a similar defence for protecting property, for example removing a trespasser from your home or business with reasonable force.

Self-defence is also why the first days after a charge matter. Photographs of your own injuries, the names of people who saw what happened, the layout of the place, and any messages or calls that show who started things can disappear quickly. Police often arrest the person who was left standing or the one the first caller named, and the full picture emerges only in disclosure. Bring everything you have to the first meeting, and do not give a statement to police or discuss the fight with the complainant before you have spoken to a lawyer.