De simples mots ne constituent pas un voies de fait & la nécessité de prouver le caractère intentionnel de l'usage de la force permet une défense d'accident ou d'erreur de consentement honnête mais erroné

R. v. Dawydiuk, 2010 BCCA 162

Lien vers la décision

[29]           Under s. 265 (1)(a) of the Criminal Code, a person commits an assault when without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly.  In s. 265(1)(a), the word “intentionally” simply means, in the words of Ritchie J., “not done by accident or through honest mistake”.  In this case, however, the trial judge concluded that s. 265(1)(b) applied with respect to the assault offences charged.  Under that subsection, every one commits an assault if “he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose.” 

[30]           Under s. 265(1)(b) mere words will not constitute an assault.  An act or gesture will suffice provided the Crown proves that the accused attempted or threatened, by the act or gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has “present ability to effect his purpose” or “if he ... causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds, that he has, present ability to effect his purpose”.  The reasonable apprehension of the victim under s. 265(1)(b) becomes relevant only when an accused does not have the ability to carry out his purpose.