R. v. K.M. – Aggravated Assault & Assault with a Weapon – Self-Defence – Acquitted of All Charges

Allegations

K.M. was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon arising from a stabbing incident on July 28, 2022. K.M. was 20 years old at the time. The complainant, a former close friend, had engaged in an escalating pattern of threatening behaviour toward K.M. over the preceding days — through text messages, social media, and in-person confrontations — culminating in two armed incursions to K.M.’s home on the night of the stabbing.

On the evening of July 28, the complainant gathered a group and attended K.M.’s townhouse complex. Armed with a knife and accompanied by others carrying a baseball bat, the group forced entry into the interior hallway of the complex, banged and kicked on K.M.’s apartment door while threatening to kill her and her family, and then proceeded to vandalize K.M.’s backyard. K.M. had called 911 on two occasions during these events. When the group subsequently re-engaged K.M. in the parking lot, the complainant charged at her and launched a physical attack. K.M. stabbed the complainant five times with a paring knife, and was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

Defence Strategy

K.M. elected to testify in her own defence, admitting she stabbed the complainant but maintaining she acted in self-defence throughout. Mr. Fedorowicz’s strategy was to establish all three required elements of self-defence under s. 34 of the Criminal Code, and to demonstrate that the Crown had failed to disprove any of them beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The Trigger: That K.M. subjectively and on reasonable grounds believed she was being subjected to force or a threat of force. The defence advanced evidence of the complainant’s prolonged and escalating threatening conduct throughout that day and night, K.M.’s two 911 calls, her direct observation of the complainant wielding a knife in the backyard, and a warning from her cousin in the moments before the stabbing that the complainant had something in her hand. K.M.’s belief that she faced imminent serious harm was both genuine and objectively reasonable in all the circumstances.
• The Motive: That K.M.’s purpose in responding was purely defensive and not retaliatory. Mr. Fedorowicz established through K.M.’s evidence and cross-examination of the complainant that K.M. had gone to the parking lot out of concern for her father’s safety, remained at a distance from the complainant upon arriving, and did not initiate or advance on her. It was the complainant who dodged around K.M.’s father and charged directly at K.M., launching the attack.
• The Response: That K.M.’s use of a knife was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. The defence emphasized that K.M. made a split-second decision while under an immediate physical attack, following hours of sustained threatening and violent conduct by the complainant’s group. Her honest and reasonable belief that the complainant was armed — grounded in what she had seen in the backyard and her cousin’s warning — supported the proportionality of her response. The law does not require a person under attack to weigh with precision the exact measure of defensive force required.

Mr. Fedorowicz also conducted extensive cross-examinations of the complainant and Crown witness Shinya Salmon, successfully undermining the credibility of both. The trial judge ultimately found the complainant to be neither truthful nor reliable, concluding she had lied under oath on numerous occasions — a finding that was central to establishing the true account of events.

Result

Not Guilty — Acquitted on All Charges. The Honourable Justice Molloy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the Crown had failed to disprove all three elements of self-defence under s. 34(1) of the Criminal Code. The trial judge accepted K.M.’s evidence as truthful and rejected the complainant’s testimony as riddled with lies, concluding that it was the complainant who advanced on and physically attacked K.M. in the parking lot — not the reverse.

The court found that K.M. genuinely and reasonably believed she was facing an imminent threat of force, that her purpose was defensive rather than retaliatory, and that her use of the knife was reasonable and proportionate given the circumstances — including the extended history of threats and armed violence directed at her that evening and her reasonable belief that the complainant was armed with a knife. K.M. was acquitted on all charges.