R. v. Simms

canada, canadian, case law, court opinion, canlii, bcca, 2026bcca363, 2026 bcca 363 (canlii), 2026, bcca, 363, (canlii), ca50784, 2026, criminal and statutory offences, appeal from conviction, assault, jury instruction, trial judge failed to instruct on self, defence, wrong answer to jury question on intentional application of force, conviction for assault challenged on error of law in jury charge, curative proviso not applied, appeal allowed, conviction set aside, new trial ordered, criminal and statutory offences, defences, self, defence, criminal code, s. 34, whether there was an air of reality to self, defence requiring a jury instruction, evidence of “deflecting” blows and “protecting myself” considered as intentional force, defence arising on the facts despite not being relied on, jury should have been instructed, new trial ordered, procedure, jury instructions, jury question and recharge, whether the response to the jury question misdirected the law of assault and self, defence, statement that self, defence means no intentional application of force, duty to answer fully, carefully, and correctly, r. v. naglik, risk of compounding error in recharge recognised, conviction set aside, procedure, criminal appeals, curative proviso, criminal code, s. 686(1)(b)(iii), whether errors in non, direction and misdirection were harmless or met by an overwhelming case, jury’s focus on self, defence inferred from the question posed, no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice not established, curative proviso inapplicable, new trial ordered