Opinion ID: 1188766
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Elements of ง 268

Text: With this framework in mind, we turn to our de novo review of the elements of ง 268. A person commits aggravated assault under ง 268 of the Canada Criminal Code if he wounds, maims, disfigures, or endangers the life of another. Canada Criminal Code, R.S.C., ch. C-46 ง 268(1) (1985). Uppal contends that ง 268 encompasses negligent and unintentional conduct, and thus cannot qualify as a categorical crime involving moral turpitude. To discern ง 268's mens rea requirement, we must read ง 268 together with ง 265, which establishes a base-level mens rea requirement for all assault offenses under the Criminal Code of Canada: A person commits an assault when (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; (b) 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; or (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs. Canada Criminal Code, R.S.C., ch. C-46 ง 265(1)-(2) (1985); R. v. Currier, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 371, ถถ 94-95. Read together, งง 265 and 268 establish that [t]he mens rea for aggravated assault is the mens rea for assault (intent to apply force intentionally or recklessly or being willfully blind to the fact that the victim does not consent) plus objective foresight of the risk of bodily harm[.] R. v. Williams, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 134, ถ 22. Thus, we agree with the BIA that an offense under ง 268 cannot be committed negligently or carelessly. We also agree with the BIA's conclusion that ง 268's actus reus requires inflict[ion] of significant injury. Section 268 only applies to acts which either endanger[] the life of the victim, or wound[ ], maim[ ], or disfigure[ ] the victim, as the BIA correctly stated. Section 268(1). Contrary to the dissent's suggestion, the BIA never concluded that all acts falling within ง 268 require proof of physical harm. Rather, the BIA stated that the statute requires willfulness of action which inflicts significant injury. Taken in context, this statement expresses the Board's conclusion that ง 268's actus reus involves some aggravating dimension that significantly increases the culpability of the offense. The Board explicitly recognized that the actus reus requires either wounding, maiming, disfiguring or endangering the life of the victim.  (emphasis added) Though the dissent may disagree with the Board's ultimate conclusion that ง 268 contains aggravating dimensions which significantly increase the culpability of the offense as compared to a simple assault or battery charge, it is clear that the Board correctly identified and interpreted ง 268's statutory elements.