 |
| John Hill |
During that party, Hastings believed he found his wife engaged in sexual activity with Bacchus. Bacchus denied this. Nonetheless, Bacchus and Hastings had a physical altercation where Bacchus was struck with a baseball bat and left with a broken finger and a concussion. The Bacchus/Hastings friendship ended and Hastings divorced his wife.
simplehappyart: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
The incident that resulted in a five-day trial happened on Oct. 5, 2019. Hastings returned home likely intoxicated after attending a football game in Michigan. Hastings’ former wife was upset that there was an online posting naming spouses who had cheated during marriage. She wanted Hastings to pay to have the post deleted. Hastings felt it was only right that Bacchus should be responsible for paying the fee to remove the objectionable accusation.
Just before 4 p.m. that day he showed up at the Bacchus home uninvited and unannounced. Bacchus was preparing food with his wife and two young children not expecting the visit. Fearing another altercation, Bacchus armed himself with a knife and a can of bear spray. Hastings was temporarily blinded by bear spray and stabbed multiple times by Bacchus in the Sarnia dentist's driveway.
Hasting survived the attack with the help of two doctors who lived nearby. The main question at trial was which of the two men was the aggressor. Defence counsel faced an uphill battle in trying to brand Hastings as the aggressor when Hastings was the one suffering the most serious injuries.
Bacchus was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. During the trial Hastings testified that his recollection of the incident was a blur, but his next memory after being temporarily blinded was clutching his neck as blood shot out. He suffered potentially life-threatening injuries.
Superior Court Justice Russell Raikes held this was not a situation of Bacchus defending himself; he went overboard and became the aggressor. A conviction was entered consisting of a conditional sentence of 22 months with 9 months house arrest and two years of probation.
According to the London Free Press, defence lawyer Chris Rudnicki argued for a suspended sentence and probation due to overwhelming community support for his client, "a truly exceptional offender" with no history of violence. An appeal was launched.
The appeal decision was handed down on Jan. 23, 2024 (R. v. Bacchus, 2024 ONCA 43). The court decision essentially deferred to the findings of the trial judge. The ground of appeal that the guilty verdict was unreasonable was dismissed. To be unreasonable, the decision must be one that is reached illogically or irrationally. This is sometimes called the Beaudrey/Sinclair error (R. v. C.P. 2021 SCC 19). Such findings are exceedingly rare and the reasons of the trial judge in this case came nowhere near such a finding.
A second argument was that the trial judge misapprehended certain details such as to call into question the validity of the decision. This ground also failed. The errors in detail that were evident on the record even if accepted would not have influenced the judge into making a different verdict. Similarly, the trial judge’s assessment of where the residue from the bear spray was found would not serve to undermine the judge’s conclusion as to who was the aggressor in the confrontation between the appellant and the complainant.
During trial, an audio tape was played of a conversation between Hastings and his former wife that indicates that Hastings was an angry and potentially violent individual. This could not be used to counter the allegation that Bacchus was the aggressor in this fight because neither Bacchus nor his wife testified as to having heard the tape prior to the confrontation leading to their state of mind that they were being stalked by Hastings. The appeal failed.
Even though the Crown had asked initially for a penitentiary term for Bacchus, Rudnicki did an excellent job at trial securing a conditional sentence. It’s not surprising that the appeal against sentence was withdrawn.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.