Law360 Canada ( November 2, 2026, 9:38 AM EST) -- Appeal by Simms from his conviction for assault. The assault charge covered multiple alleged applications of force during two incidents between Simms and the complainant. Simms denied hitting the complainant but testified that she punched and kicked him and that he deflected her blows using his martial arts training to protect himself. The judge instructed the jury on the intentional application of force but did not instruct it on self-defence. The jury asked whether the intentional application of force applied in self-defence or was considered accidental. The judge answered that a person acting in self-defence would not have intentionally applied force. Both counsel agreed with that answer at trial. The issues were whether the evidence, assumed to be true, could permit a properly instructed jury acting reasonably to acquit on the basis of self-defence, whether the charge and answer were erroneous and whether any error was harmless. Simms submitted that self-defence had an air of reality, the answer was incorrect and the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code did not apply. The Crown acknowledged that the answer was incorrect but submitted that the record did not support self-defence, the answer was immaterial and the curative proviso applied....