Minor Hockey Coach who Tripped Opposing Players -15 Days and 1 Year Probation

[Wetcoaster]

well, it might show that he had no intent to injure. if you pushed a kid off a swing into a swimming pool, even in a state of anger, it's unlikely that you intended to injure him or her. if you push him off the swing, and into a wall you probably intend to injure him.

if a kid is wearing hockey gear, and you trip him, do you really intend to injure him? it's not like he punched him.

no adult should lay hands on a kid. but seriously, tripping someone is fairly innocuous, and the likelihood of injury is very low.

stupid move, but jail time, for a trip, i find ridiculous.

[westcoast]

I don't condone what the guy did by any stretch and actually think the punishment kind of suited the situation.However ,take it from someone who sits in rinks watching elite aaa games constantly you would be shocked at what some of the players say to each other,coaches and fans.Im not saying that contributed to the situation in this case but it is reality.

[Wetcoaster]

I don't condone what the guy did by any stretch and actually think the punishment kind of suited the situation.However ,take it from someone who sits in rinks watching elite aaa games constantly you would be shocked at what some of the players say to each other,coaches and fans.Im not saying that contributed to the situation in this case but it is reality.

[-DLC-]

well, it might show that he had no intent to injure. if you pushed a kid off a swing into a swimming pool, even in a state of anger, it's unlikely that you intended to injure him or her. if you push him off the swing, and into a wall you probably intend to injure him.

if a kid is wearing hockey gear, and you trip him, do you really intend to injure him? it's not like he punched him.

no adult should lay hands on a kid. but seriously, tripping someone is fairly innocuous, and the likelihood of injury is very low.

stupid move, but jail time, for a trip, i find ridiculous.

There simply is no justifying his actions. Do you understand that it breaches the trust that kids place in the adults that are assigned to instruct them? That, intent to injure or not, the emotional scars should also be considered? Bullying is never to be tolerated - when it's an adult vs a kid, it's especially disgusting. Beyond the physical damage, it likely humiliated the kid as well. What an absolute ass this man is.

How you can offer any sort of defense for this guy is beyond me. What is ridiculous is an adult tripping someone...the fact that it was a kid is mind boggling.

[Wetcoaster]

There simply is no justifying his actions. Do you understand that it breaches the trust that kids place in the adults that are assigned to instruct them? That, intent to injure or not, the emotional scars should also be considered? Bullying is never to be tolerated - when it's an adult vs a kid, it's especially disgusting.

How you can offer any sort of defense for this guy is beyond me. What is ridiculous is an adult tripping someone...the fact that it was a kid is mind boggling.

[hockeyfan87]

The guy's actions are despicable but I just don't know if I approve of a jail sentence given the cost and stigma that comes as a result. Especially when I think of all the things that don't seem to warrant jail time in society. Gordon Campbell escaped jail time for a DUI. Adrian Dix held public office and committed fraud but not only didn't spend in time in jail but he was given a heft severance package. What about all the rioters that were convicted who never spent a day in jail? I understand the moral impetus to do something in this case but where's the urgency to hand out jail time in the examples I mentioned?

[La Mauviette75]

There simply is no justifying his actions. Do you understand that it breaches the trust that kids place in the adults that are assigned to instruct them? That, intent to injure or not, the emotional scars should also be considered? Bullying is never to be tolerated - when it's an adult vs a kid, it's especially disgusting. Beyond the physical damage, it likely humiliated the kid as well. What an absolute ass this man is.

How you can offer any sort of defense for this guy is beyond me. What is ridiculous is an adult tripping someone...the fact that it was a kid is mind boggling.

[literaphile]

I didn't say he didn't. What I said, again, is what I "personally" think he should have received. Everyone knows you're the resident lawyer, who loves to rub it in everyones face.Sometimes the law gets it wrong. Not saying this is a case where it was wrong. Just saying, again, what I think would have been sufficient.

[THERETOOL]

That was like something out of a will ferrell movie .. I felt bad for laughing ... well , not that bad ..

[Buggernut]

If they were grown men that he did that too, I'd like to see him get punched right back.

Since they were kids, some jail time is quite fitting.

[Wetcoaster]

If the kid hadn't suffered an injury (broken wrist I believe?) as a result of the trip, then I might buy into that a bit more. But he did some damage, and hurting kids is not cool.

[RUPERTKBD]

That was like something out of a will ferrell movie .. I felt bad for laughing ...  well ,  not that bad ..

[literaphile]

well, it might show that he had no intent to injure. if you pushed a kid off a swing into a swimming pool, even in a state of anger, it's unlikely that you intended to injure him or her. if you push him off the swing, and into a wall you probably intend to injure him.

if a kid is wearing hockey gear, and you trip him, do you really intend to injure him? it's not like he punched him.

no adult should lay hands on a kid. but seriously, tripping someone is fairly innocuous, and the likelihood of injury is very low.

stupid move, but jail time, for a trip, i find ridiculous.

[literaphile]

In this case the child Tremblay tripped did not suffer the actual injury as he fell on another teammate after being tripped and it was that second player that was injured.

[Wetcoaster]

Assault in Canada doesn't require intent to injure (didn't you say that you were a lawyer?). See s.265 of the Criminal Code:

265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly...

[literaphile]

There is no intent to injure there - just the intent to apply force. This deals with the action and not the result.

265. (1) 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.

The common law limited assault to threats of imminent harm only; once contact was made, the offence become battery. The Criminal Code definition of assault melds the two concepts of assault and battery so that in Canada actually contact is not even required. Other criminal codes in other jurisdictions maintain that difference.

Canadian tort law professor A. Linden in Canadian Tort Law, 6th Edition, (1997) defined civil assault as:

".. the intentional creation of the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact...

"An assault can be committed without a battery and battery can occur without an assault preceding it. For example, swinging at someone and missing is an assault but not a battery. Striking someone from behind, without his or her knowledge, is a battery but not an assault. Conduct which intentionally arouses apprehension of an imminent battery constitites an assault. Shaking a fist at another person, lunging at someone in an effort to attack and swinging an axe at another person are actionable assaults."

[Wetcoaster]

I'm not sure who you're arguing against, and, given that you quoted me, I'm confused. I told La Mauviette75 basically the same thing you just posted, but in about 10% of the words.

[La Mauviette75]

I was amplifying your point.

[EX_Bert_Worshipper]

well, as a lawyer, it's my job to defend people who don't deserve it,

[Wetcoaster]

and you explained it very well. i find it very interesting, and i am not an attorney in Canada. i would really appreciate if you could explain to me why a jail sentence was appropriate. is this kind of sentence commonplace for this kind of crime? i understand this is battery, but is there a minimum sentence? not taking into account intent, is there any reason this defendant was sentenced to jail, apart from the judge's discretion? (reading this, i can tell how it could seem like i'm being sarcastic or whatnot, but i am genuinely interested, and i'm dead serious)

edit: and by the way, whether it's the law or not in canada, i still think it's completely excessive.