THE FACTS

Cruncher and Slammer are professional hockey players who are playing on opposing teams. As Cruncher is skating up the ice with the puck, Slammer checks him hard into the boards along the side of the hockey rink. An altercation develops between them, including Slammer yelling a racist slur at Cruncher (who is Indigenous) and some punches are thrown. The referee stops the play, and after a brief period, the linesmen separate Cruncher and Slammer and lead them toward their respective penalty boxes. However, Cruncher breaks free from his accompanying linesman and skates up to Slammer and punches him in the eyeto the delight of the local fans. Cruncher is 6 feet 5 inches tall and weighs 280 pounds. Slammer is 5 feet 8 inches tall and weighs 150 pounds. The blow inflicted by Cruncher causes a serious concussion and opens a deep cut underneath Slammer's eye (numerous stitches are required to close the wound). Police recommend that Cruncher is charged with either assault causing bodily harm or aggravated assault.

Write an IRAC-structured response detailing your assessment ofwhether Crown Counsel ought to proceed with either charge against Cruncher as well as whether Cruncher has any defence to the charge. To complete the assignment, outline the relevantCriminal Codesection(s) that would apply and the associated legal principles that are relevant to the charge (definitions, tests associated with theactus reusandmens rea for each provision). Then, outline any possible defences that might be able to raised on Cruncher's behalf. Describe the elements of the defences, including legal tests that would need to met in court, including any relevant case law. Apply the law to the scenario and provide a conclusion detailing whether you believe Crown ought to proceed considering the charge approval standard and then whether it is likely that Cruncher's defence has a sufficient 'air of reality' (on a balance of probabilities) to be considered by the trier of fact.