Ontario man faces charges after allegedly assaulting home intruder: police

Jenesis said:

NSF is usually a civil matter unless you can prove it was fraudulently written. There are criteria's that have to met.

The system is a legal system. Not a justice system. A speeding ticket is different from an assault charge. Cops are given latitude for the one but not the other.

Click to expand...

Re NSF cheques. YOU don't need to prove fraudulent intent. A cheque returned due to NSF is primae facie evidence of a strict liability offence of obtaining goods or services by fraud and/or by false pretences. The onus is on the writer to defend themselves by proving the lack of funds was inadvertant and not with the presumed intent the CCC sets out.

I agree with the legal vs justice differentiation.

However, cops do, and are expected to "give latitude" or otherwise exercise their discretion on assaults and many other serious, black and white matters. Like prostitution for example. Drug possession, shoplifting, parking lot bitch slapping altercations, bar fights/scuffles etc. Otherwise the courts would be backed up to a standstill.

SchlongConery said:

Re NSF cheques. YOU don't need to prove fraudulent intent. A cheque returned due to NSF is primae facie evidence of a strict liability offence of obtaining goods or services by fraud and/or by false pretences. The onus is on the writer to defend themselves by proving the lack of funds was inadvertant and not with the presumed intent the CCC sets out.

I agree with the legal vs justice differentiation.

However, cops do, and are expected to "give latitude" or otherwise exercise their discretion on assaults and many other serious, black and white matters. Like prostitution for example. Drug possession, shoplifting, parking lot bitch slapping altercations, bar fights/scuffles etc. Otherwise the courts would be backed up to a standstill.

Click to expand...

The onus is always on the crown to prove guilt. That is with any case. It is not up to the person to prove anything. Innocent until proven guilty beyond reason doubt.

That is one of the problems with the legal system and how so many people get off on charges.

Jenesis said:

Exactly. Which means accidentally writing an NSF cheque is not illegal. Unless it can be proven to be one of the 3 you listed, it is civil.

Which most times, that is how it happens. Someone forgets something else is coming out. Or they are some single mom who wrote a cheque for baby bonus day and it didn't go in.

If you go to a store and purposely write a bad cheque, you will be charged. I know a girl who did that and was arrested on multiple charges of fraud. This was like 30 years when stores still took cheques.

I also know a guy who disputed paypal charges as fraud when he knowingly and intentionally gave the money freely and he has been charged with fraud.

Fraud has criteria, like you pointed out and like I said. So when it is clear, with evidence then it is charged. When there is not enough evidence (the cheque is not enough, mindset plays) then it is a civil matter.

Click to expand...

Agrue all you want... beccaue this is not an informational discussion any more. You have dug in your heels like a Trumpster!

I have first hand experience with this and did get the guy charged. Took some insistence with the cop but the charge was laid and a conviction resulted.


How do you "accdentally" write a cheque when there is no money to cover the cheque?

Not being aware of your bank balance is not a defence. Hoping that the money you are getting by the time you think the cheque will be cashed is not a defence.

A few loopholes that would put it into the civil system are putting a stop payment on the cheque, claiming a dispute, or writing a post-dated cheque.

But writing a cheque this moment, without sufficient funds to cover it IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

I will re-post using another source for. your consideration, but as you say, I don't really care anymore if you still think you know better. If you are so inclined, there is a section in the article that also backs up the fact that post-dating the cheque can change the presumption such that it may become a reverse onus offence of fraud.





Cheques Written with Knowledge of Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF)

It is an offence is the Criminal Code of Canada to write a cheque knowing that there is not enough money in the account to cover it.

This offence is categorized as ‘obtaining something by false pretence’. A false pretence is a statement that a fact is true, or has been true in the past, where the person making the statement knows the fact is not true. This statement can be made verbally or in writing.

In the case of a bad cheque, it is presumed that the item or service that the cheque was paying for was obtained by false pretence.

This presumption means that a Crown prosecutor does not need to prove that the person knew there was not enough money in their account for the cheque to clear.

A person is expected to know the amount in their bank account within reason.

It would be up to that person to show a court that they had reasonable grounds to believe that the cheque would clear if it was cashed within a reasonable period of time after it was written.

SchlongConery said:

How do you "accdentally" write a cheque when there is no money to cover the cheque?

Not being aware of your bank balance is not a defence. Hoping that the money you are getting by the time you think the cheque will be cashed is not a defence.

A few loopholes that would put it into the civil system are putting a stop payment on the cheque, claiming a dispute, or writing a post-dated cheque.

But writing a cheque this moment, without sufficient funds to cover it IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

I will re-post the following and as you say, I don't really care anymore if you still think you know better.

"How NSF Cheques Are Treated Under the Criminal Code

• False Pretense:
  When a cheque bounces due to insufficient funds, it's often considered a false pretense because the cheque writer's statement (that they had funds) was false at the time of issuing the cheque.
  
• Proof of Intent:
  The law presumes the fraud was committed unless the person can show they had a reasonable belief the cheque would be honoured.
  
• Fraud as a General Offense:
  Writing a bad cheque can also be charged as fraud under Section 380 of the Criminal Code, which involves obtaining property, money, or services through deceitful means.
• |

Click to expand...

You have 500 in your account. You write a cheque for 300 for tomorrow. You forget tomorrow is your insurance payment and Netflix’s subscription which takes out 200 for insurance and 20 for Netflix.

You can’t tell me some 20something could not forget their Netflix subscription date.

You were the one who said that NSF is treated as civil not fraud. And I agreed that legally that is how they are treated. So I'm not saying I know better. I'm agreeing with you. You just don't like it and think cops should do it differently. That is not one of knowing better because I haven't said what cops "should" do. I have simply agreed with you on what cops legally do.

Jenesis said:

The onus is always on the crown to prove guilt. That is with any case. It is not up to the person to prove anything. Innocent until proven guilty beyond reason doubt.

That is one of the problems with the legal system and how so many people get off on charges.

Click to expand...

Last response.

The NSF cheque is adequate evidence of the offence. Full stop.

There is a legal principle of "strict liability" offences. Here is an AI summary:

A strict liability offence is a type of criminal offense where the prosecution doesn't need to prove the defendant's mental state (mens rea) in relation to one or more aspects of the crime.

Essentially, if the defendant commits the prohibited act (actus reus), they can be found guilty, even if they didn't intend to break the law or were unaware they were doing so.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
Key Characteristics of Strict Liability Offenses:

• No Mens Rea Required:
  The prosecution doesn't need to prove the defendant had a specific mental state (like intent, knowledge, or recklessness) in relation to the prohibited act.
  
  
• Actus Reus Only:
  The prosecution only needs to prove the defendant committed the physical act that constitutes the offense.
  
  
• • Focus on Consequences:
    Strict liability offenses often focus on the consequences of an action, rather than the defendant's mindset.
    
  • Defense of Due Diligence:
    In many jurisdictions, defendants in strict liability cases can still avoid conviction by proving they took "due diligence" or all reasonable care to prevent the prohibited act from occurring, according to legal resources.

Jenesis said:

You have 500 in your account. You write a cheque for 300 for tomorrow. You forget tomorrow is your insurance payment and Netflix’s subscription which takes out 200 for insurance and 20 for Netflix.

You can’t tell me some 20something could not forget their Netflix subscription date.

You were the one who said that NSF is treated as civil not fraud. And I agreed that legally that is how they are treated. So I'm not saying I know better. I'm agreeing with you. You just don't like it and think cops should do it differently. That is not one of knowing better because I haven't said what cops "should" do. I have simply agreed with you on what cops legally do.

Click to expand...

First off, you have not reverted to mischaraterizing my words.

I said that cops will often fluff off many criminal offences (such as an NSF cheque) as "civil matters" because, among other things they are lazy or over worked. When in fact these ARE criminal matters that could also have civil liability or remedies available. Criminal and civil law remedies are not mutually exclusive.

NSF cheque writing charges are still laid on a regular basis. Less so nowadays with fewer cheques being written and people and business' not trusting them.

Landlords are often the victim of bad cheques. And not the post dated ones, the ones that they write at the door when the landlord shows up asking for a replacement for the bounced cheque.

As for not keeping your finances straight as a defence, you can try that, but again, under strict liability laws, forgetting, or cuting it close is not a valid defence. Plus, if that was the case, the recipient will likely contact you to make good on the cheque once they know of it. And if you make good, then the recipient isn't going to go to the police.

Anyways... I have let myself get sucked into this too far.

SchlongConery said:

Anyways... I have let myself get sucked into this too far.

Click to expand...

Ok. Have a good day. I’m off to the trailer for weekend anyways. Have to get a head start before the usual weekend traffic.

optimusprime69 said:

Ho. Lee. Fuck. What a nightmare!!! Glad you came out on the right side of things and sorry to hear it cost you so much financially as well as the toll it must have taken on you psychologically. What a twat. First thing that came to mind is the saying 'hell hath no fury like a woman scorned....'

Click to expand...

'hell hath no fury like a woman scorned....' - EXACTLY. Especially a narcissist with abandonment or power trip issues.

If you ONLLY ever take one bit of wisdom/advice from me... RUN whenever you find anyone in your life with mental health issues that cold manifest in harm to yourself. Do not try to help them, They will suck you back in.

I''m a very tough guy. Physically, emotionally, legally and intellectually. Few things or people scare me. CRAZY scares me.


And if you ever are in a confrontation with someone who you are truly frightened of, like a mugger, ACT KRAZY!!!! Even krazy people have an instinct to GTFO there!

Jenesis said:

I’m off to the trailer for weekend

Click to expand...

Thats probably a good idea, Jen. Get as far away from people as you can

SchlongConery said:

The real problem is taht cops nowadays do NOT consider the adverse consequences the person being charged will experience. Stress, cost of layers to defend yourself etc. Heck, jsut retaining a lawyer to bring you through the bail and pre-trial stages can be $5-7k. Trial $20-$100k

The cops simply charge the last man standing with asssault, attempted murder, murder, manslaughter etc. They only need probably cause to make the arrest.

Then, as they always say "We leave it for the Courts to decide"

Click to expand...

The guy who was charged with murder in Milton said it took 5 months for Crown to drop the charges, and for those 5 months he got absolutely no sleep.

He should sue the cops for stress

silentkisser said:

We don't have the Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws in Canada. What this means is, you are allowed to defend yourself, but with "reasonable force," which is subjective and ultimately will be based on how a jury feels. It's almost for sure that you will be arrested if you beat an intruder seriously. But, the Crown could decide to drop the charges if they felt there a conviction was unlikely. Canadian law basically says that property can be replaced, but life is precious. It would rather see your new car get stolen than you kill the thief.

And....to be honest, I don't disagree. I mean, if someone came into my home and threatened my family, I'm going to fight to defend them. If they just grab the car keys, I'm not going to grab my rifle and blow them away.

Click to expand...

The article says the intruder was wanted for other criminal offences and was in possession of a weapon. I don't think we are talking about loss of property alone here, the homeowner had good reason to fear for their life based on the described circumstances.

Phil C. McNasty said:

The guy who was charged with murder in Milton said it took 5 months for Crown to drop the charges, and for those 5 months he got absolutely no sleep.

I would sue the cops for stress if I were him

Click to expand...

It's complicated, the lawsuit process. especially suing cops individually. They have unlimited funds as theier Asoociation/Union will defend them without limits.

This is what I love about living in a condo building.
Dont have to worry about break-ins, and no driveway to steal my car from

MRBJX said:

Maybe you should consider the later to be the correct and proper way. Unless criminals know they will be met with upto and including lethal force on a break and enter do you expect break and enters to stop? or less cars to be stolen? Is a cop shooting an unarmed suspect proportional?

Stealing your car keys has a much bigger impact than you're giving it. For example if you are paying for your 60k car and its half paid off and stolen what do you think your insurance company is going to give you 30k? a new car? The crook won't be found, you're out 40 to 50k and now need to shell out for a new car. After dealing with the bullshit you are 100k out - Should the thief have been maimed absolutely. killed maybe not, but still.

Click to expand...

Look, the US is not exactly the country I would want to copy for a huge swath of criminal law. How many times has someone been shot dead because they forgot their key and someone thought they were being robbed? I get that it sucks to be a victim here. I've never had a car stolen, but my home was burgled years ago, and the odds of the thieves being caught are non-existent. I felt violated and dealing with insurance really sucked. But....would I want the scum ball who broke in to die by my hand? And have that weigh on my consciences? Fuck no. And, the reality is, people still break into homes and cars (and car jack) in the US, despite the chance that someone might be packing a gun, and that people are killed/seriously injured doing these things.

I honestly think it is a fantasy of some gun owners to be able to use their weapons to defend their families. They secretly hope it happens so they can pop someone, especially if its a visible minority. I can think of three incidents in the past decade where a homeowner shot someone through the door, just because they knocked with the intention of asking for directions...And, it all stems from fear.

I know its a gripe that we give bail to easily, and people don't feel safe. Crime has risen, but violent crime has stayed the same. It sucks. But I don't think violence is the solution. There is a good chance that someone who breaks in could be more violent or have dangerous weapons to ensure you don't fight back

Pepe_Grande said:

The article says the intruder was wanted for other criminal offences and was in possession of a weapon. I don't think we are talking about loss of property alone here, the homeowner had good reason to fear for their life based on the described circumstances.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree. As I said, if I had to protect my family, I would fight tooth and nail. But my goal would be to get them to safety, no kill the other dude.

silentkisser said:

I honestly think it is a fantasy of some gun owners to be able to use their weapons to defend their families. They secretly hope it happens so they can pop someone, especially if its a visible minority..

Click to expand...

When I used to have guns in my previous life, and even as a kid, I kkept up on guns with all the various gun magazines. I definitely got the vibe that bubba was just waiting with baited breath to shoot some <dark visible minority> in the head etc. And in speaking with really enthusiastic gun owners, I hear the same.

The home owner had a knife. But the Perp had a weapon too. I still support the homeowner unless more info is out.


The man accused of attacking an intruder inside his Lindsay, Ont., home early Monday morning used a knife, according to court documents.

Jeremy McDonald faces charges of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after an altercation took place inside his apartment.

Michael Kyle Breen, who police say broke into the home, faces several charges, including possession of a weapon, breaking and entering, as well as theft. He was airlifted to a Toronto hospital following the incident with serious injuries.

“From what I understand, someone broke into his place while he was sleeping and they attacked him and he defended himself,” said Jesse Kalabic, a friend of McDonald’s who owns the Tattoo shop under the apartment where the incident took place. “I think what he did was justified, but there is a lot of controversy going on right now all over the place.”

If someone breaks into my home and I have a knife at my disposal, that burglar is getting stabbed.

You gotta do what you gotta do

'It's pretty straightforward': Alberta PM Danielle Smith objects after Ontario man charged with assaulting home intruder

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is echoing counterpart Doug Ford's bafflement after learning that an Ontario man is facing criminal charges

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is echoing Ontario counterpart Doug Ford’s bafflement after learning that a Lindsay, Ont. man is facing criminal charges for injuring a home intruder.

Smith was quick to dispense some folk wisdom to the wounded trespasser when asked by the National Post about the incident on Thursday.

“Well if you don’t want to get shot or beaten up don’t break into people’s houses. It’s pretty straightforward,” quipped Smith, drawing a smattering laughter and applause from the room.

“We do expect that people are going to use a reasonable (amount) of force to defend themselves and their families, and I support that,” she continued.