Regina v. Green
Ontario Provincial Court
16 D.L.R.3d 137 (1970)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
During an exhibition game of the National Hockey League (NHL) between the Boston Bruins and the St. Louis Blues, the Bruins’ defenseman Edward Green (defendant) and the Blues’ Wayne Maki encountered each other by the Bruins’ goal area. Maki grabbed the back of Green’s sweater. A fracas, lasting no more than 10 seconds, ensued between the men, who were at the “peak” of their form and able to move very quickly. Although evidence was disputed, Maki was observed to have “speared” Green in Green’s genital region using the blade of Maki’s hockey stick. “Spearing” was a dangerous type of attack, normally resulting in immediate retribution by the attacked hockey player. At the time of the spearing or just after, Green struck or pushed Maki in the face with Green’s glove (“a sort of half chop”). The referee imposed a delayed penalty. Play continued. Soon after, the men went at each other with their hockey sticks, and Green was seriously injured. The government (plaintiff) criminally charged Green with assault. Maki testified that being struck “in the face” as he had been by Green’s glove had happened to him “hundreds of times” in the course of playing ice hockey. The court was required to determine Green’s guilt or innocence for assault.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fitzpatrick, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.