Four-pronged appeal in aggravated assault case dismissed

Law360 Canada (September 10, 2025, 10:12 AM EDT) --

John L. Hill

Christopher Parker was charged and convicted of aggravated assault for stabbing Ronald Oster in the neck on Nov. 13, 2020, at a supportive housing facility in Victoria. Oster, a harm-reduction worker and drug user, had allowed Parker and his girlfriend to stay in his unit against housing rules but later tried to evict them.

Tensions increased, including a prior incident where Parker pressed a knife to Oster’s cheek.

On the night in question, following a dispute over a drug debt, Oster allowed a young woman into his unit. Shortly thereafter, Parker allegedly entered, and Oster suddenly felt a sharp, metallic sensation at his neck, causing him to collapse and become partially paralyzed. Oster testified that Parker leaned over him, claimed he was not responsible and then left with his girlfriend.

Responders found Oster bleeding from a neck wound, and doctors confirmed a sharp, penetrating spinal cord injury consistent with a stabbing, leaving Oster with Brown-Séquard syndrome (partial paralysis). An orange, hand-carved, propeller-like object bearing blood stains was found near Oster, but medical experts considered it unlikely to have caused the injury. However, they could not entirely exclude the possibility.

The main issue at trial was whether the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Parker inflicted the injury, considering that much of the case relied on circumstantial evidence and Oster’s testimony. Justice Jan Brongers of the Supreme Court of British Columbia issued his written decision on May 23, 2023 (R. v. Parker, 2023 BCSC 2392). Parker appealed his conviction.

Parker presented four grounds for appeal. Justice Peter Edelmann of the British Columbia Court of Appeal considered each of Parker’s concerns in a written decision issued on Sept. 2, 2025 (R. v. Parker, 2025 BCCA 302).

The first ground of appeal was that Oster, while testifying, stated that Parker had threatened him with a knife before the Nov. 13 incident. No objection was raised at trial, but Justice Brongers included this event in describing the relationship between Parker and Oster. Evidence of past discreditable conduct is presumptively inadmissible (R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56) as is bad character evidence (R. v. B. (C.R.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 717). The Crown admitted that a voir dire should have been held, but the curative proviso could be used when the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming (R. v. Tayo Tompouba, 2024 SCC 16).

The Appeal Court held that discreditable conduct can be introduced when its probative value exceeds its prejudicial impact (R. v. S.G.G., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 716). In this case, it would have been admitted, and there was little risk of the judge relying on propensity reasoning.

The second main objection was that the trial judge erred in not considering Oster’s statements to public health service workers, who testified that, upon questioning Oster, “he had said that he fell and he had landed on something on his neck.” There is an exception to the hearsay rule for spontaneous utterances, the modern term for res gestae, which allows the admission of a statement if the declarant was emotionally overwhelmed and in such a state that it precluded the possibility of fabrication (R. v. Roche-Garcia, 2024 BCCA 298; R. v. MacKinnon, 2022 ONCA 811). The Appeal Court found that this explanation was neither spontaneous nor did Oster appear to be too emotionally overwhelmed to make false statements.

If Oster made a false statement, Parker’s argument that it affects Oster’s credibility should be considered. However, the Appeal Court agreed that making such a statement had little impact on the credibility assessment (R. v. Podolski, 2018 BCCA 96).

The third point raised was that the expert opinion evidence presented exceeded the witness’s qualifications. Dr. Brian Kwon, a neurosurgeon, offered opinions on spinal surgery, spinal cord injury and spinal trauma but was not qualified to provide evidence on accident reconstruction. His medical evidence, based on a CT and an MRI scan, concluded that Oster’s injury resulted from a sharp object rather than a blunt force. When Parker’s defence counsel suggested that Oster could have fallen on a nearby object, the medical expert dismissed that possibility.

The Appeal Court considered that Kwon’s evidence was within his area of competence.

The final ground was based on the reasonableness of the verdict. Parker’s position was that the verdict was inconsistent with the blood found on the orange object nearby, Oster’s explanation of having fallen, and that the object could have caused a wound.

The Appeal Court determined that the blood on the orange object could have originated from Oster’s heavy bleeding. The court also did not believe that the trial judge misinterpreted Kwon’s evidence. The court had already made a ruling on the admissibility of Oster’s statement. The appeal was dismissed.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.