## Facts

- During an NHL exhibition game in Ottawa, Wayne Maki (St. Louis Blues) and Ted Green (Boston Bruins) engaged in an on-ice confrontation near the Bruins’ goal.
- Green initially pushed or punched Maki in the face; the referee assessed a penalty. Evidence that Maki earlier “speared” Green was inconclusive.
- After play resumed, Green swung his stick and struck Maki in the neck/shoulder area and appeared to make another motion with his stick.
- Within an estimated two to five seconds of the key exchange, Maki lifted his stick and swung in a chopping motion, contacting Green’s stick and then the side of Green’s head, causing serious head and skull injury.
- Evidence described professional hockey as fast, physically forceful, and involving frequent bodily contact and stick contact; Green was characterized as a very aggressive player.
- Maki testified he swung to protect himself and to get away, did not aim at Green’s head, and did not appear enraged; witnesses, including the referee, supported that he acted quickly in an escalating situation.
- Green did not actively support the prosecution.

## Issues

1. Whether participation in professional hockey implies consent to a level of force that can negate criminal liability for an on-ice stick swing causing bodily harm, when the act occurs in the course of play.
2. Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Maki’s conduct was not lawful self-defense in the context of a rapid, escalating on-ice confrontation.

## Decision

- The Ontario Provincial Court (Carter J.) acquitted Maki of assault causing bodily harm.
- The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the blow was outside the scope of force to which players impliedly consent in professional hockey.
- The court also found the Crown failed to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, given Green’s prior aggression and the split-second sequence of events.
- Evidentiary uncertainty about what precisely occurred and the intended target of the swing contributed to reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- In violent contact sports, participants may impliedly consent to significant physical force incident to the game, which can preclude criminal assault liability when the conduct is sufficiently connected to play and its ordinary expectations.
- Implied consent is limited; participants do not consent to intentional violence clearly outside the rules and ordinary expectations of the sport.
- In assessing criminal intent and defenses in sports cases, the trier of fact may consider the speed of play, competitive pressures, and whether the act occurred during play rather than as a detached, post-play attack.
- Where self-defense is raised, the Crown must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused reasonably acted to protect against an imminent perceived threat in the circumstances.
- Criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct was not covered by implied consent and was not justified by self-defense.

## Conclusion

The court acquitted Maki because, in the context of a rapid on-ice exchange in professional hockey, the Crown did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Maki’s stick swing was clearly outside the accepted scope of play or that it was not a defensive reaction to Green’s ongoing aggression.


Regina v. Maki, 14 D.L.R. (3d) 164 (Ont. Prov. Ct. 1970)