## Facts

- During an NHL game in Vancouver on February 21, 2000, Boston Bruins player Marty McSorley and Vancouver Canucks player Donald Brashear had earlier physical conflict and escalating tensions.
- Near the end of the game, with Boston trailing, McSorley swung his hockey stick and struck Brashear in the head (temple area), from behind or the side.
- The strike knocked Brashear to the ice, where his head also hit the ice surface.
- Brashear suffered a serious concussion and related injuries.
- Evidence indicated that stick blows to the head were not permitted under the written rules of professional hockey.
- The league imposed a substantial suspension on McSorley.
- The Crown charged McSorley with assault with a weapon under Criminal Code § 267(a); he pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial in the Provincial Court of British Columbia.

## Issues

1. Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that McSorley committed assault with a weapon by striking Brashear with a hockey stick, including the required mental element (intent or recklessness).
2. Whether Brashear’s participation in professional hockey amounted to legal consent to the risk of the specific stick blow to the head, negating the unlawfulness of the contact.

## Decision

- The court convicted McSorley of assault with a weapon.
- The court found the blow to the head was intentional (or, at minimum, involved subjective foresight of bodily harm), satisfying the mental element for the offense.
- The court held that implied consent arising from participation in professional hockey did not extend to an intentional or reckless stick blow to the head that was prohibited by the rules and outside accepted play.
- The court concluded that a hockey stick, though ordinary sporting equipment, constituted a “weapon” when used deliberately to strike an opponent’s head.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal law applies to conduct occurring during professional sports competition; athletes are not categorically exempt from prosecution for on-field/on-ice violence.
- Participants in contact sports may implicitly consent to physical contact and some degree of risk, but consent is limited and does not cover conduct that falls outside the normal rules and accepted practices of the sport.
- For assault in a sporting context, an intentional or reckless act that targets an opponent in a prohibited and dangerous manner can exceed the scope of implied consent and remain criminally unlawful.
- An object not inherently a weapon can be treated as a weapon when used in a manner intended to cause injury, supporting liability for assault with a weapon.

## Conclusion

The court held McSorley criminally liable for an intentional stick blow to Brashear’s head, ruling that professional hockey’s implied consent to contact does not extend to prohibited, dangerous violence, and that the hockey stick became a weapon by virtue of how it was used.


Regina v. McSorley, 2000 BCPC 116 (B.C. Prov. Ct. 2000)