Attempted Murder Defence Lawyer in Toronto

Home › Criminal Defence › Attempted Murder Defence

Attempted murder is the offence created by section 239 of the Criminal Code of Canada. It punishes an attempt, by any means, to commit murder. Every version of it is indictable and every version carries a maximum of life imprisonment. What sets it apart from the other violent charges in the Code is the mental element. The Crown has to prove you meant to kill. Not that you meant to injure someone badly, and not that you were reckless about whether they survived. Where that intention cannot be proved, the charge fails, however serious the injuries look.

By Fadi Matthew Kazandji, Founding Partner, Kazandji Law. Updated July 2026.

What does the Crown actually have to prove to convict you of attempted murder?

Start where the prosecution has to start. Section 239(1) says that every person who attempts by any means to commit murder is guilty of an indictable offence. It does not tell you what an attempt is. That work is done by section 24(1), which says that every one who, having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits to do anything for the purpose of carrying out the intention is guilty of an attempt to commit the offence, whether or not it was possible under the circumstances to commit the offence.

Read those two provisions together and the Crown has two things to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Only two.

• That you had the intent to kill, held at the time of the act.
• That you did something, or failed to do something, for the purpose of carrying out that intention, and that the something went past mere preparation.

That is the whole case. Injury is not an element. Success is not an element. Practical possibility is not an element either, because section 24(1) says so in terms. A shot that misses, a blade that is deflected, a dose that could never have killed the person it was meant for, any of those can support a conviction where both elements are proved.

Which element you attack first is a strategic choice, and on this charge it is usually the mental one. The physical act is often admitted, or captured on a camera, or established by forensic evidence that nobody seriously disputes. The intention almost never is. It gets built out of circumstances: the weapon chosen, where the blows landed, how many there were, what was said in the minutes before and after, whether the accused stopped on their own or was pulled off. Each of those is an inference, and each inference has to survive the reasonable doubt standard on its own before it can support the conclusion the Crown wants.

Our lawyers defend section 239 charges in Toronto and across the Greater Toronto Area, and the file work starts the same way every time. Take the Crown theory apart into the individual inferences that hold it up. Find the ones the disclosure does not actually support. For a broader picture of the process that follows an arrest, see our guide on what to expect after being charged with a crime in Toronto.

Why nothing less than an intent to kill will do

This is the single most important thing to understand about a section 239 charge, and it comes from the Supreme Court of Canada rather than from the text of the offence.

In R v Ancio, [1984] 1 SCR 225, the Court held that the mental element for attempted murder is nothing less than the specific intent to kill. The reasoning is short and hard to argue with. A person cannot intend to commit an unintentional killing. So a state of mind that would be enough for some other outcome cannot be stretched to cover the attempt.

The consequence is a gap that works in the accused person's favour, and it is a real one. Evidence that someone meant to cause terrible harm is not evidence that they meant to cause death. A witness who says the accused was enraged has described a motive and a mood, not an intention to kill. Even a statement like the ones that get repeated in police notes, said in the heat of a fight, has to be assessed for what the speaker actually meant by it rather than taken at face value.

So the defence question in almost every one of these files is narrow and specific. What is the evidence that this person, at that moment, meant for the complainant to die? If the honest answer is that the Crown has evidence of a violent assault and is asking the court to assume the rest, the attempted murder count is vulnerable, whatever else the file supports.

Where does preparation end and a criminal attempt begin?

Buying a weapon is not an attempt. Driving to an address is not, by itself, an attempt. Somewhere between forming a plan and carrying it out there is a line, and the law puts real weight on where that line falls.

In Deutsch v The Queen, [1986] 2 SCR 662, the Supreme Court said the distinction between mere preparation and an attempt is qualitative rather than a matter of counting steps. It turns on the relative proximity of the act to what the completed offence would have required, measured by time, by location, and by the acts still left to be done. There is no formula and no fixed number of stages.

Then comes the part almost nobody mentions. Section 24(2) makes it a question of law whether an act or omission is mere preparation, too remote to constitute an attempt, or is not too remote. A question of law is decided by the judge. On a jury trial that means the jury does not get to draw its own line. The judge rules on whether the evidence is even capable of amounting to an attempt, and the ruling is a legal ruling rather than a finding of fact.

For the defence this creates an argument that is made to the bench, in legal language, and that can be prepared long before a jury is ever selected. Where the conduct sits at the early end of a plan, the proximity argument under section 24(2) may be the most powerful thing on the file.

What if the person was never actually hurt?

Families ask this in the first phone call, usually in the form of a question about why the charge is so serious when the complainant walked out of the hospital the same night. The answer is that injury is not part of the offence.

Section 24(1) says a person commits an attempt by doing or omitting anything for the purpose of carrying out the intention, whether or not it was possible under the circumstances to commit the offence. Read those closing words carefully. Impossibility is dealt with head on, and it is not a defence in the way people assume. The shot that goes wide, the trigger that does not fire, the plan interrupted by a bystander or by police, all of them remain attempts if the intent and the act are proved.

There is a flip side that matters just as much. Because injury is not an element, the injuries also cannot do the Crown's work for it on intent. A serious wound is evidence, and often powerful evidence, of what the accused was trying to do. It is not proof of it. Where the complainant was gravely hurt but the surrounding evidence points to a fight that escalated rather than to a decision to kill, the injuries and the intention have to be argued separately.

This is also why the charge sometimes appears in cases with no wound at all. Where police intervene early, the Crown may still be able to prove both elements. Whether the conduct had travelled far enough past preparation is then the live issue, and that returns you to the section 24(2) question discussed above.

If you did not pull the trigger yourself, can you still be convicted?

Yes, in principle. Canadian law lets the Crown convict a person as a party to an offence, meaning someone who helped, encouraged, or set out with others on a plan that led to the offence. Group charges are common in shooting cases, and it is normal to see several accused on one information where only one of them is alleged to have fired.

Attempted murder is different from most offences here, and the difference comes from R v Logan, [1990] 2 SCR 731. On a charge of attempted murder, the Supreme Court held that the words ought to have known in section 21(2) are inoperative. A party can only be convicted where that party personally had the same subjective foresight the Constitution requires of the principal.

Put plainly, the Crown cannot convict a passenger, a driver, or a friend on the footing that a reasonable person in their position would have realised a killing was a likely consequence. It has to prove what was actually in that particular person's mind. That is a much harder case to run, and it is the reason party liability on section 239 counts is often the weakest part of a multi-accused prosecution.

Two practical points follow. Disclosure about who said what, and when, becomes central, because the Crown needs evidence of the specific accused's state of knowledge rather than evidence about the group. And severance, meaning a request to be tried separately from a co-accused, is worth considering early where the evidence against one person risks colouring the assessment of another.

Attempted murder or aggravated assault: how the Crown chooses, and how that choice gets challenged

These two charges cover much the same physical ground and carry very different consequences.

Section 268 says every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant. It is an indictable offence with a maximum of fourteen years, and there is no mandatory minimum on the face of the section. Nothing in it requires an intention to kill. A stabbing that punctures a lung fits comfortably inside it.

Section 239 covers the same stabbing, but only if the Crown can prove the accused meant to cause death. The maximum jumps from fourteen years to life. So the same wound, the same weapon and the same witnesses can produce either charge, and what separates them sits entirely in the accused's head at the moment of the act.

That is where the challenge is made. The defence position on a well built file is rarely that nothing happened. It is that the evidence proves a serious assault and does not prove an intention to kill, which is exactly the gap Ancio identifies. Where both counts are before the court, the argument is about the mental element rather than about the injuries, and the injuries are usually not in dispute at all.

If your file is at the aggravated assault end of the range, our page on aggravated assault charges in Ontario deals with that offence directly, and our Ontario assault offence lawyers page covers the wider family of assault charges. Where a firearm is alleged, see also firearm offences in Canada.

Attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder: two different theories, two different cases

Conspiracy is not a lesser version of an attempt. It is a different offence built on a different foundation.

Section 465(1)(a) provides that every one who conspires with any one to commit murder or to cause another person to be murdered, whether in Canada or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a maximum term of imprisonment for life. The crime is the agreement. Nothing has to be done to carry it out, and the agreement is complete the moment two people reach it.

Attempted murder is the opposite shape. It requires a step in the real world that has moved past mere preparation, and it can be committed by one person acting alone with no agreement of any kind.

Because the theories differ, the evidence differs. Conspiracy files tend to be built on intercepted communications, text messages, cell records and the testimony of a participant. Attempt files tend to be built on physical evidence, video and eyewitnesses. When the Crown charges both, keeping those two bodies of evidence separate is a real part of the defence job. Material that is only admissible against one accused on a conspiracy theory should not be allowed to drift into the assessment of an attempt count, and the ordering of the counts at trial can matter as much as their content.

What sentence does section 239 actually carry, and when does a mandatory minimum apply?

The ceiling never moves. Attempted murder carries life imprisonment in all three of its forms. What changes between them is the floor, and the floor is set entirely by whether a firearm was used and what kind.

Three things are worth drawing out of that table. First, the difference between paragraph (a) and paragraph (a.1) is the type of firearm and the criminal organization element, not the seriousness of the wound. Second, paragraph (b) has no statutory floor at all, so a stabbing, a vehicle, or bare hands leave the court with the ordinary sentencing principles and no minimum to work around. Third, the word Parliament used in the firearm paragraphs is used, meaning used in the commission of the offence. That is a finding the Crown has to prove, and it is not the same as a firearm being present, or being in the car, or being found later at a residence.

These minimums are printed in the current consolidation of the Criminal Code and they are in force. Do not be told otherwise. Parliament has repealed a number of mandatory minimums in recent years, but section 239 was not among the provisions touched.

When does an earlier conviction push the minimum from five years to seven?

Only the escalation inside section 239(1)(a) is affected, and section 239(2) sets out exactly which earlier convictions count. They are:

• an earlier offence under section 239 itself;
• an offence under section 85(1) or (2), section 244 or section 244.2; and
• an offence under section 220, 236, 272, 273, 279(1), 279.1, 344 or 346, but only where a firearm was used in the commission of that earlier offence. Those sections cover criminal negligence causing death, manslaughter, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery and extortion.

Then there is the lookback, and its wording repays close reading. An earlier offence is not taken into account if ten years have elapsed between the day the person was convicted of the earlier offence and the day of conviction for the offence being sentenced, not taking into account any time in custody. Time served is stripped out of the calculation. A person who spent four years inside during that decade has not accumulated ten qualifying years, and the earlier conviction still counts.

Section 239(3) adds a rule that catches people out. Only the sequence of convictions matters. The sequence in which the offences were actually committed is irrelevant. So an offence committed years earlier but convicted later can still be the earlier conviction for these purposes, depending on how the court dates fell.

Getting bail on an attempted murder charge in Toronto

There is a piece of misinformation about this charge that circulates widely, including on the websites of firms that should know better. It is worth correcting because it changes what families do in the first forty eight hours.

The second point matters just as much, and it is about who carries the burden. Section 515(6)(a)(vii) puts the onus on the accused to show cause why detention is not justified where the section 239 charge is alleged to have been committed with a firearm. Read the condition. It is the firearm allegation that flips the onus, not the label on the charge.

So a shooting case is a reverse onus bail hearing, and the release plan has to be built to carry that weight from the first appearance. A stabbing, a beating or an allegation involving a vehicle is an ordinary Crown onus hearing, and the Crown has to show cause why the accused should be detained. Families are routinely told the wrong thing about this, and the difference shapes how many sureties are needed, how much preparation the plan requires, and how quickly the hearing can realistically be run.

Adult bail hearings in Toronto are heard at the Toronto Regional Bail Centre, 2201 Finch Avenue West. Ontario Court of Justice appearances in Toronto, including set date court, are at 10 Armoury Street. Superior Court trials are heard at 361 University Avenue. For a charge arising in York Region, including Markham, Richmond Hill and Vaughan, the courthouse is at 50 Eagle Street West in Newmarket. Our page on bail and bail hearings in Canada explains the process in more detail, and clients north of Steeles can start at our Markham criminal defence page.

Judge alone or jury: how the election works and why the default matters

Because attempted murder is not reserved to the Superior Court, you get to choose how you are tried. Section 536(2) requires the justice to put the choice to you, and the words used are not a summary. They are the statutory script.

That last sentence is the one people miss. Saying nothing is not a neutral act. Silence produces a jury trial by operation of law. Section 471 sets the same background rule for indictable offences generally: except where otherwise expressly provided by law, every accused charged with an indictable offence shall be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury.

Choosing between the three routes is a genuine strategic decision and it is made early, often before disclosure is complete. A judge alone trial puts a legally trained decision maker in charge of questions like proximity under section 24(2) and the reliability of an inference about intent. A jury brings twelve people to the question of what the accused meant to do. Neither is automatically better. What is never acceptable is drifting into a jury trial because nobody explained that the clock was running.

What a preliminary inquiry is worth on a charge like this

Preliminary inquiries are no longer available on every indictable charge. They survive for offences punishable by fourteen years or more, and attempted murder is punishable by life, so it clears that threshold comfortably.

The mechanics come from the same section 536(2) script. Where you elect a Superior Court judge alone, or a judge and jury, or you do not elect at all, you will have a preliminary inquiry only if you or the prosecutor requests one. It is not automatic. It is also not available where you elect trial by a provincial court judge, which is one of the trade offs built into that election.

What is it actually worth on a section 239 file? Two things, mostly. It puts key civilian witnesses under oath and on the record long before trial, which matters enormously where the Crown case on intent depends on what someone remembers hearing during a chaotic few seconds. And it forces the theory of the case into the open, because the Crown has to identify the evidence it says supports each element rather than leaving the inferences unstated.

There is a cost to weigh against that. A preliminary inquiry lengthens the file, and it gives witnesses a rehearsal. The decision belongs on the strategy list rather than on the checklist, and it should be made after the disclosure has been read rather than at the first appearance.

Why clients bring section 239 charges to Kazandji Law

An attempted murder charge is not a file to hand to a general practitioner. The mental element is contested, the bail position depends on a distinction most people get wrong, and the election has to be made before the disclosure is complete. Our criminal defence work is built around exactly those pressure points.

Kazandji Law is led by founding partner Fadi Matthew Kazandji and serves clients across the Greater Toronto Area from four locations:

• Toronto (head office): 180 John Street, Unit 320, Toronto, Ontario M5T 1X5. Minutes from the Ontario Court of Justice at 10 Armoury Street and the Superior Court at 361 University Avenue.
• Thornhill: 7191 Yonge Street, Suite 310, serving Markham, Richmond Hill, Vaughan and the rest of York Region, with matters heard in Newmarket at 50 Eagle Street West.
• North York: convenient for clients north of the 401 and for bail matters at 2201 Finch Avenue West.
• Oakville: serving Halton Region clients who need Toronto trial experience closer to home.

We handle the full range of violent offence allegations, from simple assault and assault with a weapon through to homicide related charges, and we act on criminal defence matters throughout Ontario. Past results are set out on our case results page.

Attempted murder charges: questions we are asked most often

This page sets out general legal information about section 239 of the Criminal Code and the provisions that surround it, current as of July 2026. It is not legal advice and reading it does not create a lawyer and client relationship. Every file turns on its own facts and on its own disclosure. If you or a family member has been charged with attempted murder, speak to a criminal defence lawyer about your own circumstances before making any decision.