Published Jul 31, 2026Last updated 2 hours ago9 minute readA Supreme Court of Nova Scotia judge has found a man not guilty of aggravated assault in relation to him stabbing another man during a road rage fight on the side of Highway 104 in Cape Breton. STOCK IMAGEArticle contentA Cape Breton man who stabbed another man during a road rage altercation has been found not guilty of charges laid against him in 2024.THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY.Subscribe now to access this story and more:Unlimited access to the website and appExclusive access to premium content, newsletters and podcastsFull access to the e-Edition app, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment onEnjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalistsSupport local journalists and the next generation of journalistsSUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES.Subscribe or sign in to your account to continue your reading experience.Unlimited access to the website and appExclusive access to premium content, newsletters and podcastsFull access to the e-Edition app, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment onEnjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalistsSupport local journalists and the next generation of journalistsRegister to unlock more articles.Create an account or sign in to continue your reading experience.Access additional stories every monthShare your thoughts and join the conversation in our commenting communityGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorArticle contentArticle contentCody Neil Smith, who was 29 at the time of the fight, was charged with aggravated assault and carrying a knife with a purpose dangerous to public peace after the fight on the side of the highway near St. Peter’s.Article contentArticle contentSmith admitted he stabbed 55-year-old Bradley MacDonald, who was not known to him at the time, during the altercation on June 13, 2024 around 4 p.m.Article contentMacDonald was seriously injured and needed emergency surgery as part of his intestine came out of his body due to one of the three wounds. Surgeons needed to remove two damaged section of his small intestine, according to evidence presented at trial.Article contentSelf-defense was the reason Smith gave for the stabbing. He testified he was afraid for his life as MacDonald had him in a chokehold (headlock) with his shirt over his face so he couldn’t see or breath.Article contentThe case was tried in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in Port Hawkesbury with Judge Shane Russell presiding. He released his written decision on July 17.Article contentNoting the Crown didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith didn’t use the knife he had in his pocket in self-defense nor that Smith used excessive force or had it for a dangerous purpose for having the knife, Russell ruled not guilty on both counts.Article contentArticle content“I am satisfied that it was purely by happenstance that Mr. Smith had the knife in his pocket when he was confronted and overpowered by Mr. MacDonald,” said Russell in the written decision.Article contentArticle content“His purpose for possessing it on this day was not for any dangerous purpose to the public peace. He had it in his possession for the functional purpose for which it was intended.Article contentHowever, the judge also said the ruling was not in support of using a knife in an altercation and that both parties were responsible for the fight; MacDonald for starting it and Smith for engaging in it.Article content“Cooler heads should have prevailed on a day both men no doubt wish to forget,” the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia judge said.Article content“Mr. MacDonald endured a life-threatening and traumatic event that should never have occurred. The altercation arose from a senseless act of mutual road rage. The community of Louisdale deserves better, as do all who travel on Nova Scotia’s highways.”Article contentDRIVERS’ ACCOUNTSArticle contentMacDonald, a landscaper, testified he was coming home from work and driving along Highway 104 when he came up to two drivers going half of the 80 kilometres an hour speed limit, Smith being one of them.Article contentTwice MacDonald tried to pass Smith unsuccessfully and that Smith was driving dangerously by going under the limit by that much.Article contentMacDonald also said he tried to pass Smith twice: once in the left lane and once in the right lane but couldn’t because Smith cut him off by moving into the lanes.Article contentHe said that Smith “break checked” before moving into his lane and put his arm out the window to give him the middle finger.Article contentWhen Smith pulled off to the side of Highway 104 near the Louisdale turnoff, MacDonald alleged Smith waved at him to pull over and that he was stabbed while standing then they wrestled to the ground.Article contentSmith testified he was going the speed limit and MacDonald was driving too closely behind him.Article contentHe also said he accidentally cut MacDonald off when he went into the passing lane and didn’t see MacDonald had also moved to pass until he looked into his side mirror. When he saw MacDonald in the passing lane, Smith said he moved back into the right lane and MacDonald did too.Article contentArticle contentThe younger driver admitted he “break checked” MacDonald and gave him the middle finger because he was angry at how closely MacDonald was driving behind him.Article contentWhen Smith pulled over on the side of Highway 104 near the Louisdale turnoff, he testified and told police it was to call his grandmother to see if he needed to go to her place before continuing to Antigonish. He denied it was to get MacDonald to pull over and engage in a fight.Article contentMacDonald was the one who came up to his car first, testified Smith, who said he got out of the car and MacDonald hit him first. Then wrestled him to the ground where he put him in a chokehold and pulled his shirt over his head.Article contentSmith said he couldn’t see and worried he might die, so he took the utility knife – which has a quick release switch for the blade he had in his pocket from doing flooring work earlier in the day, and stabbed MacDonald to get free.Article contentAfter MacDonald let him go, Smith admitted he left the scene and threw away the utility knife by throwing it out the window of his car while driving.Article contentArticle contentWITNESSESArticle contentTwo of the drivers who saw the fight and stopped to intervene testified at the trial.Article contentOne witness was driving home when she saw the men seconds before the fight started, standing face-to-face by a car on the side of the road. She testified it looked tense and she “thought something was going to happen.”Article contentAfter driving by, she looked in the rearview mirror and saw they had started fighting and- both were on the ground.Article contentShe described the fight in her testimony as MacDonald having Smith “in a chokehold” and “in a headlock” and said both seemed “forceful.”Article contentThe woman stopped because she thought Smith was a friend of her son’s. She said she walked toward them, yelling for them to stop and MacDonald to let Smith go.Article contentAfter yelling at MacDonald, the woman testified he did and told her “you don’t understand I was stabbed.” When he lifted up his shirt to show the wounds, the woman told the court it look like his “insides coming out of his stomach.”Article contentThe other witness was driving from St. Peter’s and saw the two men fighting. Like the female witness, he didn’t see how MacDonald and Smith ended up on the ground.Article contentHe stopped and got out of the car, then took a photo and a short video.Article content“Cooler heads should have prevailed on a day both men no doubt wish to forget.” – Supreme Court of Nova Scotia Judge Shane RussellArticle contentWhen he stopped and got out of his car, Smith was already walking back to his car before leaving the scene.Article contentThe male witness described MacDonald as appearing “like you squeezed a fish” because of how his bowel had been eviscerated.Article contentIn his ruling, Russell described what the photo showed: MacDonald in between Smith and the driver’s side door of Smith’s car, with his left arm “wrapped under Mr. Smith’s right arm. Mr. MacDonald is crouched over Mr. Smith, who is on his knees with his torso and head bent toward the ground. Mr. Smith’s right hand is touching the asphalt. Mr. MacDonald’s right hand and Mr. Smith’s left hand are not visible in the photograph.”Article contentIt also shows the female witness “in close proximity” bent over the men.Article contentRussell notes the video shows what the photo does, with little movement between MacDonald and Smith “who appear deadlocked.”Article contentJUDGE’S RULINGArticle contentAfter considering all the evidence and testimony, Russell ruled Smith not guilty and said he found his account of the event to be the most probable.Article contentArticle contentAlong with having consistency in Smith’s account of what happened in both his statement to police and his testimony, the evidence presented by the two witnesses supported Smith’s account as well.Article contentRussell noted that while Smith did leave the scene, he later turned himself into RCMP and has been co-operative with the investigation and accepting responsibility for his wrongdoing.Article content“Mr. Smith was not blameless, as he participated in the road-rage incident. Making an obscene gesture is not conducive to maintaining peaceful interactions either,” Russell said.Article content“He also acknowledged being angry with Mr. MacDonald in response to perceived aggression while driving. Clearly, the prudent course would have been to disengage at the outset.”Article contentWith regards to MacDonald’s evidence, Russell said he had concerns with the reliability and credibility of it.Article content“His testimony was at times delivered with overstated confidence, contained notable inconsistencies, evolved over the course of questioning, and lacked clarity on material aspects of the incident,” the judge said.Article contentArticle contentSome of the inconsistencies were found in what MacDonald said in his police statement versus his testimony.Article contentRussell pointed out MacDonald at first said Smith break checked him twice but later agreed it was once.Article contentAnother inconsistency was with how MacDonald described coming up to Smith and the other car in front of him the day of the road rage fight.Article content“Mr. MacDonald at times minimized his driving conduct. Although he testified in direct that he was travelling at the speed limit, his evidence shifted in cross-examination,” said Russell.Article content“He first stated, ‘I was probably driving a couple kilometres over the speed limit.’ When the inconsistency was put to him, he revised his evidence to ‘well I was probably doing 82/83.’ Challenged on this asserted precision, he responded, ‘who does the speed limit?’ When pressed further, he ultimately acknowledged that he was exceeding the speed limit but could not say by how much.Article content“I do not accept Mr. MacDonald’s evidence that he was driving in a cautious, patient, or prudent manner prior to the roadside altercation. I find that he was travelling at an excessive speed, was impatient, and engaged in aggressive driving throughout the incident. I further find that he remained angry as the events unfolded, including in response to Mr. Smith’s gesture.”Article content‘PREPARED TO ENGAGE’Article contentAlong with downplaying his driving, Russell said MacDonald also downplayed his experience fighting at first then later acknowledged he had been in some fights which he described as “bar fights,” “hockey fights,” “dance fights,” “fist fights,” and is a self-described “enforcer.”Article contentBased on his analysis of evidence, Russell said he believed MacDonald was the aggressor who went after Smith.Article content“I am satisfied that Mr. MacDonald remained angry, had no genuine intention to avoid the interaction, and was prepared to engage once the opportunity to confront Mr. Smith arose,” said Russell.Article content“I rejected Mr. MacDonald’s attempts to minimize the initial strike to Mr. Smith’s face. It was with a closed fist and not his forearm. Mr. Smith was really presented with no opportunity to avoid physical confrontation. I agree with the Crown that Mr. Smith chose not to remain in his car. However, it was not unreasonable for him to get out when Mr. MacDonald was fast approaching.”Article contentArticle contentRussell also found MacDonald, due to being a larger size and in good shape (which MacDonald attributed to his landscaping job), contributed to him having the upper hand over Smith.Article content“The physical violence erupted quickly, leaving Mr. Smith little opportunity to assess his options. There was no meaningful time for reflection,” he said in the ruling.Article content“The force applied by Mr. MacDonald was continuous and multifaceted. I accept Mr. Smith’s evidence that, once the assault began and he was overpowered, he could not de-escalate the situation.”Article contentWith regard to Smith’s use of force, Russell found it was proportionate.Article content“It is unfortunate that he used a knife and caused a significant injury to Mr. MacDonald. This Court is not endorsing the use of a knife as a response to a physical altercation, and the trauma experienced by Mr. MacDonald is both real and significant,” he said.Article content“However, in these unique circumstances, I find that Mr. Smith’s actions were reactive and represented the only reasonable means of escaping an otherwise inescapable chokehold … Ultimately, the Crown has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Smith did not act in self-defence.”Article content
Not guilty verdict in road rage stabbing, rules Cape Breton judge
