A Princeton man who attacked a doctor over COVID-19 mask regulations had his jail sentence upheld after an appeal.
Trevor Clary Rhyno was convicted of assault causing bodily harm and sentenced on November 14, 2025, to 12 months in jail and two years’ probation, as well as a court order to pay $10,000 by Dec. 31, 2028.
According to the recently published Feb. 11 appeal decision by Justice Julia Lawn, despite the judge citing a case defence would not have had access to, no meaningful errors were made that impacted the decision for a fit sentence.
Rhyno had also challenged the judge’s reasoning by making the alleged incorrect finding that his actions had impeded other people’s access to medical services in Princeton.
READ MORE: Princeton man charged with assaulting a doctor has trial delayed further
On Aug. 2, 2022, Rhyno had gone into Princeton’s Cascade Medical Clinic to get treatment for a rash on his face. At the time, despite being required under the public health order, he refused to wear a mask.
Rhyno got into an argument and pulled out his phone to start filming.
Dr. Andrew Ashley invited Rhyno to join him outside to attempt to de-escalate the situation.
Rhyno approached the doctor, who pushed his hand and phone away, and in response, Rhyno punched the doctor in the head, leaving a goose egg near his temple.
The doctor then covered his head with his hands, and Rhyno punched him again, causing a rupture of Dr. Ashley’s ulnar collateral ligament that required surgery and left him unable to perform his emergency room duties for weeks.
Months after the injury, there was still a functional impairment impacting work and exercise, the court found. The doctor ended up leaving the community due to no longer feeling safe, with Princeton losing its hospital chief of staff and clinic medical director as a result.
Justice Lawn rejected the argument that Rhyno’s actions did not impede others’ access to medical services, noting that, on top of the period where Dr. Ashley was unable to work at all, the doctor’s abilities remained limited well afterwards.
“In this case, it is hard to think of an assault on a clinic doctor, who is in the midst of treating patients, as not having some impact on the ability of those patients to access his services,” Justice Lawn said. “Dr. Ashley testified as to the impact of his injuries being community-wide. It was open to the sentencing judge to accept that evidence.”
As far as the sentencing judge’s cited cases, the Appeals Court noted that two of the three cases raised by the judge were easily found and known.
The last, an unreported case from Kelowna of R. v. Hoda, involved a very similar action where Hoda assaulted a doctor by punching him in the head, preventing him from working for two months, but also pleaded guilty and had mitigating factors such as substance abuse and mental illness to consider. Hoda received a 12-month jail sentence and was ordered to pay back the damages to hospital equipment.
Justice Lawn found that while there was an error in principle by the sentencing judge bringing up a case that was unreported and thus unavailable to the defence, it did not have a meaningful impact on the judge’s reasoning.
“Hoda introduces no new principle of law, but given its inaccessibility and the fact that the sentencing judge relied upon it, it ought to have been brought to counsel’s attention. To this extent, then, I find that there has been an error in principle,” said Justice Lawn. “In order to interfere with the sentence below on the basis of an error in principle, the appellant must show the error would have impacted the sentence. The appellant has not made any submissions as to how this was an impactful error.”
The last issue raised by Rhyno was a claim that the judge had not considered the principle of restraint as a first-time offender.
Justice Lawn noted that the principle of restraint is not an automatic reduction for sentencing, but is something considered alongside other sentencing principles.
“While the sentencing judge used the word ‘restraint’ three times in her reasons, it is clear that she considered it and came to the conclusion that in weighing the sentencing factors, denunciation and deterrence were entitled to more weight,” Justice Lawn said.
With no impactful error by the judge, Justice Lawn upheld the original year-long jail sentence, two-year probation and restitution order.