I did.
A couple of things I disagree with:
1) His definition of assault does not line up with Canada's courts definition of assault. Firstly: assault is not always criminal. Harming someone by accident IS assault, just not criminal, for an assault to be criminal there must be intent to do harm. If one person does damage to another: That is assault. If a person does damage to another person INTENTIONALLY: That's CRIMINAL ASSAULT. If a person does damage to another person by way of an an asininely stupid act, that was unintentional: That's criminal negligence occasioning bodily harm (or death).
2) The criminal code defines weapon as "instrument used to assault". If someone is assaulted, using an instrument, ANY instrument (read the law, there are no exclusions) used in assault is a weapon. If you do intention harm to another person with a tissue, that tissue is a weapon. IF there was an assault, and there was an instrument used, That's assault with a weapon. The assault makes the instrument a weapon, IF you assault someone with a THING, that THING becomes a weapon, no matter what the THING is
I have been charged with assault with a weapon, and successfully argued both these points in court. The weapon was a letter ( like postage, mail. I didn't beat a guy with a giant "W")... it's all about INTENT