Two Nipigon residents face charges after a Rupert Street disturbance in Thunder Bay. Learn what the allegations mean and the potential Criminal Code penalties

Police allege a weapon was brandished during an altercation. One accused was remanded into custody and the other was released following initial court appearances

THUNDER BAY — Two Nipigon residents face criminal charges following an alleged altercation at a Rupert Street residence late Friday night.

Thunder Bay Police Service said Primary Response officers were dispatched shortly after 11:15 p.m. on October 16, 2026, after receiving reports of a disturbance.

According to police, a man and woman attended a residence and became involved in an altercation with another person. Police allege the man brandished a weapon and both suspects threatened to cause harm.

Officers located the suspect vehicle a short distance away and arrested a man and woman inside.

Police have not identified the type of weapon or provided information about injuries.

Charges and court appearances

Joseph Marc Mercier, 54, of Nipigon, is charged with:

• Possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose;
• Intimidation; and
• Uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm.

Jennifer Lee Logan, 52, of Nipigon, is charged with:

• Assault; and
• Intimidation.

According to the October 19 police release, Mercier was remanded into custody following his initial court appearance. Logan was released. Both have future court dates, which were not provided.

The allegations have not been proven in court. Both accused are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

What the charges mean

The following explains the Criminal Code provisions associated with the offences named by police. The release does not identify the precise subsections alleged in the court documents.

Possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose — section 88

This offence concerns carrying or possessing a weapon, imitation weapon or certain other regulated items for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or to commit an offence.

The purpose of possessing the item is central to the charge. The allegation does not require that the weapon actually caused an injury. A conviction by indictment carries a maximum of 10 years in prison.

Intimidation — section 423

Criminal intimidation involves wrongfully using specified conduct to compel someone to do something they have a lawful right to refuse, or to stop doing something they have a lawful right to do.

The prohibited conduct includes violence, threats of violence and other forms of coercion identified in the section. It is more specific than simply making someone feel uncomfortable or frightened.

Police have not disclosed what either accused allegedly tried to compel the other person to do or stop doing. The maximum penalty upon conviction by indictment is five years in prison.

Uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm — section 264.1(1)(a)

This provision prohibits knowingly uttering, conveying or causing someone to receive a threat to kill or physically harm a person. The charge concerns the communication of a threat; the threatened harm does not have to occur.

The maximum penalty upon conviction by indictment is five years in prison.

Assault — sections 265 and 266

Assault includes intentionally applying force to another person without consent. It can also include attempting or threatening, through an act or gesture, to apply force where the person has—or reasonably appears to have—the immediate ability to do so.

An assault charge does not necessarily mean an injury occurred. The maximum penalty upon conviction by indictment is five years in prison.

Potential penalties depend on how the case proceeds

All four offences are hybrid offences, meaning the Crown can proceed by indictment or by summary conviction.

If prosecuted summarily, the general maximum for each is two years less a day in jail, a $5,000 fine, or both. The police release does not indicate which prosecution route the Crown will choose.

These maximums are legal ceilings, not predictions of the outcome. A conviction does not automatically result in the maximum sentence, and separate maximum penalties should not simply be added together to forecast a person’s sentence.

Mercier’s remand is a pretrial custody status, not a sentence or finding of guilt. Logan’s release likewise does not determine the outcome of the charges.

Police reference: TB26041812