ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025 06 27
COURT FILE No.: Halton Info #998 23 12101201
B E T W E E N :
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
RYAN ENAYA
Before Justice Jennifer Campitelli
Heard on February 24, 25 and 26, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on June 27, 2025
Ms. Ginn .................................................................................................. counsel for the Crown
Ms. Ryan ............................................................................................... counsel for the accused Ryan Enaya
CAMPITELLI J.:
1Mr. Enaya faces three counts on the information, as amended, which is before the court. That he:
(1) Between the 1st day of August in the year 2022 and the 16th day of April in the year 2023, both dates inclusive at the Town of Oakville in the said Region and/or elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, unlawfully did, without lawful authority and knowing that Ramandip Pahal was harassed or being reckless as to whether Ramandip Pahal was harassed, engage in conduct referred to in Section 264(2) of the Criminal Code, thereby causing Ramandip Pahal in all the circumstances to fear for her safety or the safety of anyone known to her, contrary to Section 264(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada; and
(2) Between the 1st day of August in the year 2022 and the 16th day of April in the year 2023, both dates inclusive, at the City of Burlington in the said Region and/or elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did by written or other means knowingly utter a threat to Ramandip Pahal to cause bodily harm to Ramandip Pahal, contrary to Section 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada; and
(3) Between the 1st day of August in the year 2022 and the 16th day of April in the year 2023, both dates inclusive at the City of Burlington in the said Region and/or elsewhere in the province of Ontario, did by written means knowingly utter a threat to Ramandip Pahal to cause death or bodily harm to Ramandip Pahal, contrary to Section 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Factual Background
2The complainant, Ms. Pahal and Mr. Enaya are previous intimate partners. Ms. Pahal characterizes their relationship as volatile, and unhealthy. She alleges that on three separate occasions, Mr. Enaya threatened to harm her, and on one occasion Mr. Enaya threatened to cause harm to her father. Moreover, Ms. Pahal claims that after she ended the relationship in August of 2022, Mr. Enaya continued to contact her utilizing various forms of electronic messaging platforms in addition to repeated telephone calls. Ms. Pahal contends this continued and unwanted communication escalated to a level that caused her to fear for her safety, and the safety of her family.
3Mr. Enaya strongly denies these allegations. He characterizes his relationship with Ms. Pahal as involving periods where they parted ways, then later decided to reconcile. With a view to any and all contact between them, Mr. Enaya takes the position that it was mutual and jointly engaged in. He denies ever threatening to cause harm to Ms. Pahal and maintains that the only time he referenced physical contact with Ms. Pahal’s father, was in the context of self-defence.
Guiding Legal Principles
4In R. v. Kosikar, [1999] O.J. No. 3569, the Ontario Court of Appeal clearly outlines the five essential elements of the offence with respect to a charge of criminal harassment, contrary to s. 264(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. They are as follows:
(1) It must be established that the accused has engaged in the conduct set out in s. 264(2)(a),(b),(c), or (d) of the Criminal Code of Canada;
(2) It must be established that the complainant was harassed;
(3) It must be established that the accused who engaged in such conduct knew that the complainant was harassed or was reckless or wilfully blind as to whether the complainant was harassed;
(4) It must be established that the conduct caused the complainant to fear for her safety or the safety of anyone known to her; and
(5) It must be established that the complainant’s fear was, in all of the circumstances, reasonable: R. v. Kosikar at para 19.
5Threatening conduct need not be repeated in order to violate s. 264(2)(d). A single threatening act directed at the complainant, or a member of the complainant’s family may constitute criminal harassment. Moreover, the conduct itself need not be harassment, provided it causes the complainant to be harassed: R. v. Kosikar at paras. 20, 22, 26; R. v. Province, 2019 O.J. No. 4003 (C.A.) at para. 121.
6It is not enough that the conduct vexes, disquiets or annoys the complainant. What is required is that the conduct “tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically, plagued, bedevilled and badgered” the complainant: R. v. Kosikar at para. 24, citing R. v. Lamontagne, (1998) 129 C.C.C. (3d) 337 (Que. C.A.) at para 188, R. v. Province at para. 122.
7The nature of the threatening conduct must amount to a “tool of intimidation which is designed to instill a sense of fear in the recipient”. The conduct should be viewed objectively with due consideration for the circumstances in which it took place, together with its effect on the complainant: R. v. Province at para. 123, R. v. Burns, 2008 ONCA 6 at para. 2, citing R. v. George, 2002 YKCA 2, R. v. Sim, 2017 ONCA 856 at para. 16.
8Additionally, given that Mr. Enaya, the defendant, has provided evidence, the framework set out in R. v. W(D.), [1991] S.C.J. No. 26 applies. Specifically, the test outlined at paragraph 28:
(1) If I believe the evidence of Mr. Enaya, obviously, I must find him not guilty;
(2) Second, even if I do not believe the testimony of Mr. Enaya, but I am left in reasonable doubt by it, I must find him not guilty;
(3) Finally, even if I am not left in doubt by the evidence of Mr. Enaya, I must ask myself whether on the basis of the evidence which I do accept, if I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of Mr. Enaya.
9In turning my mind to the analysis I must engage in, I have also reviewed the article written by Paciocco J.A. entitled, “Doubt about Doubt: Coping with W.(D.) And Credibility Assessment” found at 2017 22 Canadian Criminal Law Review 31. In that article, Justice Paciocco helpfully breaks down the W.(D.) principles into five analytical points:
(1) Criminal trials cannot properly be resolved by deciding which conflicting version of events is preferred;
(2) A criminal fact-finder that believes evidence that is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused cannot convict the accused;
(3) Even if a criminal fact-finder does not entirely believe evidence inconsistent with guilt, if the fact-finder is left unsure whether that evidence is true there is a reasonable doubt and an acquittal must follow;
(4) Even where the fact-finder entirely disbelieves evidence inconsistent with guilt, the mere rejection of that evidence does not prove guilt; and
(5) Even where the fact-finder entirely disbelieves evidence inconsistent with guilt, the accused should not be convicted unless the evidence that is given credit proves the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Evidence of Ramandip Pahal
10Ms. Pahal was not an impressive witness. She provided evidence that was internally inconsistent, and I find aspects of her evidence were intentionally evasive and completely dishonest. I did not find Ms. Pahal to be a credible witness, nor did I find her evidence to be reliable.
11Ms. Pahal testified that her and Mr. Enaya dated for approximately two years; however, their relationship came to an end in August of 2022. Ms. Pahal acknowledged that one of the reasons she ended her relationship with Mr. Enaya was because he didn’t give her enough attention or time. Both parties agree that Ms. Pahal’s parents would not have been happy about Ms. Pahal’s relationship with Mr. Enaya. As a result, Ms. Pahal acknowledged that she concealed her relationship with Mr. Enaya from her parents. It was Ms. Pahal’s evidence that Mr. Enaya made threats to her following the end of their relationship, which would have “started either end of August or beginning of September 2022”. She recalled Mr. Enaya used “those words” either on text, or phone call”, and that he also showed her a video. To be very clear, the threats Ms. Pahal alleged are as follows:
(1) “I am going to go to your house, I am going to do something, I am going to shoot up your house, I am going to box your Dad in the face”; and
(2) “He said he was going to kidnap me, tie my legs so that the blood stops and that would put me in a wheelchair so I would have to stay with him”, which she claimed Mr. Enaya communicated over the phone, “around wintertime or right before I went to the police station”; and
(3) Finally, “He’s going to put acid on my legs and burn them”, which Ms. Pahal remembered Mr. Enaya stated the weekend before she attended the police station. This threat could have been “in person, or phone, or text” according to Ms. Pahal.
12It was Ms. Pahal’s evidence that Mr. Enaya sent her a video over Snapchat, which was captured outside of her family home. In this video, Ms. Pahal recalled an individual, who she believed was Mr. Enaya, was holding a knife in his hand. It was “nighttime outside”, and the “knife was being turned over and it was shining”. When asked what she thought when she saw this video, Ms. Pahal stated, “I thought that he’s actually capable of being outside my house, so I felt super scared and I thought that he’s actually able to bring something in his hand”. Significantly, when Ms. Pahal was pressed while under cross-examination with respect to whether she watched the video more than once, after acknowledging that you can ‘replay’ videos on Snapchat, it was Ms. Pahal’s evidence that she did not remember whether she replayed the video or not. Given the nature of what Ms. Pahal testified was depicted in this alleged Snapchat video, I find it unbelievable that she is not able to recall whether she replayed it. Ms. Pahal did not save the Snapchat video, and despite producing a bound volume of electronic messages for my review, Ms. Pahal admitted while under cross examination that none of the alleged threats are contained in any of the messages she captured. This, notwithstanding it was Ms. Pahal’s evidence that Mr. Enaya may have communicated threats to her through text message.
13Ms. Pahal recalled that, just prior to her reporting the alleged incidents to the police, Mr. Enaya attended Oakville Trafalgar Hospital, where she was visiting her grandfather, and a gym where she taught a Zumba class. It was Ms. Pahal’s evidence that she only engaged with Mr. Enaya on those occasions, but not because she wanted to. Rather, because “if I don’t do something that he wants, it turns into threats and harassment so everything is an obligation”. Ultimately, on both occasions Ms. Pahal testified that Mr. Enaya’s conduct within the context of their interactions together caused her to be anxious and fear for her safety, and the safety of her family.
14It was Ms. Pahal’s evidence that she was visiting her Grandfather at the Oakville Trafalgar Hospital on April 14, 2023, when Mr. Enaya texted and asked her what hospital she was at. Ms. Pahal recalled that she told Mr. Enaya “Dundas”, hoping that he would not be able to determine which hospital she was at. But, when Ms. Pahal entered the parking garage, she heard loud music and noticed Mr. Enaya right beside her car. Ms. Pahal was able to remember that Mr. Enaya was just “sitting inside the car with the window rolled down and his black hoodie was on over his head and he was, he was just sitting there blasting music”. Initially, when asked whether she saw Mr. Enaya following their encounter in the parking garage that evening, Ms. Pahal said, “not that I could remember”. However, following Mr. Enaya’s contention that the pair engaged in sexual activity that evening, Ms. Pahal was pressed further on her contact with Mr. Enaya on April 14, 2023. I find she became intentionally evasive. When asked directly if she had a sexual encounter with Mr. Enaya after he attended the hospital Ms. Pahal said, “not at the hospital. I don’t know if there would have been anywhere else.” When pressed further as to whether she remembered having a sexual encounter anywhere with Mr. Enaya that night, Ms. Pahal stated, “I don’t remember when those would be exactly”, “I don’t memorize the dates that we had sexual things”. I find this area of Ms. Pahal’s evidence to be intentionally vague and unbelievable. Ms. Pahal was able to recall that Mr. Enaya was blasting music, that he was wearing a black hoodie, which was on over his head, and that his car window was rolled down when she encountered him in the parking garage. I completely reject her evidence that on that very same night, she was not able to remember if the pair engaged in a sexual encounter.
15I was also very troubled by Ms. Pahal’s evidence surrounding whether the pair ever engaged in sexual activity between March of 2023 up to April 16, 2023, or from the end of August 2022 to April 16, 2023. Again, I found Ms. Pahal’s evidence to be intentionally evasive and dishonest. Initially, Ms. Pahal stated, “I don’t remember”, then she stated, “there could have been possibilities; I just don’t know when the intimacy or sexual things would have been”. Finally, her evidence was, “yes, but not because I wanted to”. I find Ms. Pahal was purposefully trying to distance herself from intimate contact she ultimately admits to engaging in with Mr. Enaya, which impacted her credibility and the reliability of her evidence overall.
16Ms. Pahal also provided evidence with respect to Mr. Enaya attending at a gym where she taught Zumba the day after he met her at Oakville Trafalgar Hospital. Ms. Pahal remembered that Mr. Enaya called and was “excepting for me and him to see each other”, but she didn’t realize Mr. Enaya would attend inside the gym. It was Ms. Pahal’s evidence that Mr. Enaya was expecting the pair to eat together, and that she agreed to that because she felt like she “had to”. Ms. Pahal testified that Mr. Enaya entered her motor vehicle and took her phone. There is no dispute between the parties that Mr. Enaya went through Ms. Pahal’s phone on April 15, 2023, in an attempt to find evidence of her infidelity towards him. Eventually, Ms. Pahal recalled that she left the parking lot, and needed to go to the Nike Outlet. While she was there, Mr. Enaya texted her and told her he was going to go to her house. Ms. Pahal claimed that this statement made her feel scared. However, similar to Ms. Pahal’s evidence relative to the Snapchat video, I must consider her expressed feelings towards Mr. Enaya attending her family home against the backdrop of Ms. Pahal’s own admission that she was concealing her relationship with him from her family. She made it clear that her family would not approve of Mr. Enaya for a number of reasons, and one of the reasons she didn’t want Mr. Enaya to have contact with her family is because she didn’t want her family to know about their relationship.
17Ms. Pahal’s evidence surrounding the assault allegations she personally faces relative to Mr. Enaya was very troubling. Ms. Pahal acknowledged that she was charged with assault; however, it was her evidence that she “didn’t know the meaning of the word assault”. Ms. Pahal testified that she remembered seeing the word assault, but she didn’t remember the “direct definition of it”. To be fair to Ms. Pahal, I engaged to ensure she understood the question was looking for her general understanding, rather than any particular legal definition. Ms. Pahal continued to be evasive, claiming she gets “stuck”, only seeing the word but not knowing what it means. Then, agreeing that she was charged with assault, yet has no idea why. This, notwithstanding Ms. Pahal was charged with assault in May of 2023 and has legal representation. Moreover, Ms. Pahal is a sophisticated witness. I heard evidence that Ms. Pahal is a professional currently working in the education field. To be very clear, I completely reject this area of Ms. Pahal’s evidence. I do not believe that she is unaware of what assault means, and I do not believe that she is unaware of why she was charged with assault.
18After very carefully considering Ms. Pahal’s evidence, I do not find that Mr. Enaya’s behaviour relative to her rose to a level of “harassment”. I reject Ms. Pahal’s evidence that she feared for her safety or the safety of her family members as a result of any of Mr. Enaya’s conduct. As such, I need not carry my analysis forward to determine whether Ms. Pahal’s purported fear was reasonable in all of the circumstances. Certainly, Ms. Pahal feared Mr. Enaya would expose their relationship to her family; however, I have concluded that is where any fear relative to her ended.
The Evidence of Mr. Enaya
19Mr. Enaya testified in a clear, detailed, relatively straightforward manner. I found he was a credible witness, who provided reliable evidence overall. Even when pressed while under cross examination, Mr. Enaya’s evidence remained consistent and predominantly unshaken. I found it flowed logically and I have no reason to reject it.
20Mr. Enaya testified that he met Ms. Pahal in 2020, but they didn’t start dating until April of 2021. It was Mr. Enaya’s evidence that the pair broke up after Ms. Pahal allegedly assaulted him by punching him in the face after he looked at another woman. Ms. Pahal was cross examined with respect to this alleged assault. Mr. Enaya recalled he did not feel comfortable in the relationship afterwards, so he ended it. Two weeks later, the pair reunited.
21Mr. Enaya remembered that in August of 2022, Ms. Pahal went on vacation, which is agreed between them. It was Mr. Enaya’s evidence that while Ms. Pahal was on vacation with her family, things changed. Mr. Enaya testified that in September of 2022 he surprised her at a gym with flowers and she said, “this is too late”. However, Mr. Enaya maintained that that they didn’t actually end their relationship until after an argument in front of his home in October or November of 2022.
22According to Mr. Enaya the pair reunited again in March of 2023. He was certain they were back together because they “talked about it”, “she apologized”, “told me she loved me”, and “I apologized about everything”. Mr. Enaya recalled that he brought up his concerns about “the hitting” and Ms. Pahal “assured him”. It was his evidence that he was never intimate with Ms. Pahal after she returned from vacation in August; however, they were intimate twice in March, so he was certain they were “back together”.
23Mr. Enaya provided detailed evidence about meeting up with Ms. Pahal at Oakville Trafalgar Hospital. He remembered they were supposed to go on a “double date”, but Ms. Pahal wanted to go see her Grandpa, so Mr. Enaya cancelled with the other couple. It was Mr. Enaya’s evidence that the pair were going to meet up to “go eat”, that Ms. Pahal had to “go to her cousin’s to drop something”, and then the pair met up at McDonald’s. Mr. Enaya recalled Ms. Pahal “went home to her cousin, did what she had to do”, then met him at McDonald’s and got into his car. Mr. Enaya testified that Ms. Pahal asked to go somewhere “low key”, so the pair went to a “low key” spot and were intimate. After what Mr. Enaya described as a sexual encounter between them, he remembered that he drove back to McDonald’s and got food. While the pair remained in his motor vehicle, and just before Ms. Pahal was about to kiss him, Mr. Enaya recalled her saying, “is it OK to kiss you, I just, like, gave you oral sex”. Mr. Enaya remembered clearly that her comment really bothered him because he “never had an issue with her kissing me after oral sex”. Therefore, at that point in their interaction he thought, “this girl’s been hooking up” or “doing stuff with other guys”.
24It was Mr. Enaya’s evidence that his concern regarding Ms. Pahal being unfaithful caused him to attend the gym she was teaching at the very next day to confront her unannounced. He recalled that he did not want to give her any notice, so she could not delete any text messages or other communication. I found this aspect of his evidence to flow logically.
25Mr. Enaya testified that on April 15, 2025, his plan was to surprise Ms. Pahal at the gym and confront her, “you’re claiming you’re fully faithful” so “may I please go through your phone after you backed it up”. Again, Mr. Enaya maintained that he was trying to catch Ms. Pahal off guard, which I find to be plausible. Both parties agree that Mr. Enaya did go through Ms. Pahal’s phone that day and questioned her about messages she exchanged with her boxing coach. They also agree that Mr. Enaya sent messages to her friends, in an attempt to expose her infidelity. Ultimately, the interaction between the pair escalates to a point where Mr. Enaya communicates to Ms. Pahal, “I want to go talk to your Dad”. Mr. Enaya had previously testified that Ms. Pahal was afraid of her father, “like he would hit her or something”. It was Ms. Pahal’s evidence when pressed while under cross examination that she could not remember if Mr. Enaya told her that he wanted to speak with her father about her cheating on him. However, when Ms. Pahal testified in-chief, she recalled that Mr. Enaya had messaged her while she was in the gym and stated, “I am just going to go to your house”, and that she felt scared. Moreover, Ms. Pahal also initially testified that while the pair were in her motor vehicle together, after going through her phone, Mr. Enaya stated, “shut up”, “he’s just going to go to my house and do something”. I find these aspects of Ms. Pahal’s testimony to be corroborative of Mr. Enaya’s evidence on this point.
The Electronic Communication
26A volume of screenshotted electronic communication was provided to investigators by Ms. Pahal. It must always be remembered that screenshotted electronic communication produced in this fashion inevitably deprives the trier of fact of necessary context. Of note, with a view to this electronic communication in particular, there are large gaps between the messages and at times, they appear out of order.
27Considered against the backdrop of the complete evidentiary record, I find the electronic communication to be corroborative of the following:
(1) As Ms. Pahal acknowledged, none of the threats she alleges were made by Mr. Enaya are contained in the text messages produced. This includes any threats Ms. Pahal alleged could have been made in writing or through text message;
(2) Mr. Enaya utilized electronic communication to threaten Ms. Pahal, stating that he would expose aspects of their relationship to her father. This can be seen numerous times including within the following statements, “I swear to god if you keep disrespecting me wallahi am just send everything to ur dad and all the pahal accounts I screenshotted”, “I swear to god u better reply to everything I said am go to ur house if u don’t wallah”, “I know where u live where u work out where ur family Is in Woodstock how ur dad looks like. You say I ruined your peace right I never ever showed up there or did anything”. I do not find the messages to be corroborative of Mr. Enaya threatening to harm Ms. Pahal’s father, or her family;
(3) Moreover, when Mr. Enaya writes, “Stfu I never threatened you until two weeks ago remember you keep saying”, this message must be viewed within the context of the messages I have been provided. When viewed in context, I find it is corroborative of Mr. Enaya’s evidence, that he was referring to threatening to expose aspects of the relationship that existed between the pair to Ms. Pahal’s father;
(4) Mr. Enaya was concerned that Ms. Pahal was unfaithful. He acknowledged as much in his evidence, and this is clear within the communication he exchanged with Ms. Pahal electronically. The pair discuss Ms. Pahal taking a lie detector test in the context of Mr. Enaya’s allegations of infidelity, wherein Ms. Pahal expresses, “it’s gonna be a waste cause you are never gonna stop, I know you”, and “I’m just saying it’s no gonna stop you because nothing stopped you”. Ms. Pahal attaches the ‘heart emoji’ to many of Mr. Enaya’s messages, then two messages that follow include the ‘kiss emoji’. I do not find these messages corroborative of Ms. Pahal asking Mr. Enaya to stop communicating with her, or her being fearful of Mr. Enaya. They appear more consistent with Ms. Pahal communicating that nothing will stop Mr. Enaya’s jealousy. The messages must also be considered against the backdrop of Ms. Pahal’s evidence where she stated, “I tried to block his phone number. I tried to block his Snapchat. I tried to block his Instagram. I tried to just not reply to text messages or Instagram messages or Snapchat messages”. It may be the case that Ms. Pahal “tried” to stop communicating with Mr. Enaya; however, the correspondence reflects that she, in fact, continued communication.
Analysis
28I have considered Mr. Enaya’s evidence within the context of the complete evidentiary record, which has been placed before me. I accept that he did not threaten Ms. Pahal in the manner she alleges. Rather, I find he exploited what Ms. Pahal admitted was a desire to conceal her relationship with Mr. Enaya from her father. As previously stated, I have concluded the electronic communication is corroborative of this aspect of Mr. Enaya’s evidence. Mr. Enaya provided evidence that was candid, detailed and it flowed logically. I believe him.
29With a view to the criminal harassment allegations, I do not find that Ms. Pahal was “harassed”. Moreover, I completely reject any contention by Ms. Pahal that Mr. Enaya’s conduct relative to her made her fearful of her safety, or the safety of her family members. I also reject Ms. Pahal’s assertion that she conveyed to Mr. Enaya that she no longer wished to communicate with him at any point prior to April 16, 2023. The electronic communication is simply not corroborative of this aspect of her evidence. She may have “tried” to cease communication with Mr. Enaya; notwithstanding, she herself continued with the contact.
30Even if I had completely rejected the evidence of Mr. Enaya, and it had not left me in reasonable doubt, I was highly troubled by the evidence of Ms. Pahal. I did not find her to be a credible witness, nor did I find her evidence to be reliable. Carrying my analysis forward in the alternative, it would have been unsafe to convict Mr. Enaya, relying on evidence such as this.
Conclusion
31In the result, I find Mr. Enaya not guilty as charged with respect to all counts on the information before the court.
Released: June 27, 2025
Justice Jennifer Campitelli