ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Toronto Region
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
Targe MOOROE
Before Justice C. Faria
Heard on August 26, 27, and September 5, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on November 12, 2025
Alex Rourke counsel for the Crown
Allison Shields counsel for the defendant Targe MOOROE
I. Introduction
1Targe Mooroe is accused of assaulting Joan Zapata, a maintenance worker on duty at 2777 Kipling Avenue, on January 13, 2021. Mr. Mooroe was on a Release Order at the time, which forbade him from attending a certain area which included this address. He was charged with Assault and Fail to Comply – Release Order contrary to ss. 266 and 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code.
2The Crown called 3 witnesses, namely the complainant, the complainant’s manager who observed part of the altercation, and the officer who investigated the event and arrested Mr. Mooroe. Ms. Rourke filed CCTV surveillance video depicting the altercation, video of the scene, the body-worn camera footage of the arresting officer, photos of the injuries Mr. Zapata sustained. as well as the certified documents containing the conditions Mr. Mooroe was to follow while on release at the time.
3Mr. Mooroe testified in his own defence.
4The Crown submits the court should accept the evidence of its witnesses, reject Mr. Mooroe’s evidence, and find the Crown has proven each element of both charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
5The Defence submits the court should accept Mr. Mooroe’s evidence and find the physical altercation was a consensual fight, or in the alternative, that he was acting in self-defence. The Defence further submits that the court should accept Mr. Mooroe’s evidence that he was unaware of the condition not to be at 2777 Kipling. Ms. Shields submits that the Crown has not disproven self-defence, nor the mens rea of the FTC-Release count beyond a reasonable doubt; Mr. Moore should, therefore, be found not guilty of both charges.
II. Issues
6Date, jurisdiction, identity, and the validity of the certified documents are all conceded.
7I summarize the issues to be decided briefly as follows:
(i) Was the physical altercation between Mr. Mooroe and Mr. Zapata an assault or a consensual fight?
(ii) If the physical altercation was not a consensual fight, was Mr. Mooroe acting in self-defence when he assaulted Mr. Zapata?
(iii) Has the Crown proven the subjective mens rea of the FTC-Release charge beyond a reasonable doubt
III. Legal Principles
8As in every criminal case, the onus rests on the Crown to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is inextricably linked to the presumption of innocence. The onus rests with the prosecution throughout the trial and never shifts. Reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense which must be logically based upon the evidence or lack of evidence.1
9Credibility relates to whether a witness is speaking the truth as she/he/they believe it to be. Reliability relates to the actual accuracy of the testimony. A credible witness may give unreliable evidence.2 Accordingly, there is a distinction between a finding of credibility and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.3 The credibility and reliability of a witness must be, “tested in the light of all the other evidence presented.”4
10In assessing competing evidence, I cannot compare each account and decide which account I believe.5 I can believe or disbelieve a witness, but still be left with a reasonable doubt after considering all the evidence. Moreover, I can accept some, all, or none of a witness’ evidence. Frailties and/or inconsistencies in a witness’ evidence does not necessarily mean their evidence should be rejected. 6
11When the defendant testifies, as Mr. Mooroe did in this case, the leading applicable case guiding my analysis is W.(D.) provides the following test: 7
If I accept Mr. Mooroe’s evidence, I must acquit him.
Even if I do not accept Mr. Mooroe’s testimony, if it leaves me with a reasonable doubt, I must acquit him.
Even if Mr. Mooroe‘s evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt, I must consider all the evidence I accept to satisfy myself that the Crown has met its high burden and proven beyond a reasonable doubt all of the essential elements of the offences.
12As Mr. Mooroe raised self-defence, s. 34 of the Criminal Code must be considered, which states:
34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
13To determine whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties, and the act, including, but not limited to, the factors identified in s. 34(2).
14The three inquires regarding the assault and availability of self-defence are (1) the catalyst; (2) the motive; and (3) the response. The onus is on the Crown to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.8
15Pursuant to R. v. Zora9, the Supreme Court of Canada stated the subjective mens rea elements the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt for the charge of Fail to Comply with a Release Order are:
(1) The accused had knowledge of the conditions of their bail order, or they were wilfully blind to those conditions; and
(2) The accused knowingly failed to act according to their bail conditions, meaning they knew of the circumstances requiring them to comply with the conditions of their order, or they were wilfully blind to these circumstances, and failed to comply with their conditions despite that knowledge; or
(3) The accused recklessly failed to act according to their bail conditions, meaning that the accused perceived a substantial and unjustified risk that their conduct would likely fail to comply with their bail conditions and persisted in this conduct. (emphasis added)
IV. Evidence
16Joan Zapata testified he was 19 years old when he worked at 2777 Kipling as a cleaning superintendent. On January 13, 2021, he was cleaning the garage with an older co-worker, Mario Silvero who was in his 60’s. Everyone in the building has a specific parking spot. The superintendents used a particular non-parking area to empty garbage bins for the compactor. It was also a location people dropped garbage, and he had to clean the area.
17That morning, a vehicle was parked in the non-parking area. The occupants of the car were smoking. Mr. Zapata told the driver twice he could not park there and to move the vehicle. The passenger appeared annoyed. The car drove away.
18The car then returned, and the passenger, Mr. Mooroe exited the vehicle and confronted him and Mr. Silvero. He was angry his driver had been told to leave. Mr. Mooroe aggressively approached the older Mr. Silvero, and Mr. Zapata placed the broom in his hand between the two men to create space because he concerned for Mr. Silvero’s safety.
19Mr. Mooroe momentarily left the two workers, returned to his car, then immediately turned around and began to punch Mr. Zapata.
20Mr. Zapata was punched several times in the head and face, his head hit concrete, he fell to the ground and he was pushed against a wall. He tried to push Mr. Mooroe way and tried to strike back. His co-worker tried to help. His supervisor then arrived, and Mr. Mooroe got into the car and left.
21Mr. Zapata testified he was mildly concussed. He sustained injuries to the right side of his face, neck, and forehead. These injuries were evident in the photo of Mr. Zapata taken by police shortly after the altercation.
22In cross-examination, Mr. Zapata conceded: there was not a “no parking” sign; the pilon that was supposed to be in the spot had been moved to the side; he waved the broom at the non-parking spot when speaking to Mr. Mooroe; he, too, was annoyed with Mr. Mooroe; although Mr. Silvero thought Mr. Mooroe had a gun, he did not think the same; he did not detail his injuries to EMS who arrived on scene. Mr. Zapata explained he was experiencing a lot of adrenaline when he gave his statement to police within 10 minutes of event.
23Mr. Zapata was unshaken that he did not want to fight Mr. Mooroe, and he did not strike Mr. Mooroe first.
24Nicholas Di Iacovo, Mr. Zapata’s supervisor at the time, testified he was called down to the parking garage because, one of his employees was being “assaulted.” He saw Mr. Zapata “grappling” and “tussling” with a man who was holding Mr. Zapata up against a wall. Mr. Silvero, another employee, was trying to break up the two men but was “not too involved” because “he is older.” The man involved with Mr. Zapata got into a car that was stationed close by and left.
25Police Constable Myles Glazer was called to the 2777 Kipling garage to investigate the event. While doing so, Mr. Mooroe returned to the scene, was pointed out by Mr. Zapata as the perpetrator of the assault and he was arrested. PC Glazer did not see any injuries on Mr. Mooroe. He watched the CCTV footage of the event, was unable to download it, so he filmed it on his body-worn camera. This was an exhibit at the trial.
26Mr. Mooroe testified that on the morning of January 13, 2021, he was a passenger in his own car, that he bought in someone else’s name, as he had no licence, and could not drive. He was in the parking garage of 2777 Kipling waiting to meet someone to get a pay cheque. He testified a worker at 2777 Kipling had said he could park in a spot that obstructed other cars.
27Mr. Mooroe testified that he was on the phone when a janitor, Mr. Zapata, spoke to the driver. When the driver left, he asked the driver what the conversation was about. Once he was informed of the conversation, he instructed the driver return to area so he could “chat” with the janitor.
28Mr. Mooroe got out of his car and to speak to both janitors when Mr. Zapata got “in his face” and was disrespectful to him. Mr. Mooroe testified Mr. Zapata placed his hands on Mr. Mooroe’s chest., and Mr. Mooroe brushed them off while continuing to speak to Mr. Silvero. He wanted an explanation as to why he could not park where he had been parked.
29Mr. Mooroe testified Mr. Zapata punched him in the head. He thought, “This is it,” and so, they began fighting and grabbing each other. He could not recall if he pushed Mr. Zapata against the wall, but they struck each other, and Mr. Zapata tripped and hit the floor.
30He testified he did not want to fight Mr. Zapata, he did not want to hurt him, and that he did not remember how the interaction ended. Mr. Mooroe’s friend dropped him off at 2677 Kipling where he lived close by. He returned to the underground parking garage shortly thereafter and was arrested.
31Mr. Mooroe testified he had been arrested in March 2020 when he went to report to probation. He was charged with robbery. Mr. Mooroe testified that he was driven to the police station, signed a paper, and was subsequently released; he also testified he could not “really remember” the police station interactions, whether he read the Release, or if anyone explained the conditions of his Release.
32When asked by his counsel if he knew he was not supposed to be in the area of 2777 Kipling, Mr. Mooroe testified he could not “recall reading that part of the paper”, he “did not remember if he read it or not”.
33In cross-examination, Mr. Mooroe agreed that:
Instead of letting the parking matter go, he insisted his friend circle back to the janitor so he could speak to him.
He did not go to management to confirm he could park in the no-parking spot.
He recognized Mr. Zapata was a janitor, and not managerial staff.
He got out of the car to confront Mr. Zapata.
He got to within a foot of Mr. Silvero when he confronted him.
Mr. Silvero was walking backward as Mr. Mooroe approached him.
Mr. Mooroe returned to his car but decided to turn around and re-engage with the janitors.
He became angry with Mr. Zapata.
Mr. Zapata was walking backwards as Mr. Mooroe walked towards Mr. Zapata.
He did hit Mr. Zapata numerous times.
34In cross-examination, Mr. Mooroe also confirmed:
He has a criminal record.
This was not the first time he was released on bail with conditions.
He knew he had to follow conditions when released.
He did sign the Release Order with the boundary condition (f) “not to enter the area bounded by Steeles Avenue, Islington Avenue, Highway 27, and Rexdale Blvd.”
He “probably read” the boundary condition, but “can’t remember”.
He knows that if he did not follow conditions, he could be breaching the Release Order.
He needed to know what conditions to follow so as not to breach those conditions.
35In re-examination, Mr. Mooroe testified that he provided his mother’s address, 2677 Kipling, to the officers as to where he lived. This address had been the one he was previously to live at on a previous charge. The address is within the prohibited boundary.
V. Findings of Fact
36Mr. Zapata testified in a straight-forward, consistent, coherent manner. Any inconsistencies between his police statement and his evidence, such as the specificity of his injuries, the colour of Mr. Mooroe’s clothes, the number of people in the vehicle before it left and after it returned, and whether there was a “no parking” sign, were peripheral to the narrative of offence. I accept his evidence that Mr. Mooroe became confrontational and aggressive, then physically attacked Mr. Zapata, as credible and reliable.
37The CCTV surveillance video of the event depicts the assault as Mr. Zapata described it:
The spot where Mr. Mooroe had his friend park his car is not a designated parking spot.
Mr. Moore returned in the same vehicle, exited it, and confronted the two janitors.
Mr. Mooroe is seen aggressively approaching Mr. Silvero, and Mr. Zapata trying to intervene.
Mr. Moore rushes to his car, then returns, and aggressively approaches Mr. Zapata as he walks backwards, retreating.
Mr. Mooroe repeatedly punches Mr. Zapata about the face and head, pushes him down, and against a wall.
At one point Mr. Mooroe punches Mr. Zapata 7 consecutive times.
Consensual Fight
38An assault is the intentional application of force on another person, directly or indirectly without their consent.
39I find there was no consensual fight because:
Mr. Di Iacovo was not there when the dispute between the two parties erupted, and his description of the interaction as a “tussle” is not evidence that Mr. Zapata consented to a fight.
The video does not show Mr. Zapata touch Mr. Mooroe’s chest with his hands, and Mr. Mooroe brushing them off.
Mr. Zapata did not strike Mr. Mooroe first.
I accept Mr. Zapata did not want to fight, and did not consent to Mr. Mooroe assaulting him.
I reject Mr. Mooroe’s evidence and it does not raise a reasonable doubt.
Self-Defence
40Mr. Mooroe asserts he struck Mr. Zapata in self-defence and so the Crown must disprove that defence beyond a reasonable doubt.
41I consider ss. 34(1) and the factors enumerated in s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code.
42I accept Mr. Zapata’s evidence that he did not strike Mr. Mooroe first. The video evidence shows Mr. Mooroe as the aggressor throughout in the following ways:
Mr. Mooroe returns to the scene to confront Mr. Zapata.
He aggressively approaches and confronts Mr. Silvero who is older and vulnerable as described by both Mr. Zapata and Mr. Di Iacovo.
Mr. Zapata intervened between Mr. Silvero and Mr. Mooroe who was within a foot of Mr. Silvero.
Mr. Silvero is seen retreating from Mr. Mooroe.
Mr. Mooroe leaves his confrontation with the two janitors to go to his car, but turns around rushes to Mr. Zapata.
Mr. Zapata is retreating from Mr. Mooroe as Mr. Mooroe moves forward and swings at Mr. Zapata.
Mr. Zapata repeated punches Mr. Zapata, at one point with 7 consecutive punches to the head and face.
43Mr. Mooroe was not facing imminent threat. Mr. Zapata did not strike him. If Mr. Mooroe believed Mr. Zapata was going to use force, he had an available avenue of safe retreat, his car. In fact, Mr. Mooroe did go to his car, then rejected that option, and purposely re-engaged with Mr. Zapata.
44Mr. Zapata is clearly retreating when Mr. Mooroe attacks him. Moreover, even if Mr. Mooroe had felt threatened, in addition to not retreating to his car, his response of numerous punches to the head, the throwing of Mr. Zapata to the ground, and the consecutive 7 punches, were not a reasonable in the circumstances.
45The evidence of both Mr. Zapata and the video is clear. I find the Crown has disproven self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mens Rea of Fail to Comply – Release Order
46It is conceded Mr. Mooroe that:
i. Mr. Mooroe was arrested and charged on March 2, 2020, with an Information charging him with the robbery of Sharon Roy on February 8, 2020, breaching a keep the peace condition of a probation order made July 30, 2019, and breaching a keep the peace condition of a probation order made on November 27, 2018.
ii. He was released on an Undertaking dated that same day, March 2, 2020, with four conditions:
a. That he notify DC Terzopoulos #9628 D233 MCU within 24 hours of any change of his address or employment;
b. That he not communicate directly or indirectly with Sharon Roy;
c. That he not enter the area bounded by Steeles Ave, Islington Ave., Hwy 27 and Rexdale Blvd; and
d. That he not possess a firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, and surrender those that are in his possession and also any authorization, licence, or registration certificate or other documents enabling him to acquire or possess them.
iii. The parking garage at 2777 Kipling Ave. is within the boundary Mr. Mooroe was not to be in.
47In addition to signing at the bottom of the Undertaking, Mr. Mooroe’s initials, “TM,” are by the Undertaking section “Consequences For Non-Compliance,” which outline the consequences of not complying with the conditions set out in the Undertaking.
48Mr. Mooroe was experienced with the concept of release conditions in general, and acknowledged he specifically understood he had been released on conditions in March 2020.
49Mr. Mooroe’s attitude when cross-examined by the Crown about the specifics of his release in March 2020 was literally “whatever,” the word he used to explain the situation. He was confident there was no merit to the charge of robbery, and so, he was dismissive of both the process and release order. He testified he was “unaware” of the boundary condition.
50Mr. Mooroe’s cavalier attitude about his release conditions was demonstrated by his equivocal responses to nearly every aspect of the Undertaking: whether he read his conditions, knew what the conditions were, if they were explained to him, what it means to follow conditions, and what it means to breach them. His indifference was also blatant about signing the document and what it contained. These details appeared to simply not be worth his time.
51I therefore find the Crown has proven Mr. Mooroe was wilfully blind about the boundary condition on his Undertaking.
52I must determine if Mr. Mooroe recklessly failed to not to follow the boundary condition because he perceived a substantial and unjustified risk that his conduct would likely fail to comply with his bail condition, and he persisted in this conduct.
53The evidence on this point is:
Mr. Mooroe testified that he had lived with his mother at 808- 2677 Kipling Ave. and gave the police that address which is within the boundary.
That address is noted on the Undertaking as his address and where he is to be contacted.
There are no exceptions to the boundary condition on the Undertaking.
Mr. Mooroe went back to the scene of the altercation, and when he saw the officers, he approached them.
54Given Mr. Mooroe’s approach to the officers in a location that he was not to be in attendance, it is plausible that Mr. Mooroe, though wilfully blind, did not perceive any substantial risk that he was failing to comply with a condition of his release and persisted in his conduct.
55Mr. Mooroe’s evidence raises a reasonable doubt on the second prong of the W. (D.) analysis, and the second element of the subjective mens rea that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
VI. Conclusion
56For the above reasons, I find the Crown has proven the assault charge beyond a reasonable doubt, but failed to do so on the Fail to Comply with Release Order charge.
57I find Targe Mooroe guilty of assaulting Joan Zapata, and not guilty of failing to comply with his release order.
Released: November 12, 2025
Signed: Justice Cidalia C. G. Faria
Footnotes
- R. v. Lifchus, 1997 CanLII 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320 at para. 39.
- R. v. Morrissey, 1995 CanLII 3498 (ON CA), [1995] O.J. No. 639 (C.A.) at para. 33; R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56, [2009] O.J. No. 214 (C.A.) at para. 41
- R. v. J.J.R.D., 2006 CanLII 40088 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 4749 (C.A.) at para. 47; R. v. J.W., [2014] O.J. No. 1979 (C.A.) at para. 26.
- R. v. Stewart, 1994 CanLII 7208 (ON CA), [1994] O.J. No. 811 (C.A.) at para. 27
- R. v. Esquivel-Benitez, 2020 ONCA 160
- R. v. J.J.R.D. 2006 CanLII 40088 (ON CA) at paras.46-48, leave to appeal to SCC. Refused, [2007] S.C.C.A. no. 69
- R. v. W.(D.) (1991) 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), 63 CCC (3d) 397 (S.C.C.) 1
- R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37
- R. v. Zora, 2020 SCC 14 at para. 109