ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
TYRIAL MILLER
Before Justice P.F. Band
Heard August 11-14, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on September 9, 2025
Mr. M. Boissoneault counsel for the Crown
Ms. A. Shakeel counsel for Mr. Miller
BAND J.:
I. INTRODUCTION AND ISSUES
1After a domestic dispute that happened on May 1, 2024, Mr. Tyrial Miller was charged with assaulting, choking and pointing a loaded handgun at his then girlfriend, Ms. Dejauna Lindo. The incidents took place at Mr. Miller’s mother’s apartment. When police investigated later that night, they found a loaded handgun under a pile of wet laundry on the balcony. Mr. Miller was also charged with a series of firearms offences and breaches of court orders.
2Mr. Miller pleaded not guilty, and a three-witness trial proceeded before me.
3At the outset, the Crown applied to have text messages and other evidence admitted as an exception to the rule against prior discreditable conduct. I admitted a series of text messages in which Mr. Miller apologized for assaulting Ms. Lindo in April to provide context for their rocky relationship and because it could help explain the growing animosity in that relationship. I also admitted evidence that Ms. Lindo had seen the handgun prior to the events in question. I did so with conditions aimed at keeping the trial focused on the subject matter of the charges before the Court.
4While not strictly a prior discreditable conduct issue, it was agreed that testimony about Mr. Miller’s history of infidelity would be admissible at trial, as it further explained the issues in the relationship and was relevant to the incidents before the Court.
5Later, with Ms. Shakeel’s consent, I allowed the Crown to cross-examine Mr. Miller on his Youth Court record.
6The central issue in this trial is whether the Crown has proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt. That question turns on the credibility of Ms. Lindo and Mr. Miller. (While I also heard from the officer who found the handgun pursuant to a judicial authorization, her evidence was not challenged.)
II. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE EVENTS AT ISSUE
7A summary of the events will place the issues in context.
8Mr. Miller and Ms. Lindo are 20 and 23 years old, respectively. They met in 2023 and started dating in the spring or summer. They have a son who was born in March 2024. That pregnancy was unplanned. Ms. Lindo had a strained relationship with her mother and spent most of her pregnancy with Mr. Miller at his mother’s apartment. After the birth of their son in March 2024, she returned to her mother’s house for a short period. Mr. Miller would visit and help with the baby. Then, Ms. Lindo moved back to Mr. Miller’s mother’s apartment with the baby. Ms. Lindo had a very good relationship with Mr. Miller’s mother.
9At the time, Mr. Miller’s mother, his sister Sarah, his younger brother Kamreese and his older brothers Chris and Kevin also lived in the apartment. His mother’s boyfriend visited frequently but did not spend the night. At times, young cousins also came over. The apartment had three pre-existing bedrooms that were occupied by Mr. Miller’s mother and brothers. Mr. Miller occupied a part of the living room that had been walled off for his privacy. His sister slept in the bunkbed in the remaining part of the living room. Mr. Miller’s space was closest to the balcony door.
10Mr. Miller and Ms. Lindo agree that their relationship had been tumultuous. They were on and off and they argued a lot. Mr. Miller had cheated on her repeatedly. This led to conflict in which she would confront him, he would admit it, she would leave, he would promise never to do it again and she would return. They give different descriptions of the level of physicality that their arguments would involve, but both agree that nothing as serious as what is alleged to have happened on May 1 had ever happened before.
11On April 24, they got into a physical altercation. They present different versions as to what happened and who was the aggressor. According to her, it took place when she was in the back seat of the car and Mr. Miller was in the driver’s seat. Her version describes a violent series of incidents in which Mr. Miller was the aggressor in the car, where he slammed her head into the rear passenger window, and then upstairs, where he punched her. The incident also left her with scratches on her chest. According to Mr. Miller, the incident began outside the car, when she was pulling on his shirt as he tried to buckle up the baby. He turned around and slapped her. Both ended up in the car, where Ms. Lindo slapped him from the back seat several times and pulled his hair. He pushed her into the back seat to get her to release his hair. Both got out of the car and then he returned to it and left. He saw no injuries on her at the time.
12For a short time, Mr. Miller and Ms. Lindo had a dog. They had to give it up in mid-March because it had attacked his little sister and a neighbour. Mr. Miller heard from his sister that it had also scratched Ms. Lindo. Ms. Lindo denied ever having been harmed by the dog.
13Mr. Miller and Ms. Lindo also agree that on May 1, on the way home from spending time with friends, he realized that he had lost his cell phone. They retraced his steps but were unable to find it. In the elevator up to the apartment, Ms. Lindo offered him her second phone. He set up his iCloud account on the phone, and then began to clear it of Ms. Lindo’s messages. It was then that he discovered a message from Ms. Lindo telling a man that she missed him. Sarah, Chris, Kevin and the baby were at home. Mr. Miller’s mother was not.
14Beyond that, their accounts are very different.
15According to Ms. Lindo, Mr. Miller became upset and confronted her about the message. He Facetimed the other male and then “went off” as she put it. He went to the other room. She went to tell him that it was not what he was thinking. Then, she went to the balcony to make a call. When she re-entered the apartment, Mr. Miller hit her on the right side of her face and called her a whore while he was holding the baby. It was hard enough to leave a mark. She fought back by slapping him in the face. The two yelled back and forth. He was upset that she had hit him while he was holding their son. He handed the baby to his sister. He hit Ms. Lindo several times. Then, he pushed her onto his bed and got on top of her. They were at the extremity of the bed near the dresser. He strangled her with both hands. It did not last long, and she did not lose consciousness, but her vision “went a little dark” and “starry.” He then reached behind him with his right hand and retrieved a black handgun from the dresser drawer while keeping his left hand on her neck. He pointed the gun to her head. He said he’d kill her, asked “why would you do that to me?” and told her that she was not to be with anybody else. During the incident, Mr. Miller pulled off her wig.
16Chris came in, pulled Mr. Miller off Ms. Lindo and told her to go to his room. She did so. At this point, she did not know if Chris saw the gun or where it was. About five minutes later, Chris came to see her. Mr. Miller followed him and yelled at her. He reached over Chris’s shoulder and hit her. She made her way to Mr. Miller’s mother’s room, locked it and called 911. She stayed there until police arrived. She told them about the gun and that her prints may be on it because she had handled it earlier.
17In her 911 call, Ms. Lindo is extremely upset and raw. Mr. Miller can be heard in the background implying that she was lying about the gun and that he had made gun gestures with his hands. He also told her to tell the police to come search the house.
18When police arrived, Ms. Lindo was still very upset and agitated. She was not wearing her wig. In the SOCO photos, she remains teary.
19Ms. Lindo described the firearm as a black handgun like those that police officers carry. She had seen it earlier that day when Mr. Miller passed it to her and asked her to put it away in the dresser. She saw the “clip” with gold-coloured bullets in it. He also showed her one that she described as purple tipped. He told her that it is the kind that explodes in the body. He told her he had the gun for protection.
20The handgun that was found on the balcony is indeed a black semi-automatic pistol that looks like those carried by police. The bullets in the magazine are gold coloured, except for the one on the top which, based on the photographs, counsel agree is blue tipped.
21For his part, Mr. Miller, denied assaulting Ms. Lindo as described, or using a firearm or knowing of its existence in the apartment. Rather, he got upset about the text message and the fact that Ms. Lindo was lying to him about it. For the first time in their relationship, he felt like she had cheated on him. But he went to his room because she was lying to him. He spent time with the baby. Ms. Lindo came to keep arguing, which he did not want to do. So, he got up to give the baby to his sister. In doing so, he brushed past Ms. Lindo and made contact with her shoulder as the space was tight. She slapped him on the side of the face. After handing off the baby, he turned around and Ms. Lindo slapped him again. So, he took both of her hands with his and pulled them downward, telling her to stop putting her hands on him. It was then that he made the hand gestures that resembled guns. He demonstrated these gestures – both hands in front of his body in a relaxed position, with the index and middle fingers pointing roughly forward and the ring and pinky finger curled inward at approximately a right angle. He also testified that this is what he does when he talks. She pushed him and he fell into a clothing rack. He got up and shoved her. She held his hair they fell onto the bed. She was screaming and Chris came in and tried to pull him off her. Ms. Lindo was holding his hair, and Chris had to disentangle it from her hand. He and Chris argued because he and the rest of the family always took Ms. Lindo’s side.
22When police arrived just after 11PM, Mr. Miller was sitting in the hallway outside his mother’s unit, holding the baby. He was calm and cooperative.
23Mr. Miller’s Youth Court record spans March 2021 to March 2023. It includes two robberies, one count each of uttering threats, assault, assault with a weapon and assault by choking, and several breaches of court orders.
24At the time of the incident, Mr. Miller was on a bail with a 10 p.m. curfew. He was also supposed to live at his aunt’s apartment, which was in the same building.
III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
25On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Boissoneault submits that I ought to accept Ms. Lindo’s evidence and reject Mr. Miller’s. He argues that I should do so because Ms. Lindo’s testimony is buttressed by a number of pieces of evidence that lend credit to it: (1) the 911 call, which is powerful circumstantial evidence of her state of mind minutes after the incident; (2) real corroborative evidence, including the handgun and the fact that she was not wearing her wig when police arrived; and (3) the escalating animus between the two, which fits her account of the events of May 1 and speaks to motive.
26While he does not argue that Mr. Miller’s account, standing alone, is fatally flawed, he maintains that it ought to be rejected because it does not add up when considered along with the totality of the evidence. Likewise, it should not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind. While he accepts that Mr. Miller’s Youth Court record ought to be treated with caution, he submits that it is nonetheless evidence of dishonesty and disregard for court orders. He also argues that his account of his PTSD and how he manages it was not credible when considered against his Youth Court record.
27On behalf of Mr. Miller, Ms. Shakeel submits that Mr. Miller’s evidence ought to be believed or, in the alternative, that it should raise a reasonable doubt in my mind. In the further alternative, she argues that Ms. Lindo’s evidence lacks credibility, reliability and plausibility. It also reflects a motive to fabricate. As such, it cannot be the foundation for a finding of guilt.
28Moreover, she argues that there are other reasonable inferences with respect to the existence of the firearm in the apartment that are inconsistent with Mr. Miller’s guilt: it could have been left there by one of the multiple residents or guests, including Ms. Lindo.
IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
29The Crown bears the entire burden of proving Mr. Miller’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That burden never shifts to Mr. Miller. In R. v. Lifchus, 1997 CanLII 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 320 at para. 36, the Supreme Court of Canada explained that reasonable doubt is not based on sympathy or prejudice; rather, it is based upon reason and common sense; it is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence; it does not involve proof to an absolute certainty; it is not proof beyond any doubt nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt.
30I also remind myself that criminal trials are not credibility contests. The question is always whether the Crown has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
31In cases such as this one, it is important to follow the analytical framework that the Supreme Court of Canada provided in R. v. W.D. (1991), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), 63 CCC (3d) 397 (S.C.C.) to ensure that the burden of proof does not shift. It is broken down into three prongs:
(i) If I believe Mr. Miller’s evidence and it is exculpatory, I must acquit him.
(ii) If I do not believe Mr. Miller’s testimony but am left in reasonable doubt by it, I must acquit him.
(iii) Even if I am not left in doubt by Mr. Miller’s evidence, I must ask whether, based on the evidence which I do accept, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of his guilt.
V. CREDIBILITY, RELIABILITY AND MOTIVE TO FABRICATE
32Ms. Shakeel argues that a number of inconsistencies in Ms. Lindo’s testimony should give me pause:
(a) Whether Mr. Miller hit her with an open or closed fist when she returned from the balcony;
(b) Whether Mr. Miller punched her several times while holding the baby, or after handing the baby off to his sister and whether the striking started before or after she went to the balcony;
(c) In-chief, she did not mention injuries to her face when shown a photograph; in cross-examination, she said she saw swelling and explained that she was not wearing her glasses, yet she was able to read text messages on the courtroom screen;
(d) She called 911 because she wanted police to attend and told them about the firearm but did not tell them about being choked, which is also a serious offence; she also told them about his release;
(e) Whether she locked Mr. Miller’s mother’s door or not; and
(f) She testified that the coloured bullet was purple tipped while the photo depicts it as blue tipped.
33She also argued that in failing to volunteer certain things that she had done during examination-in-chief, Ms. Lindo minimized her own misconduct.
34Ms. Shakeel further submitted that certain aspects of Ms. Lindo’s evidence were implausible: the absence of bruising on her neck; the fact that she did not fight back when being choked; her account of how Mr. Miller retrieved the handgun; and the fact that Chris did not react to the firearm itself.
35Lastly, Ms. Shakeel argued that Ms. Lindo’s strong relationship with Mr. Miller’s mother and family could have given her a motive to fabricate the allegations for fear that she would lose face because of the text message that she had sent to the other man.
36In contrast, Ms. Shakeel argued that Mr. Miller’s testimony was detailed, consistent and plausible. Moreover, he admitted past instances of wrongdoing or dishonesty.
37Mr. Boissoneault accepts that Ms. Lindo’s testimony is not perfect. However, she was careful when she could not remember something with certainty, and easily admitted certain facts put to her in cross-examination. The core of her account – what happened in Mr. Miller’s room – was not shaken. Also, her account is supported by the factors I have listed above.
38He also argued that nothing could be made of Ms. Lindo’s failure to fight back when being choked, or of the lack of evidence of Chris’s reaction, if any.
VI. ANALYSIS
39I have carefully considered the evidence in its totality. I do not accept Mr. Miller’s evidence as truthful, and it does not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind. This is because it conflicts with the evidence that I do believe to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt: this includes Ms. Lindo’s account of what happened to her on May 1, which was supported or corroborated by other evidence, including the firearm that was found on the balcony. I also had some concerns with Mr. Miller’s credibility. I will explain why.
40Despite some inconsistencies in Ms. Lindo’s testimony, I found her to be a credible and reliable witness who appeared to me to be doing her best to tell the truth. Her account made sense in the context of the increasing animosity that existed between the two of them. For the first time in a short relationship that involved physical and verbal altercations, Mr. Miller came to believe that Ms. Lindo had been unfaithful to him.
41I do not agree that the inconsistencies in Ms. Lindo’s testimony are as numerous or important as Ms. Shakeel suggests. On either account, what happened between the two of them on May 1 was a situation of high stress and conflict that began before they ended up in Mr. Miller’s room. All of it happened in very cramped spaces. In that context, Ms. Lindo’s inability to recall exactly when, where and how she was struck at the outset is of little moment. I saw no inconsistency in Ms. Lindo’s testimony about her ability to read the text messages in court – one screen was right in front of her and a very large one was nearby. Her testimony in cross-examination that her face showed some swelling was a minor point in the context of the allegations and she did not dwell on it. I take the same view of Ms. Lindo’s inconsistent testimony as to whether she had locked Mr. Miller’s mother’s door behind her after minutes after the incident.
42With respect to what she told the dispatcher in the 911 call, again context matters. This was a short and tumultuous relationship, most of which overlapped with Ms. Lindo’s unplanned pregnancy. Both accepted a certain amount of verbal or physical violence from each other. She knew that Mr. Miller had a firearm but was not concerned because he told her it was for protection. However, he crossed a line when he pointed it at her. Also, Ms. Lindo struck me as a person with a certain amount of “street smarts.” She wanted the police to come as soon as possible. In the circumstances, focusing on the firearm and telling the dispatcher that Mr. Miller was still there and was required to remain there because of a curfew makes sense. It did not undermine her allegation that she had also been choked.
43I did not find Ms. Lindo’s description of the coloured bullet to be problematic. Colour perception is to some extent subjective. It depends on a number of factors, including lighting. She testified to having seen it in the apartment and it was photographed by police at another location and under different conditions. Also, blue and purple are proximate on the colour spectrum. What is more, there was only one coloured bullet in the firearm, and it stood in stark contrast with the others, which were all gold in colour.
44I also found that Ms. Lindo easily admitted things that did not reflect well on her, including her role in the April 24 incident. In the context of the evidence as a whole, I did not find that she attempted to minimize her behaviour.
45Ms. Lindo’s account was not implausible. She explained that when she was being choked, Mr. Miller had his full weight on her and her arms were at her sides. He is bigger than her and he is also much stronger. Also, there is no one way to react when being choked. I did not find her failure to fight back in those brief moments to be implausible. The absence of bruising after the brief incident of choking that she described did not cause me concern either.
46Given the layout of the room, Mr. Miller’s size and their position on the bed, it would have been easy for Mr. Miller to reach back and retrieve the firearm.
47I also agree with the Crown that the lack of evidence about Chris’s reaction to the gun, if indeed he saw it, should not affect the credibility or plausibility of Ms. Lindo’s account. There is not enough evidence about him, his lifestyle or his temperament.
48With respect to a motive to fabricate, I remind myself that (1) there is no onus on Mr. Miller to prove that Ms. Lindo had a motive to fabricate, and (2) the absence of an apparent motive does not bolster Ms. Lindo’s credibility: R. v. Bartholomew 2019 ONCA 377 at paras. 21-22.
49I see no apparent motive to fabricate here. Such a motive on these facts would be very thin. The text message is ambiguous, and the family had consistently sided with Ms. Lindo in the past. Moreover, this was a short and turbulent relationship and despite it all, Ms. Lindo explained that she had been open to co-parenting with Mr. Miller after May 1.
50Ms. Lindo’s description of the events was detailed and compelling. Her description of the firearm and ammunition that were on the balcony was detailed and substantially accurate. Her emotional state during the 911 call provided compelling support for the serious allegations she has made. That heightened emotional state made sense in the context of the trajectory of her relationship with Mr. Miller. I also note that Mr. Miller confirmed Ms. Lindo’s testimony that Chris intervened and pulled him off her. I believed it to be truthful and accurate.
51It is true that when Mr. Miller’s account is considered on its own, no clear flaws emerge. But that is not the right way to approach it. It must be viewed in the context of the evidence as a whole. His credibility must also be considered.
52As I indicated, I reject Mr. Miller’s version of events because it conflicts with the evidence that I do accept as truthful and accurate. Stacked beside Ms. Lindo’s testimony, the 911 recording and the real evidence, including the firearm, Mr. Miller’s account is not capable of belief.
53With respect to credibility, I found that Mr. Miller’s explanation about his hand gestures was contrived. First, they could in no way be confused with a firearm in these circumstances. Second, as he testified, making those gestures with both hands is how he talks.
54Mr. Miller’s Youth Record should not be given undue weight for the reasons set out by Justice Nakatsuru in R. v. I.T. 2024 ONSC 6176 beginning at para. 37. That said, it does have some impact on his credibility and respect for court orders. This is because of the nature of the relevant entries on it, and the fact that they are quite recent.
55For these reasons, Mr. Miller’s evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind either.
56Having said that, I must consider whether other plausible theories or reasonable possibilities that are inconsistent with Mr. Miller’s guilt arise from the evidence or lack of evidence in this case: see R. v. Villaroman 2016 SCC 33. Ms. Shakeel argues that the firearm could have been left in the apartment without Mr. Miller’s knowledge by one of the other occupants or frequent visitors, including Ms. Lindo.
57Even Mr. Miller does not believe that the firearm was Ms. Lindo’s. I also reject that suggestion as implausible. I believed her that it was not hers, and that what she knew about it was what Mr. Miller showed and told her. I also find that there is no reasonable possibility that Mr. Miller did not have knowledge or control of the firearm because I am convinced that he showed it to Ms. Lindo earlier in the day and asked her to put it in the dresser.
VII. CONCLUSION
58For these reasons, I find that the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Miller is guilty of all the offences charged. I will invite the parties to provide their views with respect to the application of the Kienapple principle.
Released: September 9, 2025
Justice P.F. Band