ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
25-50000529
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
Adam Joseph CANALI
Before Justice Cidalia C. G. Faria
Heard on October 22, 23, 2025
Oral Judgement December 2, 2025
Written Reasons December 3, 20251
Varda Anwar counsel for the Crown
Craig Zeeh counsel for the accused Adam Joseph CANALI
I. Overview
1Adam Joseph Canali is charged with 9 criminal offences, namely disguise with intent to commit a criminal offence, two counts of threatening death, robbery, two counts of assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and two counts of failing to comply with a probation order contrary to the Criminal Code2.
2The Crown called the two complainants, the arresting officer, and the first officer on scene as witnesses. She also filed 3 surveillance videos, 2 body-worn-camera (BWC) clips, medical records, and photos as exhibits. The defence filed a Google Maps photo. Mr. Canali did not testify.
3At the end of the Crown’s case, the Crown invited the Court to dismiss the threat count against Mr. Singh as no evidence was called on that count, and on the second fail to comply count as no documents for that second probation order were filed. Both count 1 and 8 were dismissed.
II. Issues & Position of the Parties
4The issue is whether every element of every offence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically:
a. Whether the words spoken amount to a threat to Mr. Kalathiya.
b. Whether the injuries Mr. Singh sustained amount to an aggravated assault.
c. Whether the identity of the perpetrator of the offences was proven to be Mr. Canali.
5The Crown submits that Mr. Kalathiya recognized Mr. Canali from a previous arrest and identified him to police immediately upon their arrival. She submits this evidence is credible and reliable and should be accepted. She further submits that the injuries sustained fit within the definition of an aggravated assault. All elements of all charges have been proven and Mr. Canali should be found guilty.
6Mr. Zeeh for the Defence submits Mr. Kalathiya’s ability to identify Mr. Canali as the man with whom he interacted on December 30, 2024, is unreliable as it is based on a fleeting glance of the culprit as he fled. He challenges whether the impression of what the suspect said to Mr. Kalathiya constitutes a threat. He also submits Mr. Singh was not wounded, maimed, or disfigured, and that his life was not endangered; thus, an aggravated assault has not been proven. Mr. Zeeh concedes that if identity is proven, then the probation breach count has been proven.
7Both counsel relied on case law in support of their position.3
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.4
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.5 Accordingly, there is a distinction between a finding of credibility and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.6 The credibility and reliability of a witness must be, “tested in the light of all the other evidence presented.”7
10The Criminal Code states:
268 (1) Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.
IV. Summary of Evidence
11The evidence heard over 2 days was straight-forward.
12On December 30, 2024, a man wearing a mask went into an LCBO store on Avenue Rd. in Toronto and took numerous bottles of alcohol from a shelf and put them into a box and a bag underneath a staircase in the store. He was attempting to steal the alcohol. Two loss prevention officers, Sajandeep Singh and Ronak Kalathiya, confronted him. A struggle between the three men ensued as the officers tried to take control and arrest the robber.
13The suspect fled, grabbed a bottle of alcohol and waved it at both officers when he exited the store. Mr. Singh and Mr. Kalathiya followed the suspect outside the store. As the suspect got to the exit, he waved the bottle in his hand at Mr. Singh and Mr. Kalathiya. Once outside the store, he threw a full bottle alcohol over Mr. Kalathiya’s head and the bottle hit Mr. Singh in the forehead. Mr. Singh was seriously injured. He collapsed shortly thereafter, experienced a seizure, sustained a brain bleed, and a two facial fractures.
14As Mr. Kalathiya followed the suspect out of the store, he saw the man without his mask and identified him to be Adam Canali. Mr. Canali was on two probation orders at the time.
15The surveillance videos depict what Mr. Singh and Mr. Kalathiya testified to. They show:
i. On December 24, 2024, a male, with light or white skin, wearing a black ski mask, dark pants, a dark t-shirt, and a dark multi-green coloured army-print jacket, was at the LCBO store. He is seen taking bottles of alcohol off a shelf and putting them in a bag and in a box under a staircase.
ii. Mr. Singh and Mr. Kalathiya approach the male. There is a moment before the three men become involved in a struggle. The box and bag with bottles of alcohol drop and the bottles break on the floor. The three men slip, slide and grapple with each other. Punches are thrown. Mr. Singh and Mr. Kalathiya were unable to get control of the male.
iii. As the male gets away, he leaves behind his jacket. He grabs a bottle of alcohol from a display case and continues to flee.
iv. The second LCBO video depicts the male at the exit of the LCBO store. As he is about to leave, he turns around and waves the bottle of alcohol in his hand at Mr. Singh and Mr. Kalathiya.
v. The third surveillance video, taken from a camera around the corner from the LCBO exit doors, captures the male, now without his mask, empty-handed, and fleeing the scene. Mr. Kalathiya is directly behind him in pursuit.
16Mr. Singh, who was 22 years old at the time of the robbery, testified as to what happened in much of the same way as the video of the event depicted it happened. He added that he identified himself as store security when he and his co-worker approached the masked male. He believed the male reached for his pant pocket and thought he might be reaching for a weapon, but there was no weapon. The video confirms this evidence. Mr. Singh did not recall anything the male said throughout the event. Mr. Singh testified that outside the store, the male threw the bottle in his hand at him. The bottle hit the left side of his head and broke. He recalls he fell to the ground, and staff helped him inside the store.
17Once back inside the store, Mr. Singh testified he remembers being light-headed, dizzy, and in pain. He recalls the police asking him for his name. He does not recall responding. He remembers his nose bleeding, the sound of sirens, paramedics attending, and a few “flashbacks” of being in an ambulance with an officer. He remembers re-gaining consciousness in the hospital. He recalls his supervisor and two friends were there. He underwent testing.
18Mr. Singh collapsed inside the LCBO store as depicted in P.C. Alessandro Muia’s BWC and had a full body seizure. Mr. Singh was medically treated, including undergoing several brain CT Scans that showed he sustained intercranial bleeding caused by the trauma to his head. He has experienced memory loss of the event. He was released from hospital with medication to minimize repeat seizures and instructions how to minimize his pain. Mr. Singh’s medical records were filed, and they are not disputed.
19Mr. Singh sustained a left frontal bone non-displaced fracture, a right sphenoid sinus superior wall non-displaced fracture, and an underlying left frontal small epidural hematoma. That is a brain bleed.
20Mr. Kalathiya testified in much the same manner as the video evidence and Mr. Singh. He added the following to the narrative:
i. After the male exited the LCBO, his mask was no longer on. He does not recall when the mask came off. He saw the male’s face.
ii. He recognized the male to be a man he had arrested a year before in December 2023 at the LCBO for assault.
iii. He also then recognized male’s accent when he said threatening words to the effect that he knew Mr. Kalathiya and would find him. He believed the accent to be Russian or Ukrainian but was unsure.
iv. When the male ran across the street, Mr. Kalathiya stopped giving chase and called 911.
v. The male continued to flee to a parking lot.
vi. When police arrived, Mr. Kalathiya looked through his phone and found Mr. Canali’s name and photo. He provided both the name and the photo to the officer.
vii. He estimated he observed Mr. Canali’s face for less than 30 seconds.
21In cross-examination, Mr. Kalathiya testified that his interaction with the male in December 2024 was shorter than his interaction with Mr. Canali in December 2023. How long he interacted with Mr. Canali in 2023 was not put into evidence. He had Mr. Canali’s photo in his phone because of that previous arrest, but no other details about that fact were elicited.
22Mr. Kalathiya conceded Mr. Canali had facial hair in the photo on his phone, but the fleeing suspect did not. He also conceded that his recognition and identification of Mr. Canali was at the time of the event, and not at the time of trial.
23There is no dispute the accused, Adam Canali, is the Adam Canali that Mr. Kalathiya identified to PC Mohammed Zourob on December 30, 2024, from the photo on his phone. PC Allessandro Muia arrested Mr. Canali on the outstanding warrant on January 27, 2025.
24PC Zourob attended the robbery 911 call at the LCBO, and when he arrived on scene, Mr. Kalathiya told him the suspect had fled into a parking lot across the street. PC Zourob’s BWC video shows the officer going into the parking lot and using his flashlight to briefly and unsuccessfully search for the suspect.
25Also, on PC Zourob’s BWC is Mr. Kalathiya looking through his cell phone, finding Mr. Canali’s photo, and providing it to the officer identifying this male to be the one he had been chasing.
26PC Zourob returned to the LCBO and interacted with Mr. Singh. Mr. Singh’s slow responses, collapse, and seizure are all captured on the officer’s BWC.
V. Findings of Fact
27The credibility of all four witnesses was unchallenged. Each witness was internally consistent, and testified in a clear, straight-forward manner. I find all 4 witnesses, Mr. Singh, Mr. Kalathiya, PC Muia, and PC Zourob, to be credible.
28There was also no challenge to the reliability of Mr. Singh, PC Zourob, and PC Muia’s evidence. The surveillance videos, BWC clips and medical records demonstrate the reliability of their evidence.
29Although the video evidence demonstrates the male inside the LCBO wearing a mask while he takes alcohol from shelves and puts them in the box under the stairs, then takes off the mask as he flees in late December, nonetheless, the Crown did not pursue the count of disguise with intent to commit an offence.
30The Crown also did not pursue the robbery charge as the waving of the bottle at Mr. Singh and Mr. Kalathiya and stealing it also constituted the assault with the weapon.
31Both counts were dismissed on October 23, 2025.
Threat
32Mr. Kalathiya’s description of what the suspect said to him gave him the impression that the suspect was threatening him. Mr. Kalathiya testified the male stated something to the effect that he now knew who Mr. Kalathiya was and meant him harm.
33Although I accept Mr. Kalathiya’s impression that the suspect’s words seemed threatening, and indeed Mr. Kalathiya is likely correct given the circumstances, Mr. Kalathiya’s evidence is insufficiently clear on this point to be reliable. This element is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Aggravated Assault
34In addition to experiencing a full body seizure as captured on PC Zourob’s BWC which required an immediate response by the officer to ensure Mr. Singh’s head did not continue to pound the floor while his nose bled and causing him to sustain two serious facial fractures. Mr. Singh sustained an epidural hematoma.
35That means that he had a brain bleed. A brain bleed requires immediate medical attention, which Mr. Singh was fortunate to obtain. A brain bleed, by its very definition, endangers life. I find this injury is captured by the Criminal Code definition of aggravated assault.
Identity
36Justice Hill in Thind quotes numerous cases when he stated:8
The inherent frailties of identification evidence are well known and have been the subject of considerable judicial comment and review in the social science literature.
37He specifically addressed recognition evidence when he wrote:9
[A] subset of eyewitness identification evidence, in which the eyewitness’ identification is based on prior experience” (M.B., at para. 33; Olliffe, at para. 39), generally engages the eyewitness describing, as a foundation for his or her opinion/conclusion, prior familiarity with the subject preceding the relevant date of observation. The eyewitness’ degree or level of familiarity with the identified person may, given the specific circumstances of a case, serve to enhance the accuracy of an eyewitness’ identification: R. v. Benson, 2015 ONCA 827, at para. 25; R. v. Smith, 2011 BCCA 362, at para. 31. Be that as it may, the same caution and concerns applying generally to identification evidence are relevant as well to assessment of recognition evidence: Olliffe, at paras. 39-40.
38In this case, Mr. Kalathiya’s recognition identification was barely explored.
39Mr. Kalathiya was not asked exactly where he was when he previously arrested Mr. Canali, nor what role he played in that arrest. He was not asked how long he had spent with Mr. Canali during that arrest and whether he had ever provided a description of Mr. Canali to police at the time of that arrest. He was not asked how he came to know Mr. Canali’s name. He was not asked how he got Mr. Canali’s photo on his phone or why it was there. He was not asked how many people he had arrested before, and whether he had photos of some or all the people he previously arrested on his phone. He was not asked why he picked Mr. Canali’s photo from his phone. He was not asked if he had encountered Mr. Canali since he had arrested Mr. Canali the previous December, and if so, where and for how long. Mr. Kalathiya was not asked exactly why he was sure at the time of the event that he recognized Mr. Canali.
40Although there are circumstantial factors that strengthen Mr. Kalathiya’s identification, such as the immediacy of his recognition of Mr. Canali, the accent he heard, and the specific reference to where from and why he recognized the suspect, I must consider this evidence in the context of a fleeting observation under stressful circumstances as the suspect was running away from Mr. Kalathiya.
41In essence, there is little evidence to assess the reliability of Mr. Kalathiya’s recognition eyewitness identification of Mr. Canali on the totality of the evidence called.
42As a result, I cannot find Mr. Kalathiya’s recognition identification of Mr. Canali as the man who committed these offences to be reliable beyond a reasonable doubt.
VI. Conclusion
43Mr. Canali, I find you not guilty on all counts.
Released: December 3, 2025
Signed: Justice Cidalia C.G. Faria
Footnotes
- Oral reasons were read on December 2, 2025, corrections are made in these written reasons, and these are the reasons that govern.
- Sections 351(2), 264.1(1)(a), 343(a), 267(a), 268(2), and 733.1(1)
- R. v. Walters-Cambronne, 2024 ONSC 5885, R. v. Thind, 2018 ONSC 1607, R. v. Harrison, 2023 ABCA 151, R. v. A.A. 2022 ONCA 639, R. v. Caster, 2016 ONCJ 232, R. v. Brown, 2021 ONCA 678, R. v. M.D. 2010 ONCJ 197.
- 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. Thind, 2018 ONSC 1607 at para. 86
- supra at para. 91.