ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Toronto Region
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
Andre Miguel WALKER
Before Justice C. Faria
Heard December 11, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released December 18, 2025
Theo Sarantis counsel for the Crown
Andre Miguel Walker................................................................................ on his own behalf
I. Introduction
1Andre Miguel Walker is charged with threatening bodily harm and assaulting Ron Dominique, as well as disobeying court order by not keeping the peace while he was on a peace bond.1 He was arrested the same day these events are alleged to have occurred.
2Having called no evidence on whether Mr. Walker signed a peace bond in June 2024 and was to have been keeping the peace on September 23, 2024, Mr. Sarantis for the Crown invited the court to dismiss Count 3: Disobey Court Order. The charge was dismissed.
3I heard the evidence of the complainant, Mr. Dominique, and watched a video of the person Mr. Dominique testified threatened and assaulted him. I am asked by the Crown to determine if the person in the video is Mr. Walker and to accept Mr. Dominique’s evidence as credible and reliable.
4Mr. Walker represented himself. He called no evidence and decided not to testify, as is his right.
5These are my reasons for judgment.
II. Legal Principles
6Before I begin to review the evidence, I must say, that as in every criminal case, Mr. Walker is presumed innocent. The onus rests on the Crown to prove the essential elements of each offence beyond a reasonable doubt. That onus never shifts. Reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense taken from the evidence or lack of evidence.2
7I must also say that when I consider what evidence to accept, I am considering the credibility and reliability of a witness. Credibility relates to whether a witness is speaking the truth. Reliability relates to the actual accuracy of the testimony. The credibility and reliability of a witness must be tested in the light of all the other evidence presented.3
8Although Mr. Walker did not take issue with whether identity was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, given that Mr. Dominique did not identify Mr. Walker by name, and Mr. Walker did not testify, I will determine identity via the Nikolovski 4 test as outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada.
III. Evidence
9Ron Dominique testified he was working as a security guard at Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) in downtown Toronto on September 23, 2025, when he received a call about a fight at 297 Victoria St. He checked the video footage and observed two people. One was “in the face” of the other. He and his partner went to the location.
10As Mr. Dominique was speaking to the person he identified as “the victim” of the interaction he previously observed, a male approached and interjected into Mr. Dominique’s conversation. Mr. Dominique held up his right hand and told the male to stop and step away. The male was close enough to him that he believes his hand made contact with the male when he held it up.
11Mr. Dominique testified the male said to Mr. Dominque: “You don’t know who I am. Don’t mess with me”. While saying these words, he made a gun gesture using his index finger and pointed directly at Mr. Dominique’s nose. The male then said “You want to get one to the dome?”
12Mr. Dominque told the male he was trespassing. The male made the same gesture again and swung his right hand, hitting Mr. Dominique’s nose.
13Mr. Dominique then put his hands on the male and informed him he was being arrested for assault. The male resisted, and he was taken to the ground by Mr. Dominique and his partner. Mr. Dominique struck the male once and the male complied thereafter. The male was handcuffed and taken to the holding room in the security office.
14On the way to the holding room, the male again said Mr. Dominique did not know who he was dealing with, and that he is from Rexdale, he is a “gangster”, that he would “come back and shoot” Mr. Dominique because “mans like me carry guns.”
15Mr. Dominique gave the male his rights and called Toronto Police. When police arrived, they were taken to the holding room where the male sat. Mr. Dominique then observed the officer provide the male with his rights to counsel via CCTV. The body-worn camera surveillance of that officer providing those rights to the male in the holding room was played for the court and filed as an exhibit.
16Mr. Dominique identified the male on the video to be the one who threatened and assaulted him, and to be the accused male before the court.
17Mr. Walker chose not to cross-examine Mr. Dominique. He did “not want to ask any questions”, even after being repeatedly told this was his opportunity to challenge Mr. Dominique’s version of events, his memory, his reliability, and his credibility. He simply did not want to “talk” to the witness.
IV. Analysis and Findings
18Mr. Dominique’s credibility and reliability were not challenged via cross-examination. However, Mr. Walker submitted that Mr. Dominique’s version of events is not accurate. Mr. Walker submitted that he was not spoken to prior to being taken to the ground, and that none of what Mr. Dominique testified to is true.
19Regardless that an alternate version of events was not put to Mr. Dominique, I must carefully assess his evidence, particularly in light of the fact Mr. Walker represented himself.
20I thoroughly reviewed Mr. Dominique’s evidence. He testified in a very cautious manner. Although he remembered the event and testified in detail, Mr. Dominque asked to refresh his memory so as to testify to the words the male used verbatim. Mr. Dominique was very careful about the words said, and the specific gesture made, being sure to state he could not recall which hand the male was used and clarify exactly what he did not remember. He was also forthright about when, how and why he struck the male once while arresting him. He was candid and direct.
21I find him to be a credible and reliable witness. I accept his evidence.
i. Identity
22The quality of the video evidence is excellent. It is in colour and clear. It depicted the male sitting down, and then as the officer moved closer to the male, the video provided a close up of his face. The video shows the male speaking directly to the officer, standing up and then turning around within 2 feet, if that, from the camera. His build, height, clothing, and physical demeanour are clear. The entirety of his face is captured, including specific identifying features such as his hairline, the hair loss at the top of his head, the shape of his forehead, the shape of his eyes, his facial hair, the shape of his nose and lips, his smile, as well as his hair colour, hair style and length of hair. It captured the tone of his voice, and his facial expressions.
23The clarity, quality, and duration of the video 5 depicting the male’s face leaves me with no difficulty concluding the male in the video is Mr. Walker before the court.
ii. Threat
24I find both the specific words Mr. Walker said, “You don’t know who I am. Don’t mess with me” and “You want to get one to the dome?” and the specific gesture he made, that of pointing a gun, while he said the words to constitute a threat. In the context of being told to step back while Mr. Dominique investigated an incident, the only reasonable inference for the purpose of the words and gesture was to intimidate Mr. Dominique.
25Further, Mr. Walker continued to threaten Mr. Dominique as he was escorted to the holding room when he told him that he was a “gangster” who would “come and shoot” Mr. Dominique as “mans like me carry guns.”
iii. Assault
26Mr. Dominique testified that Mr. Walker hit his nose with his hand while making a gun gesture after the first threat and the first gun gesture, and after having been told he was trespassing. He demonstrated to the court how Mr. Walker swung his extended arm and where Mr. Walker’s finger in the gun gesture struck him in the nose. The assault was the trigger for the arrest.
27Mr. Walker was the aggressor; he came to within a foot of Mr. Dominique’s face, pointing directly at his nose. The hand gesture is a threatening one, and it was accompanied by threatening words. The physical contact with Mr. Dominique’s nose was a purposeful action, particularly considering Mr. Dominique’s physical size, he is 6”1 with a large build and Mr. Walker is about 5”7 or 5”8 with a slim athletic build. Mr. Walker had to reach up with his arm in order to strike Mr. Dominque.
28Although, the physical force applied without consent was not significant, in this case, the context and purpose of the physical force applied without consent is significant.
Conclusion
29Mr. Walker, I find the Crown has proven each element of both offences, and has satisfied me beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of both counts.
Released: December 18, 2025
Signed: Justice Cidalia C. G. Faria
Footnotes
- Contrary to ss. 264.1(1), 266, and 127(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada
- R. v. Lifchus, 1997 CanLII 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320.
- R. v. Stewart, 1994 CanLII 7208 (ON CA), [1994] O.J. No. 811 (C.A.) at para 27.
- R. v. Nikolovski, 1996 CanLII 158 (SCC), [1996] S.C.J. No. 122.
- Nikolovski, supra at para. 29.