ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
24-50002774
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
Demarc Orlando DALEY
Before Justice C. Faria
Heard on February 9, 10, 11, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on April 29, 2026
Shannon Darby counsel for the Crown
Nora Fathalipour counsel for the defendant Demarc DALEY
I. Introduction
I. Introduction
1Demarc Orlando Daley is charged with assaulting Kalaiselvan Namasivayam on December 30, 2024, and causing him bodily harm contrary to s. 267 (b) of the Criminal Code.
2During the 3-day trial, the Crown called the complainant and two investigating officers as witnesses. The Crown also filed a video capturing the incident, two Agreed Statements of Facts, and body-worn camera (BWC) footage of the complainant’s injuries, the investigation, the arrest, and the booking of Mr. Daley, as well as photos of the scene. The Defence called no evidence.
3Briefly stated, the complainant was in the courtyard of the Maxwell Meighan Centre at 135 Sherbourne Street, Toronto, milling about with others, when a person ran behind him and knocked him down. Mr. Namasivayam hit his head on the concrete flower curb and sustained multiple injuries.
4The issues are:
i. Identity: has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Daley is the man in the video making physical contact with the complainant?
ii. Intent: has the Crown proven the intent to apply force beyond a reasonable doubt?
5These are the reasons for my decision.
II. Legal Principles
II. Legal Principles
6As in every criminal case, Mr. Daley is presumed innocent. The onus rests on the Crown to prove the essential elements of the 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.1
7As the Crown filed a video of the event, and of Mr. Daley being arrested and booked into the police station a few hours later, I am required to review this evidence when determining whether Mr. Daley is the person in the video making contact with Mr. Namasivayam. I must consider the clarity, quality, and length of the video as outlined in the Nikolovski case.2
III. Position of the Parties
III. Position of the Parties
8The Crown submits that the video of the incident, combined with the videos of Mr. Daley’s arrest shortly after, as well as the booking video, provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it is Mr. Daley who purposely knocked Mr. Namasivayam down causing him to sustain serious injuries. Furthermore, she submits that the speed, and manner of contact seen in the video of the event proves the intent to make physical contact, and thus assault Mr. Namasivayam, beyond a reasonable doubt.
9The Defence submits that the video clip of the incident is too short and unclear, and the similarities between Mr. Daley and the perpetrator are too general to identify him as the person making physical contact with Mr. Namasivayam in the video. Furthermore, she submits that the running into Mr. Namasivayam could have been accidental, Mr. Namasivayam could have fallen because he was unsteady, and thus the intent to assault has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
IV. Summary of the Evidence
IV. Summary of the Evidence
10Exhibit 3 is the surveillance video of the courtyard where the incident occurred. It depicts several men milling about the Maxwell Meighan Centre courtyard that includes picnic tables, trees, bicycles, a concrete curb for a flowerbed, and the door to the Centre at the far end of the courtyard. At about 6 minutes and 20 seconds into the video, a Black male with a heavy build, wearing dark shoes, dark pants, and a patterned jacket with a hoody, walks across the courtyard and into the door of the building at the far end of the screen.
11At about 8 minutes and 50 seconds into the video, Mr. Namasivayam is seen in the courtyard and milling about speaking to some of the men, including a man not disputed to be Damion Jordan.
12While Mr. Namasivayam is standing by the concrete curb of the flowerbed, at 9 minutes and 39 seconds into the video, the same Black male with a heavy build, wearing dark shoes, dark pants, a patterned jacket, and carrying a blue water jug with a white handle, runs at a high rate of speed out of the same door he had entered the building from, across the courtyard, and knocks Mr. Namasivayam to the ground from behind. He is off screen by 9 minutes and 42 seconds into the video. Mr. Namasivayam falls. The same male comes back on screen, still carrying the blue water jug with a white handle, leans over Mr. Namasivayam, and then leaves.
13Photos of the scene taken after Mr. Namasivayam is removed (Exhibits 2D, 2E, and 2F) show two significant pools of coagulated blood on the concrete floor, and hair on a crack in the concrete curb.
14Mr. Namasivayam, age 48, testified he was in the courtyard of the Maxwell Meighan Centre having come from a friend’s house. He identified himself on the video (Exhibit 3). He confirmed he chatted with some of the men and said he had offered them food he had brought from his friend’s place. The men asked him for cigarettes and money though he had neither. He recalls being pushed down from behind and falling. The next thing he remembers is waking up in hospital. He does not know who knocked him down or why.
15He testified to some of the injuries he sustained. He required 13 stitches to the top of his forehead and 4 stitches on his left eyebrow. He lost some teeth, he believes 7, and suffered a broken nose. He had to wear a brace on his neck for 6 weeks and was told to return to hospital for surgery on his broken shoulder, but he never did. It took him 4 months to recover. He currently experiences his arm “freezing up” when he sleeps, has headaches when he falls asleep, and has trouble eating without some of his teeth.
16He identified himself speaking to an officer on a BWC video (Exhibit 4) while he was in hospital shortly after the incident. He weighed about 120 lbs at the time and is 165cm (5’4”) tall. The video of Mr. Namasivayam speaking to an officer from his hospital bed depicts his eye swollen shut, blood on his face, his nose red and swollen, a bandage on his forehead, and a bloody and swollen mouth. He is wearing a neck brace and has difficulty speaking to the officer. He has several EKG sensors on his chest and is attached to several monitors.
17In cross-examination, Mr. Namasivayam did not recall any of the men in the courtyard asking him for beer, though that is what he told the officer when he gave his statement in the hospital. He denied having a drinking problem and stated he was not drunk that evening. He acknowledged a 2019 impaired driving conviction. He did not agree he was intoxicated when an officer came to his home to speak to him days before the trial, but the parties filed an Agreed Statement of Facts that the officer opined Mr. Namasivayam was drunk at the time (Exhibit 5). Mr. Namasivayam agreed he hoped for a “good verdict” in this case.
18Two officers testified. P.C. Alex Maj attended the scene and was tasked with identifying the male who knocked down Mr. Namasivayam. He testified he reviewed a video of a hallway, which is not in evidence, with staff who identified Mr. Daley. He then compared a still image of that video and to the MTO database to obtain Mr. Daley’s name. He then went to Mr. Daley’s room to arrest him. His BWC was on, and the video of the arrest was made an exhibit (Exhibit 6). He testified that one of the sweaters belonging to Mr. Daley was the same as what the male in the video was wearing when the incident occurred.
19In cross-examination, P.C. Alex Maj confirmed that he only watched a short snippet of the incident video, and that he watched a hallway video with the still image of the person of interest. He testified “there was a continuous video from the courtyard, and then a separate camera in the hallway and it captures the door of the hallway that exits from the courtyard,” and it was the hallway video that “captured the best picture of his face.”
20P.C. Brendon Langer was the investigating officer who attended at both the Maxwell Meighan Center and the hospital to speak to Mr. Namasivayam. He observed Mr. Namasivayam’s injuries and obtained a statement from him. He returned to the Centre, obtained the narrative of what had happened from witnesses, obtained assistance from staff to obtain the video of the incident, reviewed that video, obtained the identity of the person he believed to be the one who knocked Mr. Namasivayam down, went to Mr. Daley’s room and assisted in his arrest. He testified that the jacket the male was wearing in the video and a blue water jug with a white handle were with Mr. Daley at the time of arrest. Mr. Daley also put on black pants, black shoes, and was wearing a blue t-shirt, which all matched the perpetrator in the video. These clothing items are specifically seen in the booking video at 51 Division (Exhibit 8).
V. Analysis
V. Analysis
21As the primary issue in this case is identity, and whether the Crown, via a Nikolovski analysis, has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Daley is the male in the video knocking down Mr. Namasivayam, I will disregard both opinions of the testifying officers and reach my own conclusion.
22The video of the event shows that the person who ran behind Mr. Namasivayam and knocked him down is a Black male with a significantly larger build than Mr. Namasivayam. He is wearing black shoes, black pants, and a blue shirt that shows underneath his jacket. He is carrying a blue water jug with a white handle. These factors can be seen much more clearly when the male returns to look at Mr. Namasivayam laying on the ground at 9 minutes and 48 seconds into the video, or .06 seconds after knocking him down.
23When Mr. Daley is arrested in his room, he is lying on his bed in a blue T-shirt. He puts on black pants and black shoes. He is a Black man with a large build, and taller than P.C. Langer who testified he is 188 cm (6’2”) and weighed about 225 lbs at the time (Exhibit 8 at 2:49:44).
24Mr. Daley reaches into his locker and takes a drink from a blue water jug with a white handle. Two jackets are hanging on the door of his locker by his bed from where he obtains his water jug, and where he puts his cell phone charger. One jacket is square plaid with a black hoodie which an officer searches and gives Mr. Daley to put on. The other jacket has a hood, the entire jacket is the same small pattern. The latter jacket appears hanging from Mr. Daley’s locker door, and appears to be the same jacket as the perpetrator was wearing when he knocked down Mr. Namasivayam.
25Most significantly however, is that when the perpetrator returned to lean over Mr. Namasivayam, he exposed a side view his face at 9 minutes and 48 seconds into the video. The perpetrator is a Black man with a beard going straight across his face. He has short black hair with at least two indentations into his hairline on the left side
26A still photo taken at 2:49:45 of Mr. Daley’s booking video shows his head in the exact same inclination angle as that of the perpetrator, but to the right side.
27The quality of the two photos is sufficiently clear to make a comparison. The size and shape of the head are the same, as is the size and shape of the nose. The facial hair is the same shape and length. The hairline is the same, as is the shape, length and style of the hair.
28I have no difficulty finding that Mr. Daley is the man who knocked Mr. Namasivayam to the ground on December 30, 2024, in the courtyard of the Maxwell Meighan Centre. The Crown has proven identity beyond a reasonable doubt.
29Mr. Namasivayam testified that he felt he was purposely pushed from behind. The Defence challenged his credibility to no avail. Whether Mr. Namasivayam has an alcohol problem is irrelevant. He was not stumbling, or unsteady on his feet from the time he entered the screen on the surveillance video at 8 minutes and 50 seconds, to the time he was knocked down at 9 minutes and 32 seconds. He was clearly knocked down. It is also irrelevant whether Mr. Namasivayam lost 7 teeth, or 5, or none. His description of his injuries matches the injuries easily observed in the hospital video. He sustained significant cuts, swelling, and discolouration. He was bleeding and in a neck brace. He sustained bodily harm.
30Mr. Daley is seen walking across the courtyard at 6 minutes and 20 seconds into the incident video. It takes him until 6 minutes and 35 seconds of the video, a total of 15 seconds, to get from one end of the screen, or one end of the courtyard, to the other end of the screen, which is the door to the building at the other end of the courtyard. It takes him from 9:39 to 9:42, or 3 seconds, to cover the exact same distance when he runs out of the door of the building at one end of the courtyard, knocking Mr. Namasivayam down, and to get to the other end of the courtyard/screen.
31Mr. Daley was familiar with the spacing of the objects in the courtyard, he had just crossed the courtyard. He was aware men were milling about in the courtyard, again he had just crossed the courtyard. Mr. Daley, tall, large, and heavy, ran at top speed in a straight-line right into Mr. Namasivayam and knocked him down. There was no hesitation, no deviation, no pause. I find Mr. Daley intentionally and purposely ran full force into the smaller, lighter Mr. Namasivayam and knocked him to the ground where he hit his head on the concrete curb in front of him and sustained bodily harm.
VI. Conclusion
VI. Conclusion
32The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Daley assaulted Kalaiselvan Namasivayam and caused him bodily harm. I find Mr. Daley guilty of the charge.
Released: April 29, 2026
Signed: Justice Cidalia C.G. Faria