ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
Maselan Navaratnam
Before Justice J. De Filippis
Heard on March 17 & 19, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on May 13, 2026
Mr. Hegedus counsel for the Crown
Mr. Buchanan counsel for the defendant
De Filippis, J.:
INTRODUCTION
1On June 8, 2024, between 5:30 and 6:00 AM, in a residential neighbourhood in the City of Niagara Falls, rocks were thrown at 13 motor vehicles and a home. This caused approximately $27,000 in property damage. Police were called and arrived soon after. The defendant was seen walking in the area and arrested. He was charged with three counts of assault with a weapon, 14 counts of causing mischief to motor vehicles and one count of causing mischief to a house. There is no dispute that the crimes were committed at the date, time, and place in question. The main issue at trial is the identity of the culprit.
2At the close of the prosecution case, I allowed a “count to count similar fact application” that had been brought by the Crown. I also heard and dismissed a motion for non-suit brought by the Defence. I provided oral reasons for these rulings at that time. At the invitation of Crown counsel, I dismissed the charge of mischief to the home and two charges of mischief to motor vehicles for lack of evidence of ownership (i.e. counts 12, 14, and 15). I find the defendant guilty of all other charges. These are my reasons.
NON-CONTROVERSIAL EVIDENCE
3The witnesses listed below awoke to discover damage to the motor vehicles parked outside their home. All reside within walking distance of each other on three streets in Niagara Falls. The damage was not present when they went to bed the night before. Each witness identified photographs of the damaged motor vehicle. They confirmed ownership and financial loss. They did not see how the damage was caused. They do not know the defendant.
- Mr. Sharma Amanpreet lives on Jepson Avenue. He owns a Honda Accord. The rear window was smashed. On discovering the damage, he saw a “big stone” inside his car. He paid for the $240 cost of repair.
- Mr. Ralph Severino lives on Second Avenue. He owns a GMC Sierra. The front window was cracked. It is a company vehicle. He paid for the cost of repair but does not recall the amount.
- Mr. William Randle lives on Second Avenue. He owns a Ford F150. The front window was cracked. He paid for the $560 cost of repair.
- Ms. Judy Pali lives on Second Avenue. She owns a Chevrolet Equinox. The rear window was smashed. The cost of repair was $528 and was covered by insurance.
- Mr. Tyler Cadwell was staying at the home of Ms. Pali. His Chevrolet Cobalt was parked out front of her home. The front windshield was cracked. He paid for the $400 cost of repair.
- Ms. Paula Giganti lives on McRae Street. She owns a GMC Terrain. The rear window was smashed. She paid for the $300 cost of repair. On discovering the damage, she saw “a brick” inside her vehicle.
- Mr. William Filson lives on McRae Street. He owns a Chevy Uplander. The rear window was smashed. He paid for the $500 cost of repair.
OTHER EVIDENCE
4Mr. Kushal Sharma was driving a Chevrolet Camaro and stopped at the intersection of Victoria Avenue and Jepson Street. Three or four “stones” were thrown at the passenger side of his vehicle, damaging the side window and mirror. He immediately called the police and drove a short distance to park in a business lot. More stones were thrown, this time hitting the front windshield. He and his passenger got out of their vehicle. Mr. Sharma was hit in the leg by an object. He saw a man carrying a bag “on the front of his body”. The stones being thrown were produced from this bag. Mr. Sharma described the man as Black, wearing a cap on his head, a t-shirt with a chain around his neck, and shorts. He pointed to the defendant in the courtroom and said he was the man. The $8,000 cost of repair was covered by insurance. Mr. Sharma paid for the $400 towing charge.
5Mr. Sharma was shown a transcript of his statement to police and agreed he had reported that the man had a beard and moustache. He also agreed that shortly after the events in question, he saw the defendant in the back of a police cruiser at the police station.
6Mr. Yogeshwar was the passenger in Mr. Sharma’s motor vehicle. He confirmed that stones hit the passenger window next to him, that police were called, and they left the scene, parking at a nearby business lot. Mr. Yogeshwar did not see who initially threw the stones. However, he did see a man approach them in the parking lot. The witness said that the man produced stones from “a bag over his body” and “he targeted my head by throwing stone at window”. Mr. Sharma drove to a near by police station.
7Mr. Yogeshwar described the culprit as a Black man, wearing a baseball hat, t-shirt and shorts the man. He pointed to the defendant in the courtroom and said he was the man. He agreed that he and Mr. Sharma saw a police cruiser arrive at the station, 30 minutes after the events in question, with a man under arrest, and that they identified the man as the person responsible for the crimes. He further added that, “at the police station the police showed the person who was arrested, and we verified”.
8Mr George Enright was operating a taxicab owned by Niagara Falls Taxi. He was parked on Armory Street, near Victoria Street. He testified that,
[I heard] an explosion right behind me. I turned to see what happened and heard another one, not that loud. I saw a man running and stopped on the sidewalk, about 10 metres ahead of me. He started bombing my car. I reversed as I was worried about my windshield. He was throwing landscaping stones in my direction. That is what I thought they were. He was picking the objects off the ground. He never said anything and did not appear to be angry. He was carrying a bag [and left it]. The man walked right on Victoria. I picked up the bag. It’s a bag to keep things hot and cold. I didn’t open the bag. I put it in the cab and gave it to the police.
9The back window of the vehicle was “completely smashed” and the left passenger window was also damaged. Mr. Enright called the police. He found rocks in the taxi. He described the culprit as a man with brown skin, wearing a t-shirt and shorts. Mr. Enright did not see anything on the man’s heard or that he was wearing a “hoodie”.
10Ms. Michelle Atkinson lives on Second Avenue. At 5:30 AM she heard a “crash” and looked out her bedroom window. She saw a man across the street. He had a backpack and was walking toward McCrae Street, with a yellow taxicab following slowly behind. She later spoke to the taxi driver and saw him in the courthouse. It is Mr. Enright. Ms. Atkinson went back to bed and then laid down again. She heard another crash and looked out the window again. She saw the same man on the road “with both hands in the air throwing something and I heard a crash and smashing of glass”. Ms. Atkinson walked to the corner of McRae Street and Second Avenue. She saw numerous moto vehicles with damage to their windows. She returned home and saw that the front windshield on her husband’s motor vehicle was smashed. It is a Chevrolet Equinox. He paid the $460 cost of repair.
11Ms. Atkinson did not get a good look at the man throwing the objects. She said he was wearing a “hoodie”. She was shown a transcript of a prior statement given to police, 45 days later. There is no mention of the man wearing - what “looked like “ - a backpack. Ms. Atkinson insisted that he had one and cannot explain why she did not report this to the police. She agreed speaking to Mr. Enright on the day in question after these events. She denied her observations were influenced by what he may have said.
12Ms. Samantha O’Brien was sitting on her front porch at her home on Armoury Street at about 5:45 AM, having a coffee and cigarette. She saw a man walk in front of her home, westbound toward Second Avenue. She saw the man cross the street and drop his knapsack on the ground. With gesturing motions, the witness described that the man bent over “into it [the bag]” and threw something – she did not see an object - “like a baseball pitch”. The man picked up the knapsack. The witness then saw a taxicab. It reversed and turned around. Ms. O’Brien heard “bangs” as the man walked down Armoury Street toward Second Avenue. The “bangs sounded like a rock hitting a car” and she heard half a dozen such bangs.
13Ms. O’Brien said the man with the knapsack had dark skin and was wearing a short sleeve shirt, shorts, and sunglasses. She also reported to police that he wore a baseball hat but can no longer recall this. In her prior statement she also said the man was “clean cut”. Ms. O’Brien explained that what she meant by this – given the time and place of these events - is that he was “not walking around, zombie like”. She added that the man had facial hair but was “clean and tidy”. She does not recall seeing a “hoodie” and agreed she did not see man throw rocks or stones.
14PC Mindorff was on general duty, in uniform, operating a marked police cruiser. At 6 AM he was dispatched to a mischief call at Victoria Avenue and McCrae Street. He arrived four minutes later and encountered Mr. Enright who pointed to the east. The officer’s partner saw a man – the defendant. He matched the description of the culprit that had been provided by the dispatcher. PC Mindorff activated the siren on his cruiser. The defendant looked at the officer and Mr. Enright and ran away. The defendant was arrested within one minute, after the officer pursued the defendant in his cruiser for a short distance and then chased him on foot.
15After the defendant was taken into custody, PC Mindorff investigated the damaged motor vehicles noted above. It is clear from the testimony of the witness, with reference to a google map, that the mischief occurred sequentially and within walking distance
16PC Martin encountered the defendant several hours before the events in question when she responded to an unwanted person call, involving a taxi fare dispute. The officer, noted that the defendant’s behaviour was “odd” and she drove the defendant to the Niagara Falls bus terminal, arriving at 2:49 AM. The bus terminal is two kilometres from the area where the motor vehicles were subsequently damaged.
SUBMISSIONS
17There is no dispute that the acts of mischief have been proven. Crown counsel submits that if I accept the evidence of Mr. Sharma, Mr. Yogeshwar, and Mr. Enright, the offences of assault with a weapon have been established. With respect to the latter, counsel added that the culprit had to know the taxi was occupied by a driver, as it reversed at one point, and the throwing of rocks at the windshield, or gesturing same, is a threat to apply force to another person and the present ability to do so. This makes out the offence.
18Five witnesses said one man threw rocks or made rock throwing motions. There is no issue with respect to credibility and reliability. The Crown argues that given the times and places of the criminal acts, there can be no doubt that only one person was responsible. Counsel asserts that it has been proven that the defendant is that person. The Crown accepts that the in-dock identification of the defendant must be treated with caution but adds that the fact Mr. Sharma and Mr. Yogeshwar saw the defendant under arrest in the back of a police cruiser is less problematic. These witnesses saw the accused within 30 minutes of the stone throwing incident. As such, the passage of time is not a compromising factor. Most important, the defendant was arrested by police in tight temporal and geographical proximity to crimes. In this regard, it is clear the crimes were committed in a north to south trajectory, and the defendant was found at a point south of the damaged vehicles.
19Defence counsel argues that that there is insufficient evidence of the intention to assault by the person(s) who committed the mischief. Apart from this, not surprisingly, counsel focussed on the proof of identity and provided well known and helpful caselaw with respect to the frailties of eyewitness and in-dock identification. Counsel added that the tight temporal and geographical proximity is circumstantial evidence could support the conclusion that the defendant is the one person responsible for the crimes. However, as that is not the only inference to be drawn, the Crown case fails. Moreover, the Defence asserts that the descriptions of the culprit(s) by Ms. O’Brien and Ms. Atkinson are different and must raise a doubt. In addition, the fact that the defendant fled from the police is not evidence of guilt because it can be explained by the prior interaction with an officer who responded to an unwanted person call and drove the defendant to a bus terminal.
ANALYSIS
20The Crown carries the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This fundamental principle of law means that if the defendant has called evidence, there must be an acquittal where the testimony is believed or where the testimony is not believed but raises a reasonable doubt. An acquittal will follow even if the defence evidence is rejected, but the remaining evidence fails to convince, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty (R. v. W(D), 1991 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742).
21Probable guilt is not the criminal law standard of proof - it is closer to certainty. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense which must be logically based on the evidence or lack of evidence (R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33). In applying the standard, I can accept some, part, or none of what a witness states. The testimony of a witness is assessed based on the person’s credibility and reliability. In the present case, there is no issue with respect to the credibility and reliability of most witnesses.
22There is no dispute with respect to the allegations of mischief; this is the cause of the damage to all motor vehicles. Moreover, it is clear the crimes committed included assault with a weapon. Rocks or stones were thrown at motor vehicle windows in circumstances where the culprit had to know there were people on other side of those windows. I accept the Crown submissions that the elements of the offences have been proven. In addition, one witness, Mr. Sharma, testified that he was hit in the leg by an object when he got out of his vehicle. This testimony was not undermined or contradicted. I also agree with the Crown that the evidence proves one person is responsible for all offences.
23The Defence points out that much of the evidence is circumstantial and that I cannot be certain one person was responsible. I appreciate what the law requires with respect to circumstantial evidence. I find that only one inference can be drawn from this evidence. All witnesses saw one man committing the acts that inform the offences, exhibiting a pattern of similar behaviour that supports a specific propensity. Moreover, the events occurred within a confined residential area, in the early morning, along a defined trajectory (less than one kilometre), within a short period of time (less than 30 minutes). Several witnesses provided consistent descriptions of a man throwing rocks or stones. I have no doubt that this man is the defendant.
24Mr. Sharma and Mr. Yogeshewar described the man at the scene of the crimes as Black, with a cap or baseball hat, t-shirt, and shorts. Mr. Sharma added that he had a beard or moustache. Mr. Enright described the assailant as brown skinned, with a t-shirt, shorts and hoodie. Ms. Atkinson and Ms. O’Brien saw the man near Mr. Enright’s taxi. Ms. Atkinson said he had a hoodie. Ms. O’Brien did not recall seeing a hoodie and noted the man was dark skinned, with facial hair, shorts, and a short sleeve shirt. All these witnesses observed that the man produced the rocks or stones from a bag that he was carrying. The Defence points to differences in the descriptions provided by the witnesses. I am not troubled by these minor discrepancies.
25The defendant before me is a Black man with facial hair. Mr. Sharma and Mr. Yogeshewar pointed to him as the culprit in the courtroom. They also confirmed his identity when they saw him, under arrest, in the back of a police cruiser. I understand the limited relevance of in-dock identification. I also appreciate the need for caution in accepting the identification of a person in police custody, without the protection afforded, for example, of a proper photographic line up. However, I am comfortable relying on the testimony of these two witnesses. They observed the defendant in custody about 20 minutes after they were attacked with rocks and stones. This identification is not compromised by the passage of time or other factors.
26PC Mindorff arrived quickly on scene and was directed toward the defendant by Mr. Enright. The defendant was found and arrested a short distance away. Given the time, place, and proximity of same, it defies common sense that another person, who looks like the defendant, escaped detection, and that the defendant’s presence was a mere coincidence. That said, I agree with the Defence that guilt cannot be inferred from the fact the defendant fled upon seeing the police. The explanation for this flight may be the defendant’s prior interaction with another officer who had responded to an unwanted person call and took him to a bus terminal so he could leave the city.
RESULT
27Counts 12, 14, 15 are dismissed at the invitation of the Crown. The defendant is found guilty of the remaining three counts of assault with a weapon and 12 counts of mischief. With respect to count three, however, there is no evidence that the value of the motor vehicle is over five thousand dollars as alleged. Accordingly, the defendant is found guilty of mischief under five thousand dollars.
Released: May 13, 2026
Signed: Justice J. De Filippis