R. v. Ballon, 2026 ONCJ 397
Toronto Region
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
CELESTE BALLON
Before Justice Michael Waby
Reasons for Judgment released on 30th June, 2026
A. Hanna-Suarez........................................................................................................ for the Crown
Mr. Coulter............................................................................................................. for the Accused
1Celeste Ballon is charged with a total of 8 offences. These comprise the offences of Assault Causing Bodily Harm and Assault with a Weapon as well as further charges relating to the possession and use of a knife and pepper spray. The Crown proceeded summarily. Ms. Ballon pleaded not guilty.
Overview
2The incident arises from a serious stabbing incident that occurred on March 19, 2025 outside the Moonlight Pub, located on the Danforth in Toronto. In summary, it is alleged that the victim and the accused, who were well-known to each other, encountered each other outside the pub and after brief words were exchanged, the victim punched the Accused.
3A brief struggle occurred before they fell to the ground fighting. In the course of this fight, the accused stabbed the Victim a number of times to her torso, left arm and left thigh and caused very significant injuries to the victim.
4Identity is not an issue in this case. There is no mystery as to who inflicted the injuries on Ms. Nowakowski. It is admitted that Ms. Ballon stabbed Ms. Nowakowski during the course of a relatively brief fight. The central issues in this case is that of self defence, and most notably, whether Ms. Ballon’s response was proportionate in the circumstances. This is inevitably informed by the evidence I heard at trial and the credibility findings I make on the totality of the evidence before me.
5It is the position of Ms. Ballon that she feared for her life and acted reasonably and proportionately to defend herself. Mr. Hannah-Suarez for the Crown submits that whatever threat Ms. Ballon reasonably perceived, her actions in stabbing Ms. Nowakowski were not proportionate to that threat.
6The case for the Crown is principally advanced through the testimony of the complainant Ms. Nowakowski as well as her boyfriend, Jazob Azumi and two current or former friends Kennedy Brown and Kayleigh Williamson. Several photographs were also entered into evidence as exhibits along with an agreed statement of facts.
7Ms. Ballon testified in her own defence and entered video and audio footage from inside the pub as an exhibit.
Summary of Relevant Evidence
8In cross-examination, it was put by defence counsel to Ms. Nowakowski, as well as each of the other civilian Crown witnesses, that their attendance at the pub was part of a pre-conceived plan with a view to a coordinated attack being launched on Ms. Ballon. Each witness rejected this suggestion and at the conclusion of the trial, defence counsel acknowledged that based upon the evidence at trial this was no longer a theory that the defence was pursuing.
9While it renders the theory redundant to address, it remains relevant to the extent that the defence position is that long-standing and simmering undercurrents in the relationship between the parties informed the events that occurred that night.
10It is also relevant in that, on this point, all of the civilian witnesses were credible and consistent in their rejection of this theory during cross examination and in the answers and explanations they gave as to why it was not the case.
11The evidence in this case makes it clear that the context for this incident was not one of a coordinated, pre-planned attack but a spontaneous encounter that occurred, albeit one that was enthusiastically promoted by Ms. Williamson, and the profoundly serious events that flowed from it.
Mattea Nowakowski
12Ms. Nowakowski testified that she and other friends attended the Moonlight Pub to celebrate the birthday of her friend, Kennedy Brown. Ms. Nowakowski had not been to the pub before and was attending with her boyfriend, Jordan Izumi and girlfriend Kayleigh Williamson as well as Ms. Brown. They arrived at around 8 p.m. and had selected the pub because it had pool tables they planned to use. Ms. Nowakowski remains friends with Ms. Williamson but not with Ms. Brown and is still in a relationship with Mr. Izumi.
13Ms. Nowakowski testified that she has known the Accused for about 10 years and that they used to be very close friends. They subsequently fell out in 2020 after the Complainant gave evidence the Accused began spreading malicious rumours about her and her mother. She testified that that they had not spoken or seen each other since 2020.
14Ms. Nowakowski gave evidence that she had 4-5 mixed alcoholic drinks throughout the course of the evening while she chatted with her friends in the pub. At some point, she also spoke to two males she also knew named Chris and Darryl. It was her evidence that later in the evening she left the pub to go outside for a smoke where she encountered the Accused. After a brief exchange of words, Ms. Nowakowski testified that she threw a single, “not hard” punch at Ms. Ballon which she described as “grazing her chin” after which Ms. Nowakowski then “backed up.”
15She agreed she instigated the physical altercation between her and the Accused and said she did so because of her continued resentment and hurt at a lack of an apology from the Accused about her previous conduct and rumour-mongering.
16Her evidence was that the Accused then produced pepper spray and sprayed it in her direction but it missed, however, it seemed to effect her friend Ms. Williamson who had followed her out of the bar along with Ms. Brown. She testified that Ms. Ballon produced the pepper spray from her right pocket and after spraying it, they began to trade blows and struggle. Ms. Nowakowski believes she was also tazered by the Accused during this struggle at which point they both fell to the ground.
17After a brief period of struggling on the ground, Ms. Nowakowski gave evidence a male pulled her up and off the Accused and she felt her left abdomen and left arm pouring with blood. She touched her left abdomen and was able to place part of her hand inside it. She testified she recalled a stabbing feeling while she was on the ground with the Accused.
18Her boyfriend, Mr. Izumi, then quickly placed her in his car and drove her to hospital. When in his car, she noticed she had also been stabbed in the left thigh and also realized more of the extent of the injury to her left arm.
19Ms. Nowakowski testified that she was so certain that she was going to die that she and her boyfriend said their goodbyes on the way to the hospital before she passed out.
20She was ultimately treated at two different hospitals and placed under very heavy sedation, which she described as a coma. All her injuries were very significant and life altering, especially to both her abdomen and her left arm. They required substantial medical treatment, including surgeries. Ms. Nowakowski continues to experience pain and limited mobility and nerve damage following the incident and was in hospital for a total of 12 days.
21In cross-examination, Ms. Nowakowski testified that she had been bullied by the Accused when they were younger and denied the suggestion that she had physically fought Ms. Ballon at any point. When asked whether she had sent a Facebook message one month prior to the incident in which she told the Accused she wanted to fight her, she testified that she could not remember but that it was possible and she attributed this to the “coma” she’d been placed in and the effect of the injuries.
22She acknowledged that she was still upset with the Accused following their falling out although she remembered that some 2 years previously she had reached out to offer condolences to Ms. Ballon on the death of her mother and did so because they were once so close.
23Ms. Nowakowski acknowledged she was intoxicated the night of the incident and that she, aged 19, was drinking under-age in the pub. She also agreed she had smoked some cannabis that night too. She also acknowledged she had not previously mentioned the presence of one of the males she saw that night and had simply forgotten this when she spoke to police.
24Ms. Nowakowski agreed she had gone outside and said to the Accused “what’s up.” She denied having any weapons on her but testified that she had pepper spray on a key chain in her boyfriend’s car. She agreed she took the Accused to the ground after she described being tazered and disagreed with the suggestion that had not happened and described 2 marks on her neck consistent with that and the seeing of stars when it happened. She further agreed that she had been on top of the Accused at one point and had punched her.
25Ms. Nowakowski agreed with Defence counsel that she initially told police someone had told her the Accused was outside the pub and in her later statement told them she did not know the Accused was there. It was also her evidence at trial that she did not know the Accused was outside.
26Ms. Nowakowski denied fabricating her evidence including that the Accused had used pepper spray. Defence counsel then played a portion of video and audio footage from inside the pub on the night of the incident that was entered as an exhibit. Ms. Nowakowski accepted that this seemed to record her saying “hold my fucking phone” as she left the pub but testified that she cannot remember whether Keyleigh Williamson had told her the Accused was outside.
27She also agreed that there were inconsistencies in the information she had given to police in her statements and at trial but testified that that her initial statement to police was only a few minutes long and that it was taken in the immediate aftermath of the incident when she was drugged and in shock. She denied colluding with Ms. Williamson and other about their statements or evidence. She also robustly denied that she was there as part of plan to coordinate and attack on the Accused. She also testified that nobody but her had had any physical contact with the accused from the moment she exited the pub until the fight was over.
Jacob Azumi
28Mr. Azumi has been Ms. Nowakowski’s boyfriend since 2024 which is also when he first met Ms. Williamson. He testified that that he also knew Ms. Brown as an acquaintance as well as knowing the Accused since Grade 6. He testified that he last saw the Accused in around 2018 and that they ceased to be friends after Ms. Ballon held an exacto knife to his neck.
29Mr. Azumi testified that their friend group arrived at the pub at around 8:00 p.m. to celebrate Ms. Brown’s birthday, they had some drinks, and played pool on tables of a disappointing quality. He gave evidence that there was no plan to go outside to attack Ms. Ballon on that night and that he had simply followed his girlfriend outside after she had left the pub. He testified that by the time he arrived outside his girlfriend was already rolling around on the ground with the accused.
30His evidence is that when he got outside he saw that his girlfriend was bleeding, saw a knife in the accused's hand and then immediately put his girlfriend into his car to drive her to hospital. He testified that he did not see where the accused went after the incident as he was focused on Ms. Nowakowski and that he had seen no one else in any physical contact apart from the accused and his girlfriend. He also testified that he and his girlfriend said their goodbyes en route to the hospital as he thought she was going to die.
31In cross-examination, he disagreed with the defence suggestion that it was he who had threatened the accused previously with an exacto knife and reiterated that in the incident, Ms. Ballon had cut herself and blamed him and held the knife to his neck.
32He accepted that he had had a couple of drinks in the pub on the night of the incident night but testified he was not drinking excessively as he was the driver for the evening. It was his evidence that he did not know why his girlfriend had left the pub when she did and he accepted that others followed her outside of the pub at some point.
33Mr. Azumi gave evidence that he had seen the accused walking away with the knife in her hand but his focus remained primarily on his girlfriend. He agreed with defence counsel that he and his girlfriend had spoken about what had happened that night and testified that it was only natural that they would do so, but he denied the suggestion that they had discussed the evidence that they would give at trial nor had he discussed it with any other witness in the case.
34Mr. Azumi testified that the reason he had not initially told the police that he knew who had stabbed his girlfriend was because he was not 100% sure at the time but he now was sure as to who it was. He denied deliberately leaving out information when he first spoke to the police about what he had seen happening that night.
35Mr. Azumi also accepted he had been inconsistent in details he had either given or left out to police between his initial statement and the one he provided later. He attributed this to a combination of shock and fatigue and again denied that he had been trying to mislead the police in terms of knowing who had been involved in the incident involving his girlfriend or about when he knew she had been stabbed and by whom.
36Mr. Azumi also denied that he knew the accused was going to be at the pub that night and that he and the others in his friend group were part of a plan to assault her.
Police Constable Santos-Vicento
37The officer testified that he was flagged down by a member of the public who had located a knife in the bottom of a blue recycling bin outside a store located on the Danforth. The member of the pubic advised the officer that there had been a stabbing the night before and did not know whether this knife was connected to it.
38The officer located a black-handled hunting knife with a serrated blade and arranged for FIS to attend and for photographs to be taken, some of which were subsequently entered as exhibits. If any forensic testing or evidence collected in respect of this knife there was no evidence of this adduced at the trial.
Kennedy Brown
39Ms. Brown testified remotely from British Columbia where she is currently working and residing. She testified as to her relationships then and now with Ms. Nowakowski and the other individuals who attended to help celebrate her birthday on the night of the incident. She testified that she no longer has a relationship with the victim as Ms. Nowakowski did not feel that she had been sufficiently attentive to her in the aftermath of the incident.
40Ms. Brown testified that she had never seen the accused before that night and did not know her. The pub had been selected by her to celebrate her birthday because it had pool tables and she had become quite intoxicated on the night of the incident. She accepted she may well have had drinks before she arrived at the pub and consumed several more whilst she was there.
41After they had spent some time in the pub that evening, the first thing Ms. Brown recalled before the incident was hearing an argument outside the pub. She exited the pub and upon doing saw the victim and the accused rolling around on the ground and then noticed the victim was covered in blood.
42Ms. Brown testified that she did not know what had caused the argument and that she saw no one else touching the accused or involved in the fight. Ms. Brown repeated this suggestion in cross-examination and rejected the suggestion that Ms. Williamson had become involved in the fight. Her evidence was that when she walked up to Ms. Nowakowski she told her she had been stabbed. Ms. Brown did not recall seeing the accused with a weapon.
43After speaking with her friend, she approached the accused and said words to the effect of “did you just fucking stab my friend”. It was her evidence that after she said this the accused did not respond but turned and walked away from the pub. Ms. Brown’s boyfriend simultaneously pulled her away from proximity of the accused.
44Ms. Brown testified that the accused had vanished quickly and testified that she then went to the washroom to wash her face because of the effects of pepper spray that were stinging her eyes.
45She testified that the victim was angry at her friends because they had not stepped in to help her. She rejected the suggestion put to her that the reason she was approached by Daryl at some point when she was outside was because she was about to become involved in the fight herself.
46Ms. Brown rejected a number of suggestions put to her that there was going to be a fight between the victim and the accused that night and that there was a plan in place for her group to attack the accused. She testified that had she seen her friend losing the fight she would probably have stepped in to help but that this did not happen. She also accepted that the video from inside the pub showed her pulling away from her boyfriend and following her friend out of the pub and it was her evidence that she did this because she wanted to know what was happening with her friend.
Kayleigh Williamson
47Prior to Ms. Williamson testifying as the fourth witness in this trial, a voir dire was held on the first day of trial with respect to the discovery that despite a witness exclusion order being in place,, Ms. Williamson had apparently been present during some of the testimony of Ms. Nowakowski until it was flagged by a member of Ms. Ballon’s family. Although it was unclear as to precisely how long Ms. Williamson was in the courtroom, it is clear that she was present for at least some of Ms. Nowakowski’s evidence-in-chief.
48I accept both defence and crown counsels’ submissions that this is an additional factor I should bear in mind when assessing the weight to be attached to Ms. Williamson’s evidence.
49Ms. Williamson testified as to her current and former friendships and relationships with the accused and other witnesses. She testified that she and the accused had fallen out some years previously but she had no particular grudge against her. She also testified she and Ms. Brown had fallen out following an allegation that she had stolen some of Ms. Brown's property; an allegation she denied.
50Ms. Williamson gave evidence consistent with that of the other witnesses that there was no plan to coordinate an attack on the accused that night nor did she know that Ms. Ballon was going to be at or outside the pub on that particular evening. She testified as to spending some time in the pub with her friends drinking and making a couple of trips to A&W for burgers.
51Ms. Williamson gave evidence she was inside the pub on the phone with her aunt and as she stepped outside of the pub , she noticed the accused outside. She was aware the victim did not like the accused and so went back inside to tell Ms. Nowakowski that Ms. Ballon was outside the pub. It was her evidence that when she saw the Accused she spoke to her and told her that the victim was inside and testified that she did this because she knew they did not like each other.
52She testified that she and Ms. Nowakowski exited the pub, although she claimed she did not know what would result. Shortly after they stepped outside, Ms. Nowakowski and the accused began arguing. The next thing Ms. Williamson recalled was being pepper- sprayed and, as a result, did not really see what happened next.. She was aware there was a lot of shouting but could not recall what was said or by whom.
53It was her evidence-in-chief that she recalled seeing a male try and pull the victim off the accused and that while she was wiping her eyes from the pepper-spray, she learned that the victim had been stabbed and her boyfriend was putting Ms. Nowakowski in the car to take her to hospital.
54In cross-examination, Ms. Williamson denied speaking with other witnesses in the case about the evidence she was to give at trial. She accepted she had had previous encounters with the accused; one in 2018 when she slapped the accused in the face and another in 2021 when she may have asked the accused to fight her. She denied assaulting the accused on this occasion or ever touching or using a weapon against her.
55Ms. Williamson acknowledged that she had a criminal record that comprised convictions for uttering threats in 2022 and assault and failure to comply with a term of her recognizance in 2023. She also acknowledged that, at the time of trial, she was on bail with respect to charges that included an allegation of being in possession of a loaded firearm. She also accepted that in 2021 she had been charged with assault with a weapon and aggravated assault arising out of an alleged intimate partner incident.
56It was her evidence that she had consumed a number of alcoholic drinks at the pub and although she may have been intoxicated, she described herself as coherent. When asked by defence counsel whether she had told the accused that the victim was going to beat her up Ms. Williamson testified that she could not recall. She rejected defence counsel’s suggestion that she exited the pub with Ms. Nowakowski as she was intending to fight the accused.
57It was Ms. Williamson’s evidence that she anticipated Ms. Nowakowski might fight the accused because she knew they did not like each other and believed that her friend was going outside to sort out her issues with the accused.
58She testified that she was relatively close to the accused at one point during the incident and estimated perhaps being 2 feet from victim who was in in turn close to the accused. It was her evidence that she could not recall where Ms. Brown was located and that after a very short verbal exchange, the victim and the accused began fighting. Ms. Williamson agreed that she may have been shouting encouragement during the fight and also accepted that she possessed a knife herself but that it was in her purse which was in Mr. Azumi’s car; something she maintained in cross-examination.
59It was her evidence that at no point did she or anyone else physically interact with the accused and that the only physical interaction that occurred was between the accused and Ms. Nowakowski
60In cross-examination, Ms. Williamson accepted that she had lied to the police in her statement when she told them that she did not know the people involved. She also agreed with defence counsel that she would have stepped in to help her friend had she thought it was necessary but testified that at no point did she do so because she did not see a need to do so. It was her evidence that after Ms. Nowakowski was put in the car by her boyfriend, she took a few steps to see where the accused had gone but was unable to locate her.
61Ms. Williamson accepted that the video and audio footage from the pub after the incident revealed her returning inside and saying “Do I need to kill this girl or what” and “someone get me my fucking knife. She rejected the suggestion that she had been part of a group that had left the pub to attack the accused or that she had been aggressive toward or confronted the accused at any point..
Celeste Ballon
62Ms. Ballon was 19 years old at the time of this incident. She testified to the history of her relationship with Mr. Nowakowski and that, although they had previously had fallings out, there had never been any physical violence between them. It was her evidence they have not seen or spoken with each other directly since 2018.
63Her evidence was that the last time she had communicated with Ms. Nowakowski was a month before the incident when she says she received a Facebook message telling her Ms. Nowakowski was outside her house and wanted to fight her. She did not know whether Ms. Nowakowski was outside her residence and she responded by asking why she would send this message as they had no problems. She testified that the incident did not really affect her as she was used to the victim's behavior. She did not testify as to any response she received to the message she testified to sending.
64Ms. Ballon testified that she was terrified of Ms. Williamson and described one incident in 2018 in which Ms. Williamson slapped her to the face. She also testified that she had also previously seen Ms. Williamson with a knife when she was with Ms. Williamson showed the knife when she engaged in a dispute with someone on the TTC.
65The tenor of her relationship with Ms. Williamson prior to 2018, was one of intermittent low level conflict.. She testified that she had never met Ms. Brown before and knew that although she knew Mr. Azumi from school she had not seen him in a number of years. She gave evidence they had a falling out in which she alleges he threatened her with an exacto knife and in this struggle to gain control of the knife he cut her leg.
66It was Ms. Ballon’s evidence that she had gone to the pub that night after finishing work in a nearby bar to get weed from a friend because the dispensary closed at 11:00 p.m. She testified it was her intention to get the weed and then return home for the evening and that she had not been drinking that day as she had been at work.
67She testified when she arrived outside the pub she saw her friend and Ms. Williamson. The friend told her he would go and get the weed for her and Ms. Williamson told her she had better leave as Ms. Nowakowski was inside and was going to beat her up. Ms. Williamson then left and entered the pub. Ms. Ballon gave evidence that she thought it was about 10 seconds later that the victim exited the pub followed by Ms. Williamson and then they were then joined by someone she believed to be Ms. Brown. She described them as being aggressive and yelling and “surrounding her.”
68She testified that the three females appeared drunk and aggressive and Ms. Nowakowski said words to the effect of “what's up” in Jamaican slang and was standing about a foot from her. Ms. Ballon testified that she was afraid for her life at this point because of her prior involvement with both Ms. Nowakowski and Ms. Williamson and she asked the victim why she was behaving like this.
69Ms. Ballon testified that that she repeatedly asked the victim what was wrong and that the victim then threw a punch that hit her in the face. It was her evidence that this resulted in a black eye and a split lip. She described the punch as forceful and that she was afraid that she was going to be jumped by all three women.
70At this point, she produced what she called dog spray and sprayed it in the direction of the victim. It was her evidence that she did not know whether it had been deployed or not.
71It was her evidence that after she had used the pepper spray, Ms. Nowakowski pushed her to the ground with considerable force and got on top of her and was repeatedly punching her. She could hear other people yelling and testified she feared for her life. When asked how long the incident lasted, it was her evidence that the verbal interaction was between 2 seconds and a minute and they spent several minutes on the ground. During this time, it was her evidence that the victim punched her a total of three or four times using alternate hands.
72Ms. Ballon testified that she had a knife in her pants pocket from work and that while she was fending off the blows from the victim with one arm, she retrieved the folding pocket-knife with her other hand. She described “hitting” the victim with the knife. In response to further questions, she testified and opened the folding pocket-knife with just one hand before she then used it to stab the victim. She testified that when opening the knife, she suffered a cut to her hand.
73Ms. Ballon testified that she did not really know what she was doing while the fight was occurring, she was only acting in the hope that it would get the victim off her. She subsequently was aware that a male pulled the victim off her. And At this point, Ms. Ballon testified she stood up and ran from the scene as she was afraid for her life.
74It was her evidence that she then went and hid in a nearby park and discarded the knife that she had used to stab Ms. Nowakowski. She denied that the knife located in the nearby recycling bin was her knife or was the one that she had used. As she fled the scene, she gave evidence that she heard an unknown female voice saying “get the strap. where's the strap?” which she took to be slang for someone getting a gun.
75It was her evidence that she subsequently returned home and that she was mortified and scared about what had happened however she did not seek any medical attention or report the matter to the police. She testified that she went to work the next day. When she returned home, her grandmother advised her that there was a warrant out for her arrest. Ms. Ballon subsequently turned herself in to the police later that day.
76In her evidence-in-chief, she testified that the reason she was in possession of the “dog spray” was because she had been provided with it for her protection by a friend who had previously been the victim of a break and enter. However, she then testified that she subsequently only carried it because she lived across the street from a ravine where there were coyotes and she was afraid of attacks by them following news reports of similar attacks in the city.
77Ms. Ballon accepted she had not seen the victim for five to six years prior to this incident. She also accepted that it was unusual for someone with whom she had had so little contact over such a lengthy period of time to randomly contact her by Facebook to threaten her the month before. In contrast to her evidence-in-chief, she testified that the Facebook message she said she received caused her to be afraid of the victim
78In cross-examination, Ms. Ballon accepted that she was physically larger than the victim whom she described as muscular and accepted there had been no prior physical contact between them in the years of their relationship. She accepted that the incident where she witnessed Ms. Williamson show a knife to someone on a bus occurred in 2018 and that she had not reported this to anyone.
79When asked by the Crown what had happened to the pepper spray that she had used in the incident, Mr. Ballon testified that it was attached to her key chain and it must have fallen off onto the ground at some point during the incident. She described her key chain as being faulty. She denied removing the pepper spray from the scene or that she was carrying it for her personal protection. When asked why she had produced the pepper spray, she used during the incident she testified that it was to protect herself.
80Ms. Ballon repeated her explanation in cross-examination of how she removed the folding knife from her pocket and opened it and denied that she had attended at the pub that night in possession of an open-bladed knife. She accepted that Ms. Nowakowski, Ms. Williamson and Ms. Brown were all situated in front of her. She rejected the Crown's suggestion that, at most, this was a sort of semi-circle and said she felt trapped because there was a door behind her and the victim and the other two women were in front of her.
81It was Ms. Ballon’s evidence that she did not leave as she did not believe she was able to do so. After she had been assaulted by the victim, she suffered a black eye, cut lip and what she described as a concussion although she accepted she did not seek or receive any medical attention for her injuries. Ms. Ballon rejected they Crown suggestion that she walked from the scene, and it was her evidence that she ran as she was in fear of her life.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
82It is common ground between the parties that much will inevitably turn on my findings of credibility and reliability on the whole of the evidence tendered at this trial.
83The test that governs the analysis of credibility in this context is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It was explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W.(D.) (1991), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), 63 C.C.C. (3d) 397 (S.C.C.) and other case law as follows:
84If I believe Ms. Ballon’s evidence and accept her explanation of the events on the night of the incident must acquit her.
85Even if I do not believe her evidence but I am left in reasonable doubt by it, or any of the other evidence, I must acquit her.
86Finally, even if I am not left in doubt by her evidence, I still must consider it and all of the evidence and ask myself, on the basis of the evidence that I do accept, whether the Crown has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
87Proof beyond a reasonable doubt goes hand in hand with the presumption of innocence which is a fundamental principle of our system of justice.
88The burden of proof in a criminal trial always rests with the Crown. The burden of proof is a heavy one. It is proof beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to each of the offence’s essential elements. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, far-fetched, or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based on sympathy for or prejudice against anyone involved in this trial. It is a doubt based on reason and common sense.
89I may accept some, all or none of a witness’s evidence
90To be clear, it is not sufficient that on the whole of the evidence I am satisfied that Ms. Ballon is probably guilty and a criminal trial is not a credibility contest. Even if I believe the accused is probably guilty or likely guilty, that is not sufficient. In those circumstances a judge must give the benefit of the doubt to the accused and acquit as the Crown has failed to satisfy the court of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt
91In R. v. JHS, 2008 SCC 30, the Supreme Court qualified the W.(D. ) instruction with an additional prong, partly in recognition that a trier of fact “may believe some, none, or all of the testimony of any witness, including that of an accused” (para 10). The result is that where the trier of fact is unable to decide whom to believe, the accused is entitled to an acquittal (paras 11-12).
92Put another way, it reflects that the trier of fact must not treat “conflicting testimonial accounts” as a credibility contest, in the sense of deciding whether they accept one or the other. “The main point is that lack of credibility on the part of the accused does not equate to proof of his or her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”: JHS, ibid at para 13.
Self-Defence
93The relevant provisions on the law of self-defence under s. 34 of the Criminal Code provide that:
s.34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
Factors
(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:
(a) the nature of the force or threat;
(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
(c) the person's role in the incident;
(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
(g) the nature and proportionality of the person's response to the use or threat of force; and
(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
94The structure of s. 34 provides that the same three basic components or questions arise in all cases of self-defence: first, under s. 34(1)(a), the accused must reasonably believe that force or a threat of force is being used against them or someone else; second, under s. 34(1)(b), the subjective purpose for responding to the threat must be to protect oneself or others; and third, under s. 34(1)(c), the accused's act must be reasonable in the circumstances. Section 34(2) sets out nine non-exhaustive factors that shall be taken into account when considering whether the Accused's act was reasonable in the circumstances under s. 34(1)(c).
95It is not in issue in this case that Ms. Ballon reasonably believed that force was being used against her; although Crown and defence disagree as to what the perception of that force or threat reasonably was.
96Nor is it in issue that her response was based upon a response to “a” threat of force being used against her.
97The final inquiry under s. 34(1)(c) is the live issue in this trial and that examines the accused’s response to the use or threat of force. It requires that “the act committed [be] reasonable in the circumstances”. As articulated in R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37, [2021] S.C.J. No. 37, para 62, the reasonableness inquiry under s. 34(1)(c) operates to ensure that the law of self-defence conforms to community norms of conduct. By grounding the law of self-defence in the conduct expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances, an appropriate balance is achieved between respecting the security of the person who acts and security of the person acted upon. The law of self-defence might otherwise “encourage hot-headedness and unnecessary resorts to violent self-help”.
98Through s. 34(2), Parliament has also expressly structured how a decision-maker ought to determine whether an act of self-defence was reasonable in the circumstances. As the language of the provision dictates, the starting point is that reasonableness will be measured according to “the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act”. This standard both casts a wide net of inquiry covering how the act happened and what role each person played and modifies the objective standard to take into account certain characteristics of the accused - - including size, age, gender, and physical capabilities (s. 34(2)(e)). Also added into the equation are certain experiences of the accused, including the relationship and history of violence between the parties (s. 34(2)(f) and (f.1)). R. v. Khill, para. 64.
99In considering reasonableness, the focus must remain on what a reasonable person would have done in comparable circumstances and not what a particular accused thought at the time.
100As observed by the Supreme Court, the “relevant circumstances of the accused” in s. 34(2) can also include any mistaken beliefs reasonably held by the accused. If the court determines that the accused believed wrongly, but on reasonable grounds, that force was being used or threatened against them under s. 34(1)(a), that finding is relevant to the reasonableness inquiry under s. 34(1)(c). However, while s. 34(1)(a) and (b) address the belief and the subjective purpose of the accused, the reasonableness inquiry under s. 34(1)(c) is primarily concerned with the reasonableness of the accused's actions, not their mental state.
101Courts must therefore avoid treating the assessment of the reasonableness of the act under s. 34(1)(c) as equivalent to reasonable belief under s. 34(1)(a). Beyond honest but reasonable mistakes, judges must remind themselves that the objective assessment of s. 34(1)(c) should not reflect the perspective of the accused, but rather the perspective of a reasonable person with some of the accused's qualities and experiences.
Analysis
102Broadly speaking, the chain of events with respect to the verbal and physical encounters outside the pub between Ms. Nowakowski and Ms. Ballon are not in dispute. It is the reasonableness of Ms. Ballon’s actions informed by the evidence I do accept that is central to this case.
103Ms. Nowakowski testified in a forthright and sometimes combative manner. She understandably remains significantly affected by this incident. She was often candid in her evidence, most notably when she acknowledges that she initiated the verbal and then physical confrontation that night with Ms. Ballon. She accepts that she threw a single punch that struck the Accused and precipitated the fight that followed. I do not accept her evidence as being credible or consistent when she indicates that she did not know Ms. Ballon was outside the pub that night and happened upon her by chance. Her accounts in her statements to police and in her evidence at trial were not consistent and not credible in this particular regard.
104It is abundantly clear that Ms. Williamson told Ms. Nowakowski that the Accused was outside. Ms. Williamson did so enthusiastically and clearly relished the prospect of Ms. Nowakowski going outside to confront Ms. Ballon as some warped form of entertainment. That this occurred is supported by the video footage from inside the pub and its accompanying audio.
105The video footage then discloses Ms. Nowakowski striding out of the pub to confront Ms. Balon after being spoken to by her friend. She is shown being followed by Ms. Wiliamson and then eventually by Ms. Brown after she had replaced her boots and pulled away from her boyfriend’s attempt to stop her.
106I do accept the evidence from Ms. Nowakowski and others that she had not seen or spoken to Ms. Ballon since 2018, some 6 or 7 years prior to this incident. This makes the alleged threat via Facebook 1 month earlier a bewildering event, if it indeed occurred. I have no evidence before me of any Facebook messages and Ms. Nowakowski testified that she cannot recall whether she sent any such message as Ms. Ballon alleges and attributes this to her injuries following the stabbing.
107I do not know whether this random message was in fact sent and I am solely reliant on the evidence of Ms. Ballon in this regard but I do note that if it was as Ms. Ballon indicated in her evidence-in-chief, it did not change her view or fear of Ms. Nowakowski and that there had been no physical contact in their entire relationship. I accept that in cross-examination Ms. Ballon changed her evidence to suggest the message did make her afraid of Ms. Nowakowski.
108Although there are instances where I do not accept some of the evidence of Ms. Nowakowski, Ms. Willaimson and Mr. Azumi, I do accept their evidence and that of Ms. Brown that the events that occurred arose spontaneously. I also accept their evidence that no-one apart from Ms. Nowakowski had any physical contact with Ms. Ballon at any point during the encounter and that the incident quickly flowed from a brief verbal exchange, to a punch from Ms. Nowakowski and a brief struggle that took both women to the ground.
109This evidence is also broadly accepted and repeated by Ms. Ballon. I also accept the evidence of Ms. Nowakowski and Ms. Williamson that the pepper spray missed the victim but more directly impacted Ms. Williamson. One consequence of this was that Ms. Williamson was not able to clearly see or determine what had happened after she was impacted by the pepper spray.
110I also accept that Ms. Nowakowski exited the pub first and was followed in succession by her two female friends. Ms. Williamson and Ms. Brown were both outside and standing a foot or two behind Nowakowski throughout the incident and so at least 3 or more feet from Ms. Ballon. I accept, as does Ms. Ballon, that pepper spray was used by her prior to the fight continuing on the ground and that although Ms. Nowakowski was the intended target for the use of the spray, others nearby were affected by it, including Ms. Brown and Ms. Williamson.
111It is also clear that Ms. Williamson was verbally encouraging the fight although I accept her evidence and that of Ms. Brown that they did not join in at any point. It is clear that they and Mr. Azumi did not initially realise that Ms. Nowakowski had been stabbed by Ms. Ballon when they were fighting on the ground.
112I reject the evidence of Mr. Azumi and Ms. Williamson that they did not know who had stabbed Ms. Nowakowski when they spoke to the police. This evidence was not only in contrast to the evidence they provided at trial but was manifestly lacking in credibility. Both individuals knew Ms. Ballon and both knew she was involved. For reasons best known to themselves, they both chose to lie to the police.
113Ms. Williamson accepted this reality in her evidence. Mr. Azumi maintains the fiction that he was not certain then but is certain now. Given the findings on the voir dire, given her criminal record and given her, albeit dated history with Ms. Ballon and the demonstrable lies she told to the police, I approach much of Ms. Willaimson’s evidence with caution. She is clearly not reluctant to use or threaten violence if she wishes to do so. She clearly instigated the incident that led to Ms. Nowakowski being stabbed.
114Nevertheless, I do accept her evidence that she had previously had relatively limited contact with the Accused and that the last contact they had was limited and dated to the early years of high school. I accept it was not insignificant but nor could it be described as reasonably inducing in someone a fear for one’s life.
115I accept their adverse contact amounted to a slap of the accused several years before, an offer of a fight and a known willingness by Ms. Williamson to have carried weapons. The reality is that nothing in Ms. Ballon’s prior dealings would elevate their contact to that night or previously to a point where there would be a reasonable basis for the Accused to fear for her life upon immediately seeing either Ms. Williamson, Ms Nowakowski or both of them. She accepts that she had never even seen Ms. Brown before that night.
116Ms. Williamson accepts she had a knife that night but that it was in her purse in Mr. Azumi’s car. I find her candid and credible on this point not least because of the corroboration afforded by the video footage that captures her shouting out after the incident is over for someone to “get her fucking knife”. Shouting this as and when she did would clearly have been inconsistent with having a knife about her person and supports her evidence in this regard.
117Notwithstanding the caution with which I approach some of Ms. Williamsons’ evidence, much of it is not contradicted by other witnesses or the Accused. Indeed, much of it is not even in dispute in this trial. It is Ms. Ballon’s position that she acted as she did because she feared for her life, in part because of Ms. Willaimson’s presence and the, albeit dated history they had, not because Ms. Willaimson, or Ms. Brown actively engaged in any physical contact or threats towards her.
118Similarly, the credibility issues with respect to Mr. Azumi’s evidence do not undermine his credibility or reliability in terms of the brief chain of events he describes outside the pub, and I accept his evidence as being truthful in this regard. I reject his evidence where it relates to his lack of knowledge of who stabbed his girlfriend and he was clearly evasive in his evidence on this important issue. However, this is not a case where identification is in issue.
119It is clear that despite his frailties as a witness, the prompt actions of Mr. Azumi probably saved Ms. Nowakowski’s life. I accept as credible that he and Ms. Nowakowski also have discussed the events of the night in question. As a couple, it would defy logic or credibility had this been denied in this case. I have no evidence before me to conclude that they or other witnesses in this case have colluded or tailored their evidence as it relates to the mechanics that occurred outside the pub.
120I found Ms. Brown to be the most consistent and credible of all the Crown witnesses who testified. She was candid and made reasonable concession where appropriate. She accepted that she was very intoxicated on her birthday when these events occurred and that she is vague on some details. She was also open in terms of the current state of her relationship with various witnesses and the reason for that. I do accept her evidence that upon discovering that her friend had been stabbed that she confronted Ms. Ballon who then looked at her, did not respond and walked, rather than ran away from the scene.
121I accept Ms. Ballon’s evidence that she had gone to the pub after work to meet a friend to get some weed and there encountered Ms. Williamson. I also accept her evidence that she did not instigate this incident nor go looking for a fight with Ms. Nowakowski that night.
122However, throughout her evidence Ms. Ballon did lack credibility and consistency in her evidence.
123I do not accept as credible her narrative as to why she was in possession of the pepper spray she had that night or that its possession had morphed from self-protection to simply having it to ward off coyotes in a nearby ravine where she lived. I am satisfied based on her own evidence that Ms. Ballon possessed the pepper spray that night for her self-protection as originally intended.
124I also do not accept Ms. Ballon’s evidence that she did not know whether she had actually deployed the pepper spray after Ms. Nowakowski punched her nor that there was a faulty fastener that accounted for the pepper spray falling from her key ring after she had used it and that this accounted for it no longer being in her possession. While her aim may have gone awry, Ms. Ballon acted deliberately in her use of the pepper spray
125I accept that for anyone involved in a fight of this violent and serious nature accurately assessing the passage of time is challenging and I place no great emphasis on the specificity of timelines Ms. Ballon testified to. The video footage from inside the pub captures, at least in part, the general timelines and a shape of the fight that occurred outside the windows of the pub. It did not last for 5 minutes. The duration was much shorter.
126I do not accept as credible or realistic the evidence of Ms. Ballon with respect to the circumstances under which she said she located, retrieved, deployed and used the knife she had with her that night. While Ms. Nowakowski accepts she hit Ms. Ballon when they were on the ground, Ms. Ballon describes Ms. Nowakowski punching her a number of times with alternating hands. She then testified that while fending off these blows with one hand or arm she reached into her pant pocket to retrieve the folding pocket knife that she used for work, and with her remaining free hand she opened the folding knife and then use it to stab Ms. Nowakowski.
127I find that the mechanics of this process as recounted by Ms. Ballon are highly implausible and are further undermined by Ms. Ballon’s evidence that while this process was apparently happening, she testified that she did not know what she was doing. To suggest that she engaged in such a specific and deliberate series of steps while not appreciating what she was doing in the course of a short and very dynamic incident is both inconsistent with the actions she described and fundamentally lacking in credibility and I find it is a deliberate attempt to minimise her actions on that night.
128There is no credible and reliable evidence before me as to the knife that was actually used to stab Ms. Nowakowski. While I accept that an open bladed knife was located in an empty recycling bin near to this incident some hours afterwards and on the side of the street that Ms. Ballon had apparently used to leave the scene, there is no forensic or other evidence that enables me to conclude or even reasonably infer that the knife in the bin was used in this incident. I do, however, accept Ms. Ballon’s evidence that she discarded the knife she used after the incident.
129It is clear that there had previously been a significant friendship and an equally significant falling out some years previously between Ms. Nowakowski and Ms. Ballon. Whatever the nature of that relationship, nothing in their evidence suggests that there was any adverse physical contact between them in the years they knew each other, not the several years since last they encountered each other. Even if Ms. Nowakowski did send a random threatening Facebook message 1 month before the incident, Ms. Ballon stated in-chief that this did not change her view or fear of her former friend; although I note in cross-examination she sought to modify this position.
130I agree with Mr. Hannah Suarez that the evidence discloses generally unremarkable, high school behaviour between two former friends which Ms. Ballon now unrealistically seeks to elevate such as to have generated heightened and live safety concerns on her part.
131While I appreciate and accept much of the evidence with respect to the more physical history between Ms. Ballon and Ms. Willaimson, the specific examples and the passage of years since their last encounter cannot credibly in my view have reasonably generated a fear for her life on the part of Ms. Ballon when she encountered Ms. Williamson. I also note that even on the Accused’s own evidence Ms. Willamson told Ms. Ballon that Ms. Nowakowski was going to beat her up, not “we’re going to beat you up” or “I’m going to beat you up”.
132Ms. Ballon accepts she had never met and had no history with Ms. Brown although I accept that Ms. Brown was present outside at the start of the fight.
133Ms. Ballon was engaged verbally and physically only with Ms. Nowakowski. I accept that she did not seek this fight and was aware of the presence of Ms. Williamson and to a lesser extent Ms. Brown. I do accept that Ms. Ballon had reasonable grounds to believe force was being used or threatened against her by Ms. Nowakowski. Similarly, I accept that in response to that threat from Ms. Nowakowski that Ms. Ballon acted to defend herself.
134Nevertheless, I do not find either in the individual or cumulative history of the parties or the actual events of this night that these would objectively or subjectively led Ms. Ballon to conclude that her life was at risk. I also find that that there was no reasonable basis to conclude anyone other than Ms. Nowakowski was using or threatening of force against Ms. Ballon.
135On the facts of this case the mere presence of Ms. Williamson whom she had not seen in several years and Ms. Brown who was a complete stranger to her located a few feet from where she was standing did not amount to a threat against the Accused. There was no physical involvement or activity on their part and no weapons seen, threatened or used. Indeed, Ms. Williamson had been effectively marginalised outside the pub by the pepper spray.
136Notwithstanding the able cross-examination by Mr. Coulter and his accompanying submissions, the extent of the threat these two young women posed is highly speculative at best and predicated entirely upon their mere presence outside the pub and a very dated or non-existent history with Ms. Ballon.
137I note that it would have been open to either Crown or defence to lead evidence of Ms. Ballons’ physical condition following her arrest and booking when a photograph and medical assessment would have been conducted upon her being proceeded by the police, there is no such evidence before me one way or the other and I am left only with the evidence of Ms. Ballon as to the injuries she says she sustained which amounted to a black eye, cut lip and what she, as a non-medically qualified individual described as concussion. I accept that the Accused may have sustained some minor injuries in the fight but note that these did not require and nor did she seek any medical attention or treatment.
138In determining whether her actions were reasonable and proportionate, I consider that the nature of the force or threat Ms. Ballon faced that night amounted to a one-on-one encounter with an unarmed Ms. Nowakowski and the proximate uninvolved presence of Ms. Brown and Ms. Wiliamson along with other disinterested patrons outside the pub.
139I accept that from when she first encountered Ms. Williamson, there was limited scope for Ms. Ballon to depart after Ms. Williamson told her Ms. Nowakowski was inside and was going to come out and beat her up. However, if, as Ms. Ballon testified, the combination of Ms. Nowakowski and Williamson as well as the presence of others caused her to “fear for her life”, she clearly decided not to take any steps to depart in the limited time available to her and she remained outside once Ms. Nowakowski exited. Similarly, the Accused took no steps to depart once the verbal exchange started or before she deployed the pepper spray.
140I accept Ms. Nowakowski started the fight with a single punch. After the single punch, Ms. Ballon did not respond in kind or with any attempts at any physical punches, slaps or kicks of any kind. Her immediate recourse was to reach for and use the pepper spray in her pocket. At no point in the entirety of the incident did Ms. Nowakowski have or use a weapon of any kind. None were seen or used by anyone other than Ms. Ballon.
141Both Ms. Ballon and Ms. Nowakowski are similarly aged young, able-bodied women although Ms. Ballon was physically larger and heavier than Ms. Nowakowski. Neither party was imbued with any special fighting skills or training.
142The history between the parties I have previously summarised. It was dated and did not comprise any recent physical or verbal communication for several years prior to the incident with either Ms. Nowakowski or Ms. Williamson. To the extent there was any on-line communication, it occurred once, with Ms. Nowakowski one month before the incident and I do not find it led Ms. Ballon to meaningfully fear for her safety at the hands of Ms. Nowakowski, if it did in fact occur.
143On the basis of the evidence that I do accept at this trial, the Accused was armed with a knife and pepper spray, both of which I am satisfied she was in possession of unlawfully and for her own personal protection. I did not find Ms. Ballon credible in her evidence to the contrary and do not accept this evidence nor find it raises a reasonable doubt.
144I am satisfied that Ms. Ballon was aware that she had deployed the pepper spray and did so targeting Ms. Nowakowski. The fact that this did not have the intended effect did not detract from her intention when she used it nor when others were impacted by it. Indeed, Ms. Nowakowski only took Ms. Ballon to the ground after she realized Ms. Ballon had used the pepper spray. When the fight continued and Ms. Ballon realized that she had not incapacitated Ms. Nowakowski with the pepper spray, she escalated her response and reached for her knife.
145Whatever knife was used by Ms. Ballon, I do not accept that it was simply one that she possessed for the purposes of her work and nor do I accept that it was a small pocket knife with a folding blade that she retrieved from her pants pocket and opened using only one hand in the manner she described. Nor do I accept that she used it without realising what she was doing. Ms. Ballon produced a knife while the unarmed Ms. Nowakowski was on top of her and repeatedly stabbed her with it, striking her left torso, left arm and left thigh. These blows only stopped when Ms. Nowakowski was pulled away by a male at the scene and not because Ms. Ballon stopped administering the blows.
146I am satisfied on the totality of the evidence before me that although I do accept on the facts of this case that force was being used against Ms. Ballon and she acted to defend herself, her actions in terms of both the use or pepper spray and her repeated stabbing of Ms. Nowakowski with the knife she had in her possession were neither reasonable nor proportionate responses to this particular encounter.
147Ms. Nowakowski was unarmed and the only person with whom Ms. Ballon was physically or verbally engaged. The presence of Ms, Williamson and Ms. Brown to watch and support their friend amounted to just that. Ms. Nowakowski was unassisted by any of her friends, a factor which demonstrably upset her at the time and subsequently. No one intervened in any way until after Ms. Ballon had stabbed her.
148Ms. Ballon decided to escalate her response to the fist fight with Ms. Nowakowski from the use of pepper spray to the use of a knife. In doing so, I am satisfied that she knew full well what she was doing. I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that her actions were not proportionate or reasonable. It is only a combination of good fortune and the swift response of Mr. Azumi that prevented the outcome in this case from being even more serious and potentially fatal.
149I am satisfied that the Crown has proven all of the essential elements of the 8 counts before the court beyond a reasonable doubt and I find Ms. Ballon guilty on all 8 counts. However, it seems that the principles of R. v. Kienapple are relevant to certain counts on the Information and I shall discuss with counsel how they should be appropriately applied in this case.
Released: June 30, 2026
Justice Michael Waby