ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
ABI ABDULLAHI-SALAH
Before Justice S. Darroch
Heard on February 24, 25, 2026; March 9, 2026; April 1, 10, 16, 17, 28, 2026; and May 11, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on June 8, 2026
Mr. Matthew Moser Counsel for the Crown
Ms. Jordan Peach …………………………………… Counsel for Abi Abdullahi-Salah
Introduction
1Mr. Abi Abdullahi-Salah is charged with various firearms and related offences stemming from a shooting incident which occurred May 31, 2024, near 111 Market Street in Hamilton Ontario.
2There is no issue in this case regarding what happened and when. It is admitted by the defence there was a shooting on May 31, 2024, just after 11:00 a.m., involving an exchange of gunfire between two groups in the close vicinity of 111 Market Street.
3A bullet penetrated a window of one of the apartment units at 111 Market Street and lodged into an interior wall in the living room. A silver Subaru parked on Market Street was hit with several rounds. A Canada Post van parked in the driveway of 111 Market Street was also struck by a bullet fired in the exchange.
4Much of the incident was captured by the security cameras at 111 Market Street.
5The video exhibits show a group of three individuals (Group A), including suspect 1 who is alleged to be Mr. Abdullahi-Salah, walking westbound on the north side of Market Street approaching Caroline Street. They encountered another group (Group B) that had been walking southbound on Caroline approaching Market. Group A crossed to the south side of Market Street, led by suspect 1 who took cover behind the grey Subaru parked on the south side of Market Street.
6One member of Group A, that being suspect 1, as well as other members of Group B drew firearms and engaged in a shootout across Market Street.
7From his cover position next to the Subaru, suspect 1 fired at lest one shot from a .45 Calibre handgun toward the group on the north side of Market Street while the other members of the Group A fled on foot.
8After the exchange of gunfire, suspect 1 fled on foot, following the route taken by the other members of group A.
9After the shooting police recovered a single .45 Calibre casing from the scene close to the Subaru and the location of suspect 1 when the shot was fired.
10Approximately 14 hours later at just after 1:00 a.m. on June 1, 2024, Mr. Abdullahi-Salah was arrested in relation to a separate incident involving a firearm at 94 McNabb Street North – about 470 m from the location of the shooting at 111 Market Street.
11At or just across from 94 McNabb Street, at or near the time of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s arrest, police recovered a loaded and ready to fire .45 calibre Springfield Armory model XD-45 4.0 semiautomatic pistol.
12Forensic analysis confirms the firearm recovered June 1, 2024, at or near 94 McNabb is the same firearm that fired the recovered .45 calibre round on May 31, 2024, fired by suspect 1.
Issues:
Primary Issue – The Identity of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah as the Shooter:
13The primary issue for determination is whether the crown has proven to the requisite standard that Mr. Abdullahi-Salah is one and the same person who participated in the shooting event as depicted in the video and described during the trial as suspect 1.
14If the crown fails to establish identity to the requisite standard, an acquittal must follow on each of the 6 counts.
15However, if identity is established, the defence concedes the crown has met its onus with respect to each element of 5 of the 7 counts – Specifically:
Count 1 Possession of a restricted Firearm knowing he was not the holder of a license contrary s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code;
Count 4 Possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm without being the holder of a license contrary to s 95(1)(a) of the Criminal Code;
Count 5 Failure to comply with an undertaking by breaching a house arrest requirement;
Count 6 Failure to comply with an undertaking by not residing at an address in Nova Scotia;
And Count 7 failure to comply with a weapons prohibition in a release order.
Secondary Issue – Self Defence:
16With respect to Count 2 intentional discharge of a firearm while being reckless as to the life or safety of another person contrary to section 244.2(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, and Count 3 discharge of a firearm with intent to endanger life contrary to section 244 (2) of the Criminal Code, if I am satisfied of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s identity as the shooter, I must go on to consider the secondary issue of whether Mr. Abdullahi-Salah acted in self defence when he fired a .45 calibre round towards Group B on May 31, 2024.
Applicable Legal Principles
17Mr. Abdullahi-Salah is presumed innocent of the charges against him.
18He can only be convicted of an offence if the Crown proves the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a significant standard. While proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as absolute certainty, it is closer to that standard than it is to proof on a balance of probabilities.
19Evidence establishing probable or even likely guilt is insufficient to displace the presumption of innocence. In other words, it is not enough for me to believe the defendant is probably guilty or even likely guilty of the offence. Probably guilty or likely guilty does not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and must result in an acquittal.
20The burden rests with the Crown and never shifts. There is no onus on Mr. Abdullahi-Salah to prove his innocence or to provide an explanation for the evidence.
21For the presumption of innocence to be displaced, the crown must call sufficient and reliable evidence, on each element of an offence.
Circumstantial Evidence:
22The evidence against Mr. Abdullahi-Salah regarding identity is circumstantial. As a result, the evidence will be insufficient unless the inference that Mr. Abdulahi-Sallah is the shooter is the only reasonable inference the evidence permits.
23In R v Gibson 2021 ONCA 530 at paras 75-79 the Ontario Court of Appeal summarized four main legal principles that relate to the assessment of circumstantial evidence:
76First, circumstantial evidence is all about inferences. Individual items of circumstantial evidence give rise to a range of inferences. The available inferences must be reasonable according to the measuring stick of human experience. That there may be a range of inferences available from an individual item of circumstantial evidence does not render the item of evidence irrelevant or neutralize its probative value: R. v. Calnen, 2019 SCC 6, [2019] 1 S.C.R. 301, at para. 112, per Martin J. (dissenting, but not on this point), citing R. v. Smith, 2016 ONCA 26, 333 C.C.C. (3d) 534, at para. 77.
77A second point concerns the standard of proof required where proof of the offence or one or more of its essential elements depends wholly or substantially on circumstantial evidence. In such a case, an inference of guilt drawn from circumstantial evidence must be the only reasonable inference available on that evidence: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, at paras. 30, 32-34.
78Third, the standard of proof applies to the evidence taken as a whole, not to each individual item of circumstantial evidence: R. v. Morin, , [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345, at pp. 359, 362. See also R. v. Morin, , [1992] 3 S.C.R. 286, at p. 295-96.
79Finally, where proof of an essential element or the offence charged depends wholly or substantially on circumstantial evidence, it is the cumulative effect of all the evidence, taken together, each item in relation to another and the whole, that must be considered in determining whether the standard of proof has been met: Cote v. The King (1941), , 77 C.C.C. 75 (S.C.C.), at p. 76.
24Ultimately, the issue for consideration in this case is whether there is any way of looking at the totality of the evidence that is reasonable such that there is doubt about Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s identity as the person involved. If so, the evidence would not be sufficient to establish the element of identity.
Consideration and Analysis
Primary Issue Identity
25For the reasons that follow, I find the evidence presented, when considered cumulatively and in totality, establishes the identity of Mr. Abdullah-Salah as the person who engaged in the shootout near 111 Market Street on May 31, 2024, as shown in the video exhibits and described during the trial as suspect 1.
26First: Mr. Abdullahi- Sallah’s established presence in the immediate vicinity of the shooting location both before and after the shooting. Mr. Abdullahi Sallah was downtown Hamilton in the vicinity of the shooting on May 31, 2024, approximately 9 hours before the shooting. Videos recovered from Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s cellphone confirm his presence 75 metres from the shooting at the A & W restaurant just after 2:00 a.m. The video images are clear and of good quality, and Mr. Abdullahi-Salah is readily recognizable. On June 1, 2024, at just after 1:00 a.m., approximately 14 hours after the shooting, Mr. Abdullahi-Salah was arrested near 94 McNabb Street – Approximately 470 metres from the shooting.
27Second: The general appearance of suspect 1 on the Exhibit 7 videos is consistent with the general appearance of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah in terms of gender, complexion, size, frame, and proportions. The scene video footage in Exhibit 7 is of good quality and sufficiently clear to make out these characteristics. While the video evidence is insufficient to establish on its own the identity of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah, particularly given the hood and use of a facemask by suspect 1, I find there are important similarities in appearance. In addition, there is nothing inconsistent about the appearance of the shooter in the video as compared to the appearance of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah as he appeared before the court, and in the arrest photo, and nothing about the appearance of the shooter in the video that contra-indicates it was Mr. Abdullahi-Salah. Similarly, the other members of Group A as shown in the Exhibit 7 videos do not match Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s general appearance. The other male wearing dark clothing is slighter of build and has longer shaggier hair than that of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah as shown in Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s arrest photos. The third group A member appears to be a similar size and build, but is wearing entirely different clothing including different shoes. To be clear Mr. Abdullahi-Salah is not recognizable in the scene videos, I simply note that it is only suspect 1 who matches the general appearance and overall description of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah, and, suspect 1 is the only member of group A wearing clothing that appears to be the same or strikingly similar as shown in known videos or images of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah from the same date.
28Third: The shoes worn by Suspect 1 in the Exhibit 7 videos appear to be the same shoes or at least remarkably similar shoes as those worn by Mr. Abdullahi-Salah both before and after the shooting. At the time of his arrest, 14 hours after the shooting, photos were taken of his clothing. The Exhibit 8 photographs (Photos123 to 132) show the distinctive colouring and design of the shoes including the pattern or design on the sole of the shoes worn by Mr. Abdullahi-Salah when he was arrested – that being a black sole with a faded or worn orange marking running lengthwise from about one inch forward of the heel to just beyond the centre. The faded parts of the sole almost appear white or pale yellow. When compared to the videos of the scene at the time of the shooting the sole markings appear strikingly similar to the shoes recovered and photographed by police. As suspect 1 runs past the camera on the Exhibit 7 video 2, the soles of his shoes are intermittently visible as Suspect 1 lifts his heel with each step. Pausing the video as his foot lifts reveals the striking similarity of the markings (See Exhibit 7 video #2 at 11:02:01 and compare with Exhibit 8 photographs 130, 131, and 132). Approximately 9 hours before the shooting, as shown in the A & W videos, he is wearing what appear to be precisely the same shoes.
29Fourth: Apart from the addition of long pants, the clothing worn by Suspect 1 in the Exhibit 7 videos, appears to be the same or at least remarkably similar to the clothing worn by Mr. Abdullahi-Salah when he attended the A & W hamburger outlet approximately 9 hours before the shooting. Videos recovered from Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s cellphone show him in attendance at the A & W at shortly after 2:00 a.m. the morning of the shooting. The A & W is recognizable in the video and is located immediately behind 111 Market Street, about 75 m from where the shooting occurred. Mr. Abdullahi Sallah is readily recognizable in these A & W videos. He is wearing what appears to be the same hooded black Nike sweatshirt and the same face-mask, although in the A & W videos it is below his chin, so his face is recognizable. The A & W videos also capture images of his shoes which as I said above are strikingly similar if not identical to ones worn by Suspect 1, and the shoes worn by Mr. Abdullahi-Salah when he was arrested 14 hours after the shooting – including the brand, style, logo, and colouring.
30Fifth: The tethered and uniquely coloured lighter worn by Suspect 1 on the waistband appears the same or at least substantially similar to the tethered and uniquely coloured lighter worn by Mr. Abdullaahi Salah in the A & W videos. Not only does the item appear to be identical, but so does the location on the waistband and the manner of attachment (See Exhibit 19, pg 22 showing a bi-lateral comparison of the item worn by Suspect 1 and the item worn by Mr. Abudllahi-Salah at the A & W). The same tethered lighter is in Mr. Abdullahi Sallah’s possession 2 days before the shooting as depicted in another video recovered from Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s cellphone. The Video from May 29, 2024, shows Mr. Abdullahi-Salah, who is plainly recognizable in the video, using the lighter as it is tethered to a retracting lanyard. A similar tethered and uniquely coloured lighter, attached to a retractable lanyard was recovered at the time of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s arrest although it was not in Mr. Abdullahi Sallah’s possession.
31Sixth: The presence of the firearm used in the shooting by Suspect 1 was located in the immediate vicinity of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah at the time of his arrest just 14 hours after the shooting. The firearm recovered at the location of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s arrest was forensically analysed and found to be precisely the same gun used during the shooting at 111 Market Street. The firearm recovered is a 45 calibre Springfield Armory model XD 45 4.0 semiautomatic pistol with a laser light sight accessory attached below the barrel. The laser sight projects a green light from the device when activated.
32Seventh: On May 25, 2024, just 6 days prior to the shooting, Mr. Abdullahi-Salah was in possession of gun that appears to be the same make, model, size, style, and colour of the gun used in the shooting – including the added accessory of a laser light sight attached below the barrel. In a video recovered from Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s cellphone, dated May 25, 2024, he is readily recognizable and obviously in possession of a firearm that appears the same as the one used in the shooting. The video shows the gun including the laser light sight attachment that appears to be identical to the laser sight attached to the gun recovered at the location of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s arrest. Another video on Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s cellphone, recorded May 23, 2024, shows what appears to be the same firearm with the attached laser light sight. While Abdullahi-Salah is not the one holding the gun in this video, he is sitting next to the person who is, and notably the video shows the laser light sight activated and emitting a green coloured light.
33Eighth: On May 25, 2024, just five days prior to the shooting, Abdullahi-Salah admitted being in possession of a gun during a text exchange. The messages recovered from Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s cellphone include a text conversation from May 25, 2024, wherein Mr. Abdullahi-Salah acknowledges being possession of a firearm.
34Ninth: A forensic examination of Mr. Abdullahi’s cellphone revealed he conducted 17 internet searches for news regarding a Hamilton shooting within 2 hours of the shooting. Then at 1:22 pm on May 31, 2024, just over 2 hours from the shooting, Mr. Abdullah-Salah visited a CHCH news website with a posted story about the shooting at 111 Market St.
35Tenth: There is an absence of evidence that points away from Mr. Abdullahi Salah’s involvement in the shooting. I instruct myself that an absence of exonerating evidence is not positively corroborative and does not equate to the presence of incriminating evidence. I also acknowledge there is no onus on the defence to provide exonerating evidence and the absence of such evidence does not add positively to the overall weight of the evidence. However, when considering available inferences from the totality of circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to consider all reasonable inferences, including unlikely inferences that are nevertheless reasonable. The presence of evidence pointing away from Mr. Abdulahi-Salah would obviously inform the consideration of available inferences.
36I have examined the evidence carefully and note there is an absence of forensic evidence directly connecting Mr. Abdullahi-Salah to the firearm and the position behind the Subaru. There is similarly no DNA or forensic evidence connecting anyone else to these items. The presence of DNA and or fingerprint evidence connecting the scene location and/or the gun to someone else would inform the inferences available when considering the totality of the evidence and the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence and whether other inferences were available. Similarly, there is nothing in the video evidence from before, during and after the shooting, to contra-indicate Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s identity. Similarly, the there is nothing in the cellphone evidence to contra-indicate or point away form Mr. Abdullahi Sallah as the person involved.
37The photographs pointed out by defence counsel as being sent before and after the shooting show Mr. Abdullahi-Salah wearing different clothing, but I find this evidence to be ultimately neutral as there is no information regarding the time the photos were actually taken (as opposed to the time they were sent) and in one of the photos sent hours after the shooting he is wearing what appears to be a light grey hoodie consistent with what he was wearing when he was arrested. As a result, I find on balance these photos to be neutral factors and not contra-indicative of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s participation.
38While none of above listed factors individually is determinative of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s identity, when considered cumulatively they lead to the inescapable inference that Mr. Abdullahi-Salah is one and the same person as Suspect 1 in the video exhibits who fired a shot towards Group B from his location of cover behind the parked Subaru.
39The combination of his confirmed presence in the area both before and after the shooting; the similar and consistent aspects of the appearance of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah and the shooter shown in the video; the remarkable similarity of the shoes worn by Mr. Abdullahi-Salah both before and after the shooting, including shape, colour, and design of the markings on the sole as compared to the shoes worn by Suspect 1; the text conversation confirming his possession of a gun; the cellphone videos showing him in the direct or immediate presence of a gun that appears strikingly similar if not identical to the one used, including the presence of a green laser light sight; the unique tethered lighter on the waist of Suspect 1 and how it matches what is seen on Mr. Abdullahi Salah’s person just hours before the shooting; the fact he was arrested in the immediate vicinity of the firearm forensically determined to have been used in the shooting; and the internet search activity on his phone, all when considered in totality lead to only one reasonable inference: that Mr. Abdullahi-Salah is the shooter.
40I find this is in fact the only reasonable inference available when I consider all the evidence, taken together, each item in relation to another and the whole, in the manner directed by the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.
41As a result, I find the crown has established the identity of Mr. Abdullahi Sallah as the person involved and described as suspect 1 during the trial.
42Mr. Abdulahi Sallah is therefore found guilty on Counts 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Secondary Issue: Self Defence
Legal Framework of the Defence of Self Defence
43Self-defence is based on the principle that it is lawful, in defined circumstances, to meet force (or threats of force) with force: “an individual who is unlawfully threatened or attacked must be accorded the right to respond” (M. Manning and P. Sankoff, Manning Mewett & Sankoff: Criminal Law (4th ed. 2009), at p. 532). To put it simply, self-defence is an attempt to stop threats of force or the use of force by meeting force with force: R. v. Ryan, 2013 SCC 3 para 20.
44Section 34 of the Criminal Code sets out three elements of the defence:
Reasonable Belief (s. 34(1)(a)): "the accused must reasonably believe that force or a threat of force is being used against him or someone else";
Defensive Purpose (s. 34(1)(b)): "the subjective purpose for responding to the threat of force or force must be to protect oneself or others”;
Reasonable Response (s. 34(1)(c)): "the act committed must be objectively reasonable in the circumstances".
45In short, section 34 of the Criminal Code can be conceptualized as requiring: (1) the catalyst (s. 34(1)(a)); (2) the motive (s. 34(1)(b)); and (3) the response (s. 34(1)(c)).
46In determining whether the act committed or the response was 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 set out in s 34(2):
(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.
47When considering this objective component of the defence, "the court must be alive to the fact that people in stressful and dangerous situations do not have time for subtle reflection." R. v. Cunha, 2016 ONCA 491 para. 7.
48Further, the required analysis examines the entire context. I therefore must consider the conduct of the parties from the beginning of the incident to the end: R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37 at para. 82. “This broad temporal frame allows the trier of fact to consider the full context of the accused’s actions in a holistic manner”: Khill para. 83.
49For the defence to be considered there need only be an “air of reality” to the defence arising in the evidence.
Consideration of the Defence
50I find the circumstances of this case, including the movements of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah taking cover behind the Subaru motor vehicle immediately after observing the other group, and his act of firing the gun from that covered position, towards the other group, provide a sufficient basis to establish an air of reality to the defence of self-defence.
51As a result, the burden is on the crown to disprove at least one of the elements of the defence beyond a reasonable doubt.
52I similarly find given the totality of factors and circumstances, including the just described reaction of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah to apparently seeing the other group, and his following actions which may have been in response to a threat of being fired upon or actually being fired upon, that the crown has not disproven two of the 3 elements of the defence beyond a reasonable doubt: those being the catalyst and motive elements of the defence. In other words, Mr. Abdullahi-Salah may have reasonably believed that force or a threat of force was being used against him, and it may be that the subjective purpose of his response was to protect himself or others.
53Where the defence fails, and where the Crown has disproven an element of the defence beyond a reasonable doubt is with respect to the third element of the defence – the reasonable response.
54In other words, I find beyond a reasonable doubt the Crown has disproven the reasonableness of the response of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah, including firing at least one round at the members of group B.
55The consideration of the third element of self-defence involves an overall assessment of the reasonableness of Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s act or actions in the circumstances. As articulated by the SCC in Khill, “the reasonableness inquiry under s. 34(1)(c) operates to ensure that the law of self-defence conforms to community norms of conduct.” (para. 62)
56In other words, I am to consider all the circumstances; not just what occurred between group A and group B as if they were the only people in the area at the time of the shooting. The “circumstances” include the non-exhaustive list of factors in Section 34(2) but also other relevant factors such as the location of the incident, the time of the incident, and the presence of other parties.
57111 Market Street is downtown Hamilton and the location of a large residential apartment building. The street is in a busy area of the city with considerable pedestrian traffic and many detached homes and apartment buildings in the immediate vicinity.
58The shooting occurred at just after 11:00 a.m. on Friday May 31, 2024. At this time of day, in this area of the city it is reasonably foreseeable that a considerable number of people would be present. In fact, the Exhibit 7 videos of the scene confirm the presence of several other people at the relevant time. Just two minutes before the shooting, a Canada Post employee drove a work-van into the driveway of 111 Market Street, retrieved a box from rear cargo area and walked into the building. The rear access door of the van the employee opened was hit with a bullet in the immediate area where the Canada Post Employee stood just minutes earlier. The videos also show seven people not including the members of Group A walk past 111 Market Street during the three minutes immediately before the shooting. During the same three-minute period seven vehicles passed the location including a scooter and the Canada Post van.
59Even assuming only one person per vehicle, that leaves a minimum of 13 people who crossed the direct line of fire during the three minutes leading up to the shooting. Other people can be seen on the Ex 7 video 2 walking into and out of the parking lot across the street and just east of 111 market. On the north-west corner of Market and Caroline, which is the general direction Mr. Abdullahi-Salah fired the round towards group B, there is a small house with windows facing both Market Street and Carline Street. Moving westward along Market Street there are three more small houses in close proximity to the intersection, all with windows facing the street. Next is an apartment building approximately 10 storeys high with balconies facing Market Street.
60The life of every occupant of these residential buildings plus the life of every other person in the area was put at risk by Mr. Abdulahi Salah’s actions on the morning in question. I find this to be a significant and critical distinguishing factor from the circumstances considered by Justice Nishikawa in R v Noor [2024] O.J. No. 805, wherein the accused fired towards 2 men across the street with an open area behind them. Justice Nishikawa specifically noted how Mr. Noor did not endanger the lives of countless individuals.
61Mr. Abdulahi-Salah also had other options available to him. For instance, he could have run away from the situation as soon as he recognized there was a risk of danger. In fact, this is precisely what the two other members of Group A did – they ran away. Mr. Abdullahi-Salah, perhaps because he was armed with gun, chose to engage the other group members and took cover behind a car before returning fire. Even after he opted to take cover behind the car Mr. Abdullahi-Salah could have remained in his position behind the front engine area of Subaru. Mr. Abdullahi-Salah could have yelled for help, or called the police or asked someone to call the police. He could have shown he had a gun or threatened to use a gun. Instead, he opted for an extreme use of force by firing a 45 caliber round towards a group people with residencies including windows, doors, and balconies immediately behind their position. There was simply no safe way to discharge a firearm in the direction he did considering what was immediately behind the intended targets.
62Finally, if I were to find Mr. Abdullahi-Salah’s conduct was reasonable, then arguably any other person in the vicinity of the shooting who possessed a firearm could have also lawfully fired their gun and claimed self-defence.
63Justice Bellmore in R v Owusu [2022] ONCJ 667 when ruling on the same issue stated as follows:
82First, this [finding the discharge of a firearm to be reasonable] may encourage individuals to carry loaded firearms in public places in order to be “battle ready”. Second, this may create a “wild west” scenario, where numerous firearms are brandished and fired in public places where innocent members of our society could be caught in the crossfire. Citizens in our community should be able to go to a mall without fear of being caught in the middle of a gunfight. In my view, both of these possible consequences would be contrary to our community values and commonly accepted community norms.
64I completely agree with Justice Bellmore’s comments and find them equally applicable to the circumstances of the present case and location including the notion that members of the community should be able to sit in their living rooms or walk down their neighbourhood street without fear of being caught in the middle of a gunfight.
65In conclusion, having weighed all the circumstances including all applicable factors set out in section 34(2) of the Criminal Code, I find the Crown has discharged its burden of disproving the third element of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.
66I also find the elements of reckless discharge of a firearm are made out to the requisite standard. I make the same finding with respect to the elements of discharge of a firearm with intent to endanger life. A person intends to endanger life when he means to put someone in a situation or condition that could cause another person to die. It is trite to say that firing a 45-calibre round at or towards someone necessarily creates a condition that could cause their death.
67As a result, Mr. Abdullahi Sallah is found guilty on all counts.
Released: June 8, 2026
Signed: Justice Stephen Darroch