WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.5(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code. These subsections and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.5(1) or (2), read as follows:
486.5 ORDER RESTRICTING PUBLICATION — VICTIMS AND WITNESSES — (1) Unless an order is made under section 486.4, on application of the prosecutor in respect of a victim or a witness, or on application of a victim or a witness, a judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way if the judge or justice is of the opinion that the order is in the interest of the proper administration of justice.
(2) JUSTICE SYSTEM PARTICIPANTS — On application of the prosecutor in respect of a justice system participant who is involved in proceedings in respect of an offence referred to in subsection (2.1), or on application of such a justice system participant, a judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the justice system participant shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way if the judge or justice is of the opinion that the order is in the interest of the proper administration of justice.
(2.1) OFFENCES – The offences for the purposes of subsection (2) are
(a) an offence under section 423.1, 467.11, 467.111, 467.12, or 467.13, or a serious offence committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization;
(b) a terrorism offence;
(c) an offence under subsection 16(1) or (2), 17(1), 19(1), 20(1) or 22(1) of the Security of Information Act; or
(d) an offence under subsection 21(1) or section 23 of the Security of Information Act that is committed in relation to an offence referred to in paragraph (c).
(3) LIMITATION – An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice if it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community.
486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsections 486.4(1) to (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Toronto
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
R.S.
For the Crown
J. Smith
For the Defendant
K. S’Ree
Heard:
October 9 and 10, 2025
REASONS for JUDGMENT
A. INTRODUCTION
1R.S. (the defendant) is charged with one count of attempting to obstruct justice.
2The information alleges that he, between the 1st day of January in the year 2024 and the 26th day of January in the year 2024 at the City of Toronto in the Toronto Region, did intentionally attempt to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice by influencing a witness in a proceeding to not participate in a court hearing, contrary to Section 139, subsection (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
3At the material time, the defendant was facing charges of sexual assault against the daughter of his former girlfriend, E.R. The matter had not yet gone to trial.
4The Crown alleges that the defendant asked his then friend, Madhoo Poon, to approach E.R. and offer to pay her $5,000 if she would discontinue the criminal case against him.
5E.R. and Mr. Poon testified for the Crown in the trial before me. Only the defendant testified for the defence.
6E.R. recounted the details of how, on January 15, 2024, Mr. Poon approached her at the Walmart where she was working and made the bribe. He did not tell her that he was there at the defendant’s bidding.
7Mr. Poon, broadly speaking, confirmed E.R.’s testimony and testified that he made the bribe at the behest of the defendant.
8The defendant testified and denied any involvement in Mr. Poon’s attempt to bribe E.R.
9The defendant admits that Mr. Poon’s approach to E.R. constitutes an attempt to obstruct justice.
10The only issue in this trial is whether the Crown has succeeded in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Poon’s attempt to bribe E.R. was at the defendant’s behest.
B. THE EVIDENCE
(a) Introduction
11I shall not set out the evidence in fine detail. Rather, I will summarize the salient portions of the witnesses’ accounts. A transcript of the proceedings is readily available.
(b) E.R.’s testimony
12E.R. was 48 years old when she testified. She has no criminal record.
13In 2022 she was living with the defendant. In November of that year the defendant was charged with sexually assaulting E.R.’s daughter. In January of 2024 that charge was still outstanding.
14In January 2024, E.R. worked at the Walmart at 1900 Eglinton Avenue East in Toronto. She had been working there since September 2022.
15One day in January 2024, on a date she cannot specifically recall, Mr. Poon visited her at her workplace. She had met him only once before when she and the defendant ran into him at another Walmart parking lot. At that time the defendant introduced him to her as his friend Harold.
16On that day in January 2024 Mr. Poon approached her in the Walmart. He identified himself as Harold, a friend of the defendant. He did not smell of alcohol and he seemed sober. She had never seen Harold at that Walmart previously.
17He asked her if she could withdraw the outstanding charges against the defendant. He told her that the defendant was old and sick and might go to prison. She told him she could not drop the charges. He came back about 90 minutes later, after she had returned from lunch, and told her he would give her $5,000 to withdraw the charges. She told him she didn’t need the money and that if he approached her again, she would call the police. He offered her his phone number, but she refused it.
18He came back to the Walmart about a week later and simply said hello. She had already complained to the police about the earlier encounter.
19E.R. had never told Harold where she worked.
(c) The video evidence
20Two January 15, 2024, CCTV video-only recordings of the interior of E.R.’s Walmart were introduced into evidence. E.R. identified Harold who is shown interacting with her on one of the videos.
(d) Mr. Poon’s testimony
21In January 2024 Mr. Poon had been friends with the defendant for almost 10 years. Both are from Trinidad. He had gone to visit the defendant several times and had met E.R. there on some of those occasions although he had not spent any time with her. Most of Mr. Poon’s friends, including the defendant, call him Harold.
22The defendant had told Mr. Poon over the phone that he had been charged with sexually assaulting E.R.’s daughter.
23Mr. Poon testified that he had been asked by the defendant to go see E.R. at her Walmart to see if he could convince her to drop the charges. According to him he did that twice and after she refused both times, he told the defendant she had refused and the defendant told him to go back and offer her $5,000, which he did.1 It was the defendant who told Mr. Poon on an earlier occasion that E.R. worked at the 1900 Eglinton East Walmart.
24The defendant did not offer Mr. Poon anything to do this for him. Mr. Poon agreed simply as a favour for a friend. He understood that the $5,000 would come from the defendant as Mr. Poon did not have that kind of money.
25On April 16, 2025, Mr. Poon pleaded guilty to attempting to obstruct justice in connection with the January 15, 2024, incident and received a 6-month conditional sentence after spending two weeks in pre-sentence custody. He had also been convicted in the past of three drinking and driving offences.
(e) The defendant’s testimony
26In 2024 the defendant and Mr. Poon had been friends for over 20 years. The defendant was 69 years old when he testified.
27The defendant would often help Mr. Poon repair cars at Mr. Poon’s commercial garage. They would often socialize as well. The defendant described Mr. Poon as a “busybody” who was always inquiring of the defendant’s personal life.
28The defendant told Mr. Poon about the sexual assault charge sometime in late 2023 because he asked.
29The defendant admitted that he was concerned that he might go to jail if found guilty of the sexual assault allegation he was facing.
30The defendant denied ever asking Mr. Poon to approach E.R. regarding the charges. In his direct examination he flatly denied ever telling Mr. Poon where E.R. worked. In cross-examination he said he might have “inadvertently” told Mr. Poon prior to January 2024 that E.R. worked at the 1900 Eglinton East Walmart, although he couldn’t remember having done so.
31He further stated that Mr. Poon had indeed met E.R. once in another Walmart parking lot as she explained. Mr. Poon never met her at the defendant’s home.
32He did not have $5,000 available to him at the time.
33One day in early 2024 at around 4 p.m. Mr. Poon called the defendant and asked the defendant to pick him up at the 1900 Eglinton East Walmart. The defendant refused because he wasn’t allowed to go there because of his bail conditions. They met that afternoon at a bar instead. When they met, the defendant told Mr. Poon that he hoped Mr. Poon hadn’t done anything stupid at the Walmart.
34Shortly after the January 15, 2024, incident the police questioned the defendant about the identity of Harold. He gave the police Harold’s real name and phone number.
35After both the defendant and Mr. Poon were charged, Mr. Poon would sometimes show up at a bar that they both frequented. On one occasion Mr. Poon offered to buy the defendant a beer.
C. ANALYSIS
(a) Introduction
36This case turns principally on the credibility and reliability of the three witnesses.
37Because the defendant testified and denied committing the alleged offence, I must apply the rule in R. v. W.D., [1991] S.C.J. No. 26, which can be summarized as follows; If I believe the testimony of the defendant, I must of course find him not guilty. Even if I am not convinced by his testimony, it may nonetheless, when examined in the context of all the evidence, raise a reasonable doubt. If it does, I must also find the defendant not guilty. If it does not raise a reasonable doubt, I must examine the evidence that I do accept to see if it proves the criminal allegations against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. If it does not, the defendant must be acquitted. If it does, he must be found guilty.
(b) The credibility and reliability of the witnesses and their accounts
38I begin with the testimony of E.R., who gave her evidence in a frank and steady fashion. Her testimony proves beyond any doubt that Mr. Poon offered her $5,000 to take steps to discontinue the outstanding sexual assault charges against the defendant. Even though Mr. Poon remembers it differently, I prefer her evidence as to when that attempted obstruction occurred, i.e. on January 15, 2024. The key components of her testimony are corroborated by the video evidence and the testimony of Mr. Poon. Her testimony is not challenged by the defendant. While there are discrepancies between her account and that of Mr. Poon as to when he visited her at her workplace, the evidence is clear that Mr. Poon did so and offered her $5,000 to withdraw the sexual assault charges against the defendant. I also accept her testimony that she had only met Mr. Poon once before January 15, 2024, as supported by the testimony of the defendant on this subject.
39I do not accept the defendant’s testimony that he did not ask Mr. Poon to attempt to bribe E.R., nor do I find that it raises a reasonable doubt on this issue. On the critical question of whether he ever told Mr. Poon where E.R. worked, his testimony was remarkably inconsistent. He unequivocally insisted more than once in his direct testimony that he had not. On the second day of trial, while in cross-examination, he changed his testimony and said that he might have inadvertently told him. I believe that he realized overnight that his denial in his direct examination was not possibly true, and indeed it is not.
40When asked in his direct examination, after the Crown’s evidence was already in, “are you aware right now of the police allegations that Mr. Poon had gone to the Walmart E.R. worked at”? the defendant said no. This answer was obviously untrue. If it merely reflects a misunderstanding of the question, such a careless misstatement significantly erodes the reliability of his entire testimony.
41That he asked Mr. Poon at the bar on January 15 if he had approached E.R. (or “done something stupid” as he put it) suggests he knew of the attempted bribe. Otherwise, why would such a thing come to mind?
42As concerns Mr. Poon’s testimony, he is the only witness to testify that his attempt to obstruct justice was made at the behest of the defendant. Because he is an accomplice and has a criminal record that includes a plea of guilty to the very obstruct justice that is the subject of this trial, he is what is commonly referred to as a “Vetrovec” witness and his testimony must be scrutinized with great care. R. v. Vetrovec, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811. I must look for evidence that confirms his testimony before I choose to accept it. That confirmatory evidence need not be on the principal issue. R. v. Tubic, 2024 ONCA 833 at para. 36.
43There is ample confirmation of most of Mr. Poon’s testimony. E.R.’s evidence largely confirms many aspects of Mr. Poon’s testimony concerning his visit to her Walmart, as does the video evidence. Many details of the defendant’s testimony also confirm Mr. Poon’s testimony.
44What’s more, apart from certain clear inaccuracies, which I attribute to his failing memory, I found Mr. Poon’s testimony to be frank and unguarded. It is worth noting that there was no evidence of any motive on his part to falsely implicate the defendant. In fact, they continued to socialize after the incident and after being charged criminally.
45Mr. Poon himself had nothing to gain by bribing E.R.
46While it is true, as defence counsel points out, that Mr. Poon denied making the bribe when questioned by police after his arrest, his in-court testimony about the bribe is so amply supported by other evidence that it is safe to conclude that his denial to police was simply an example of an accused, caught red handed, denying his involvement to police when first confronted. As I am entitled to do, I nonetheless believe his assertion at trial that he made this bribe at the defendant’s behest.
47The defence theory that Mr. Poon was simply looking for something to do is not supported by any evidence independent of the defendant’s opinion that Mr. Poon is a busybody, which opinion is itself unsupported by other evidence and that I do not accept.
D. CONCLUSION
48I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant asked Mr. Poon to bribe E.R. with the intention of dissuading her from testifying at his sexual assault trial.
49I thus find R.S. guilty as charged.
Released on January 7, 2026
Justice Russell Silverstein
Footnotes
- Mr. Poon was arrested on February 13, 2024. He then gave the police a videotaped statement. In his testimony he said that the defendant did not tell him where Ms. E.R. worked, nor suggest the $5,000 bribe until after February 14, 2025. Counsel for both parties agree that this conversation between the defendant and Mr. Poon, if it happened, must have happened prior to Mr. Poon’s arrest.