Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2018-09-28

Court File No.: Newmarket 18-02058

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— and —

Ryan Reesor

Judgment

Evidence heard: September 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 2018

Delivered: September 28, 2018

Counsel:

• Ms. Michelle Rumble, counsel for the Crown
• Ms. Eleanor Shaw, counsel for the defendant

KENKEL J.:

1. Introduction

[1] Ryan Reesor went to his former spouse's home on a Sunday morning. He arrived uninvited and unannounced. He walked in and found that a friend of his RK was sleeping on the couch after a party the night before. Even though Mr. Reesor and the complainant had broken up six years earlier he became angry with the fact that a man was on the couch in her home. Mr. Reesor yelled at both of them then left. Later that day he sent the complainant a text message which sounded suicidal. She responded, "Please don't do that."

[2] The following day Mr. Reesor returned to the complainant's home after his son had gone to school. She testified that he entered the home and went upstairs to her bedroom. He confirmed that his son was no longer there, then pulled out a sawed-off shotgun. He tried to take the complainant's phone from her. Mr. Reesor told the complainant that she had a choice, she could take him to the workplace of RK or to the workplace of an ex-boyfriend of hers from four years earlier. He would kill one of them and then kill himself. If she didn't choose which one would die, he would kill her.

[3] They struggled and she managed to push him into the hallway and lock her door, but Mr. Reesor used the shotgun to break through the door. There was a further struggle and Mr. Reesor pushed the complainant down onto the floor. He took the shotgun and pointed it at her temple. He slid the action to show her he wasn't kidding and ejected a shell onto the floor in the process. He took tape he'd brought and tried to bind her hands and legs as she struggled. She screamed for help throughout and he tried to stop her by putting his hand over her mouth. Eventually Mr. Reesor fled the house. Later that day he sent the complainant several text messages. Police arrested Mr. Reesor at his farm. In the shed at the back of the house the police recovered a sawed-off shotgun loaded with shells matching the one they located in the complainant's house. Mr. Reesor was charged with 15 offences arising out of the incident.

[4] Mr. Reesor admitted that when he saw a man sleeping on the complainant's couch that disappointed him but he wasn't angry. The following day he went to her home to retrieve his things as he'd been back living with her up to that point. One of the items he took was a pellet gun he'd put in the garage for his sons. There was an argument and Mr. Reesor said that the pellet gun caused a hole in the complainant's bedroom door when she slammed it shut on him. He didn't threaten the complainant or anyone else. He doesn't own a shotgun and has no knowledge of how a sawed-off shotgun came to be in the shed of his farm, how shotgun ammunition came to be in his shed and in his buffet drawer, how a shotgun shell fell out of his pocket at his mother's house and how a shotgun shell came to be on the floor of the complainant's house.

[5] There is no burden on the accused to prove or disprove anything. The Crown bears the burden throughout to prove each allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case on each count the credibility of the witnesses is the central issue. I've applied the decision framework set out in R v. W.D. to the whole of the evidence. The credibility assessment and the findings of fact described below flow from that initial overall analysis.

2. Submissions of Counsel

[6] The Crown submits that the complainant's evidence is credible for three reasons: her evidence is logical and explains a motive for the accused's actions, her evidence was corroborated by the other witnesses and the circumstantial evidence, and there was no motive for her to lie.

[7] The defence submits that the accused was a credible witness. He's never been known to possess a firearm so his testimony in that regard is credible. He owns a pellet rifle that was also recovered by the police at the farm along with a number of other pellet guns and bows so his evidence about holding a pellet rifle during the argument with the complainant could reasonably be true. Mr. Reesor did not live at the farm during the period in question and other persons had access to that property. There was no fingerprint or DNA evidence linking Mr. Reesor to the shotgun or any of the ammunition.

3. Firearm and Ammunition Examination Evidence

[8] DC Michael Kamstra is a Forensic Firearms Analyst with the York Regional Police. He was qualified on consent to give opinion evidence about the identification and classification of firearms and ammunition and their operation. DC Kamstra identified the firearm seized as a semi-automatic shotgun chambered for 12 gauge 2¾ inch shells with a full trap choke before the barrel was altered. He pointed out the features of the sawed-off shotgun that make it a prohibited weapon. He also explained the safe storage requirements for prohibited weapons. The circumstances in which the weapon was found – fully loaded, on a high shelf in a shed – show the person who put it there failed to follow any storage safety requirements for either a firearm or a restricted firearm. The detective test fired the weapon and confirmed that the shotgun functioned as a firearm within the s.2 definition under the Criminal Code.

[9] Exhibits 18 A-C are photographs of the shells found in the shotgun seized at 7293 Reesor Road. DC Kamstra noted that two of those shells were slug shells, which are unlike the more common bird shot shells found elsewhere in the farmhouse. The slug shell could not have been fired from this shotgun when the barrel choke was in place, but could have been fired from the shotgun once the barrel with the choke end had been sawed-off. Slug shells are used for hunting large game like deer or by law enforcement.

[10] The officer compared the shell found at the complainant's home to the shells found loaded into the shotgun that was seized from the farm. All of the shells were 12 gauge shells. Two of the shells loaded into the firearm are very similar to Exhibit 19, the shell seized by PC Doyle from the complainant's floor, in that they are 2 ¾ inch slug shells, same burgundy colour, same Federal manufacturer, same brass base. A further similar shell was found in a drawer in the farm house along with other shotgun shells – see Exhibit 33.

4. Shotgun Shell Comparison Evidence

[11] Ms. Chin of the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS) was qualified on consent to give opinion evidence regarding the examination and identification of firearms, ammunition and related components, the mechanics and operation of firearms and ammunition, and the microscopic examination, comparison and identification of ammunition. Her second report dated September 6, 2018 and marked as Exhibit 37 stated that when she compared the shotgun shell seized from the complainant's floor to shells that were test-fired from the sawed-off shotgun seized from the farm, the shell markings showed they were all fired by the same shotgun, "to a practical certainty."

[12] The defence submits that the comparison of the manually ejected shell found in the complainant's home with test-fired shells isn't valid given the very different ejection conditions described by the witness when a shell is fired. Ms. Chin explained that she chose to compare the unfired shell to test-fired shells as the latter were more likely to have consistently visible markings as they were automatically ejected. Manually ejected shells have varying levels of marking depending upon the force used.

[13] While the comparison to fired shells was reasonably explained, I find I must approach the examiner's conclusion with caution. Although Ms. Chin identified the particular observations that led her to conclude that the two shells were a match, she did not refer to any objective standard applied to arrive at that conclusion. Unlike DNA evidence this process appears to lack the criteria necessary to generate a random match probability. Unlike fingerprint evidence, there is apparently no accepted number of points of comparison required to support the conclusion of a match to a "practical certainty". On this evidence it appears that the conclusion of identity is based solely on the examiner's subjective judgment derived from practical experience.

[14] Because the shell found at the complainant's home was not fired there were limited areas to examine. Ms. Chin looked at the marks on the shell casing that would result from the shell being loaded, chambered, ejected and then extracted. She identified ejector and extractor marks on both shells, but there were some marks she couldn't identify. The ejector left an "L" shaped mark on the test round, but the significance of that mark was not explained. Is an "L" shape unusual or common to all such devices? Other marks in agreement were identified, but only to the extent that "multiple" points of agreement seemed sufficient to the examiner to establish certain identity. There was evidence that the examiner referred to the Integrated Ballistics Database System (IBIS) but there's no evidence about whether the frequency of particular marks within that database has ever been determined. There was no evidence about whether the test shells were compared with the seized shell on the IBIS system. In a computer analysis would the test shells show as the only matches or would they be among a group of possible matches? Where would they rank in that group and would that ranking reflect the level of certainty within that system of the match?

[15] The CFS has each comparison reviewed by a separate examiner. This process apparently repeats the side by side subjective process. There was no evidence in this case as to the error rate generally identified by this review nor was there any evidence about the individual error rate of this examiner. Given the subjective nature of the examination, both might be relevant to the weight given to the expression of certainty in this case.

[16] Based on the evidence heard in this proceeding, I don't find the Crown has shown a sufficient basis for the examiner's conclusion that the shells match to a certainty, practical or otherwise. That doesn't mean that the comparison evidence is without value. On the contrary, the evidence is relevant and admissible. It provides important circumstantial evidence linking the shell recovered to the shotgun found at Mr. Reesor's farm.

5. The Credibility of the Accused

a) The Relationship with the Complainant

[17] Mr. Reesor is 41 years of age. He testified that he had no criminal record but in cross-examination he admitted that he had been convicted of operating a motor vehicle while "Over 80" in 2010. He's part of the extended Reesor family that settled in the Markham area 200 years ago. He now lives in a farmhouse built in the 1920's by his great, great grandfather after the original house burned down. He moved into the house at 7293 Reesor Road ten years ago. His mother lives nearby at 7295 Reesor Road about a kilometre away.

[18] He and the complainant started their relationship in high school. They had one son together and she had an older son from another relationship. They broke up six years ago but Mr. Reesor has always hoped they would get back together.

[19] Mr. Reesor agreed with the complainant's evidence that in the Fall of 2017 they had a good parenting relationship. When she went away on a vacation he helped out by looking after their son who was at home in high school. He understood the complainant was dating someone at the time but he was "ok with it and that was it".

b) 7293 Reesor Road

[20] Mr. Reesor lived at 7293 Reesor Road with the complainant to the time she left 6 years ago. He's resided there for the past 8 or 9 years. He testified that before Christmas 2017 he rented out the property and there were tenants living there. He said he was "kind of floating" living in various places. Later in his evidence he said he lived primarily at the complainant's home. He wasn't just there on certain evenings when the complainant worked as she described, but "pretty much full time" once his farm was rented out. He kept a room at the farm and returned occasionally just to look after his cat. He submitted a copy of a tenancy agreement as proof that he no longer lived at the farm property.

[21] Mr. Reesor's evidence that he was living with the complainant "full time" is contradicted by the evidence of the complainant and his mother and by the circumstantial evidence at 7293 Reesor Road. The fact that he was not aware of the plans for the birthday party and wasn't in the home in the days prior to that party shows he was not living with the complainant and was not involved in her life beyond shared parenting.

[22] The police took photographs of the main floor of the house and the shed at 7293 Reesor Road. Mr. Reesor's personal possessions were shown throughout the house. Other than a handgun, the shotgun and shotgun shells that he claimed no knowledge of, the remainder of the contents of the home belonged to Mr. Reesor. There is no evidence that anyone else occupied that home at the time or prior to that time. No other person was at the property on the day the accused was arrested. Mr. Reesor had the key to the chain lock at the entrance to the property on his person when he was arrested. No other person was at the property the next day when the police executed the search warrant.

[23] Mr. Reesor's evidence that he rented his property to others wasn't credible. His description of the person he said signed a rental agreement was vague and his claim that he has no way to contact that person wasn't credible. His evidence that others sublet the property but he didn't know their names or contact information wasn't credible. Mr. Reesor's mother testified that he lived at 7293, that in the past people had stayed with him but in February of 2018 he was living at that property by himself. She confirmed her initial statement to the police that her son lived alone at that address.

[24] Mr. Reesor's testimony at trial about living with the complainant and returning to 7293 only to check on his cat is contradicted by the affidavit he swore in support of a bail review application on March 7, 2018. In cross-examination at trial he confirmed that he was aware the document was filed in regards to a court proceeding and he understood the importance of telling the truth. In the affidavit at paragraph 8 he stated that prior to his arrest he was living with a co-worker in Ajax and occasionally at the farm at 7293 Reesor Road. In cross-examination he could not explain the contradiction. He suggested that the different evidence was simply an "oversight" but it's a significant internal contradiction that detracts from the credibility of his evidence.

[25] It's not necessary to unravel the details of the full history of Mr. Reesor's tenancy at 7293 as the Crown has proved the accused resided there alone at the relevant time in early February of 2018. That fact detracts from the credibility of Mr. Reesor's evidence on a central point.

c) February 4th – The Sunday Morning

[26] Mr. Reesor agreed with the complainant's evidence that he went to her home and entered unannounced on the morning of Sunday February 4th. He had been given the code so he could help prepare supper for his son when the complainant worked nights. He agreed that his older friend was sleeping on the couch when he entered although he also said he thought that RK might be pretending to sleep. He testified that the complainant "obviously hadn't slept", there was cocaine on the table and the complainant was, "high on cocaine". In cross-examination he said both the complainant and his friend were "high on drugs". He didn't listen to either of them explain that RK had slept on the couch to avoid driving after a night of drinking. Mr. Reesor immediately concluded that RK was being intimate with his former spouse. At this point in his evidence he switched to calling his friend of 20 years an "acquaintance". He said he threatened to punch RK but didn't because his son was in the house. Mr. Reesor left shortly afterwards. He described himself as upset but not angry. He said he was relieved that he had "finally caught her red handed", an odd statement given that his relationship with the complainant had ended six years earlier.

[27] In cross-examination the accused said he was unable to remember the details of the event. He didn't remember whether or not he called the complainant a "whore" or "slut" but he may have. He didn't remember whether he accused his friend of breaking up his family. He didn't recall what he said to the friend. He agreed that when RK called him later to talk about why he had been at the house he told the friend to "fuck off" and hung up, but Mr. Reesor denied he did that because he was angry.

[28] Mr. Reesor's evidence as to the events at the house that Sunday morning is credible on the few points where it coincides with the evidence of the complainant and RK. All three agree he arrived unannounced that morning with two coffees. RK was sleeping on the couch and when he awoke he joked with Mr. Reesor, "where's mine?" referring to the coffee in a casual way consistent with the situation. Mr. Reesor immediately drew another conclusion and because upset and angry. His suggestion that there was cocaine on the table and that the complainant and his friend were high on drugs was not credible as it was never put to either witness, it's inconsistent with the circumstances including the presence of their son upstairs and it's contradicted by the credible evidence of both of the other witnesses.

[29] Mr. Reesor's reaction in the text message sent just after noon that day "… I am leaving for good … tell (the sons) that I love them very much, I will not be reachable and much love bye :)" was reasonably viewed by the complainant as potentially suicidal given similar messages he'd sent her in the past. The messages are consistent with the very angry overreaction described by the complainant and RK but inconsistent with the reaction the accused described. Mr. Reesor was very evasive when cross-examined about the details of what happened in the house, particularly with respect to those details that would indicate he was more angry than he admitted. While he may not have shown that anger to his mother when he saw her that day, she was nevertheless worried about him. I do not find Mr. Reesor's evidence with respect to the events on Sunday February 4th to be credible.

d) February 5th – The Confrontation

[30] Mr. Reesor testified that he went out the next morning to get coffee and to pick up his clothes from the complainant's house. He noticed that RK's vehicle was parked by the complainant's house. He said he "got emotional" when he saw that car. He again entered the home unannounced. He said he went to the garage and retrieved a pellet gun that he'd left there for his son. After he got the gun he went into the house to confront the complainant and RK. He went upstairs to the complainant's bedroom and found her sitting alone on the edge of her bed. Mr. Reesor testified that the complainant slammed the door but he tried to prevent that and he inadvertently smashed the pellet gun into the door causing the hole photographed by the police. She said she was going to call the police and he tried to grab her phone to stop her. He threw her phone into the hallway. The complainant tried to retrieve her phone in the hallway and he took it and threw it down the stairs. He asked her where his friend was saying, "Take me to him".

[31] Mr. Reesor said the complainant went after the phone downstairs and screamed for help. He may have pushed the front door shut as she tried to leave then he pushed her to the side. He said to her, "Do you think I'm kidding" then left. He didn't threaten to kill her or anyone else. He didn't have a sawed-off shotgun and he doesn't know how the shotgun shell ended up on her floor. He doesn't know how the sawed-off shotgun seized by police ended up in the shed at his farm house. He doesn't know how the same shotgun ammunition ended up loaded in the shotgun at his farm. He didn't know there was shotgun ammunition in the buffet in the dining room of his house.

[32] Mr. Reesor's evidence regarding the events of February 5th was both illogical, and incredible. It's contradicted by the circumstantial evidence, firearms evidence and the credible evidence of the complainant.

[33] The suggestion that the friend's car was still by the complainant's house the next day was never put to either the complainant or the friend when they testified. It's not credible given the friend's evidence to the contrary and in any event would not provide an excuse for Mr. Reesor to again enter the complainant's home uninvited and unannounced. Mr. Reesor's evidence that he left his house that morning in part because he needed to get coffee is contradicted by his mother's testimony that she gave him coffee to take to his house the day before.

[34] If Mr. Reesor attended the residence to remove some of his belongings from the garage as he said there was no reason for him to enter the house and no reason to enter the complainant's bedroom, the fact that he went to her room and confronted her there while armed shows his real purpose. Mr. Reesor's evidence that the damage to the door was inadvertently caused when the complainant slammed the door on him wasn't credible. On his evidence he was merely transporting a pellet gun back to the farm so there would be no reason for him to have that weapon in his hand during an argument and no reason to have it pointed towards the complainant such that it could somehow cause the hole when she closed the door.

[35] In examination-in-chief Mr. Reesor said he hunted with a bow because he wasn't brought up with guns, never owned a gun and didn't feel comfortable introducing guns into his household as he had children. This statement is inconsistent with his explanation for having a weapon in his hand on February 5th – that the weapon was a pellet rifle he had brought over to the complainant's home and left there for the boys. In addition to the shotgun and ammunition, several pellet and bb guns were seized from his property. On the same theme he further claimed he had so little experience with firearms he didn't know if a shotgun could kill someone. That answer like much of his evidence simply wasn't credible.

[36] The complainant described being threatened with a very specific and unusual weapon – a shotgun with the barrel sawed short. The defence position is that her evidence is a fabrication. It's an odd claim to fabricate. The complainant never knew the accused to own or possess firearms much less a very unusual restricted weapon. If she wished to fabricate a claim it's very unlikely she would choose to describe such an unusual weapon as opposed to more common legal firearms.

[37] The police seized a sawed-off shotgun from the accused's shed after he was arrested at his property. It simply defies probability that the complainant would concoct an unlikely story then simply by chance the exact weapon she described would be found on the property of a person who says he doesn't own any firearms. There's no way she could have known the accused possessed a sawed-off shotgun unless she saw it as she said when he used it to threaten her in her home.

[38] The shotgun shell found on the floor of the complainant's house by the police shortly after the accused left matches shells found loaded in the shotgun at the accused's farm. Further, that found shell has ejection/extraction markings consistent with having been ejected from the sawed-off shotgun.

[39] Mr. Reesor's evidence that he was unaware there were shotgun shells in the buffet at his house isn't credible considering he'd lived at that address for 8 or 9 years. His belongings were all over that buffet. Even his mother saw shotgun shells in his house and in that drawer when she visited Mr. Reesor a year earlier.

[40] His evidence that he was unaware of the shotgun in his shed is contradicted by the shell he left at the complainant's house and by the fact that his mother saw a shotgun shell fall out of his pocket the day before on February 4th. Mr. Reesor couldn't explain how he came to have a shotgun shell at his mother's house. He "didn't know how" it got into his pocket. He said he didn't even recall it falling out although that would be a significant event for someone who didn't own firearms. As his mother said, a shotgun shell isn't a "rabbit's foot" or something you'd casually carry on your person. If Mr. Reesor didn't own a shotgun or ammunition it would be a significant and memorable item to find and carry with him. His stated lack of memory on this point wasn't credible.

[41] The circumstantial evidence shows that the accused brought the fully loaded shotgun to the complainant's home that morning and confronted her in her room as she described. When she tried to close the door he smashed a hole in it with the shotgun. He wasn't there to pick up clothing, he went there specifically to threaten her with the loaded firearm and attempt to force her to take him to the men he was seeking to kill.

[42] Mr. Reesor's account of the incident is further undermined by the texts he sent the complainant after he left (Exhibit 10):

• Please finish me off
• Can U please call me
• I'm not good
• 1 min
• 10 sec
• OMG
• Please don't add to my suffering

[43] The desperate and suicidal tone of the text messages is completely inconsistent with the minor event described by the accused but consistent with the evidence of the complainant.

[44] Mr. Reesor's post-act conduct also detracts from the credibility of his evidence. Canine officer PC McGuigan testified that he watched as Mr. Reesor was ordered by tactical officers to keep his hands visible and walk towards them. The officer saw the accused Mr. Reesor disobey those orders twice when he paused in different places and moved his hands. In the first of these locations PC Kulasekaran found a cellphone in the snow as shown in Exhibit 20G. The cellphone had the back and SIM card removed. The direct and circumstantial evidence shows that the accused dismantled his cellphone and threw it in the snow at that location just prior to his surrender in an attempt to prevent the police from finding that device. The complainant's testimony indicates that there was relevant evidence on the accused's phone. I find the accused's action in attempting to hide the phone from the police detracts from the credibility of his evidence.

[45] The text message Mr. Reesor sent to the complainant marked as Exhibit 10 also includes a statement he acknowledges now was false – "… I don't know why you flipped out and smashed your door, But if your gonna try to frame me for something it's not cool." It's plain that message was sent in an attempt to dissuade the complainant from calling the police which is another act which detracts from the accused's credibility as a witness.

e) Conclusion

[46] Mr. Reesor was not a credible witness. He was vague in examination-in-chief and evasive in cross-examination. While some of his evidence tracked circumstances described by previous witnesses, the testimony regarding his relationship with his former spouse and the charges before the court was illogical, internally inconsistent and inconsistent with external circumstantial evidence and credible direct evidence. Having considered his evidence in the context of all of the evidence at trial as described above I find I can place no weight on his testimony. It does not leave a doubt either alone or in combination with any other evidence.

6. The Credibility of the Complainant

a) The Relationship with Mr. Reesor

[47] The complainant is 42 years old. She met Mr. Reesor in high school in Markham. They started dating when she was 16. They started living together when she was 21. She had one son from another relationship. In 2002 she had a son with Mr. Reesor. The complainant and Mr. Reesor never married but they were together up to 2011/2012. They lived at 7293 Reesor Road. After they separated she left with the boys but to her knowledge Mr. Reesor has lived at the 7293 property ever since.

[48] After the breakup the complainant said the accused continued to try to control her contact with other men. He became angry if a man spoke to her or if he thought men were looking at her. When she had a relationship with CP in 2014 she had to apply to the Superior Court for a restraining order as a result of the text messages Mr. Reesor sent marked as Exhibit 14.

[49] Those messages included numerous threats:

• people r getting hurt soon keep that one for the cops
• no threats promises
• no prob you fucking whore this doesn't end well i promise
• let him know im comming ive been up and down his street couldn't find his house but now i know he should get himself a gun
• i hope you know im not kidding
• … nothing you can do
• … he's getting fucked up
• Im going to take whats been taken from me
• … Where the fuck you hiding that mother fucker im going to cut his fucking head offff …
• … my plan how much more do u want for the cops fu people r getting dead
• … I took a contract out on your fuckinh boyfriend took every cent I had … not going to court goinh to kill myself …

[50] There are many more similar texts. They don't capture all of the communication between the parties during that time, but there are repeated death threats and suicidal statements throughout in relation to the complainant's relationship with CP despite the fact that she and Mr. Reesor had ended their relationship over two years earlier.

[51] In examination-in-chief Mr. Reesor explained that he was in a "dark place" when he sent those texts. He was still depressed that the complainant had left him. In cross-examination he said that he was abusing substances at the time and he attributed the texts to that condition. He was repeatedly evasive in response to further questions, eventually claiming not to have any memory of the texts and eventually no memory of the whole year 2014, "I don't recall any of it". He also claimed not to recall being the subject of a restraining order issued by the Superior Court as it was "a long time ago" (4 years). His insistence that after the separation he did not find it hard to let go of his relationship with the complainant was shown not to be credible given the many jealous, angry and threatening texts he sent during that period.

[52] The complainant testified that Mr. Reesor's attitude towards her having contact with other men continued to 2017. Even six years after their breakup Mr. Reesor would become angry if she spoke to other men. In June of 2017 they argued at the Markham fair and she told him they could not go out in public anymore as friends. They stopped contact until November as a result of that incident.

[53] The history of their relationship is relevant to the issue of motive in relation to the specific counts of uttering death threats against the former boyfriend CP and against RK. It also shows an ongoing attitude in relation to the complainant's contact with other men and is relevant to the credibility of the complainant's evidence and the motive for the offences alleged on February 5th, 2018.

[54] Despite their arguments and Mr. Reesor's jealousy the complainant eventually repaired the parenting relationship with Mr. Reesor. She described him as a loving father who actively helped her look after both sons. From November of 2017 to February of 2018 the complainant was working some nights and Mr. Reesor wasn't employed. He helped look after the one son who was still at home on the nights the complainant worked. He was given the access code to her house for that purpose.

b) No Animus and No Motive to Fabricate

[55] Notwithstanding their history, the complainant's testimony showed no animus against the accused. Her responses to his text messages in 2014 and 2018 are consistent with her evidence on this point. The fact that she let him back into her life after the restraining order, that she continued the parenting relationship with Mr. Reesor in 2017/18 even after the Markham argument and the fact that she allowed him access to her home when she was working are all consistent with that finding.

[56] The lack of animus is related to a second point – there is no evidence of any motive for the complainant to have fabricated these complaints. Beyond the lack of any ill will, there is no evidence of any other reason that would cause her to make false accusations against Mr. Reesor. On the contrary, the complainant and the accused had what she described as a good mutual parenting relationship on friendly terms in February of 2018. Contacting the police deprived her of the accused's assistance when she works nights and was contrary to her interest.

c) February 4th – Sunday Morning

[57] February 4th 2018 was Superbowl Sunday, a busy day for the restaurant where the complainant works and she was scheduled for a double shift. She got up to prepare for work but was not expecting her former spouse to walk into the home. When she heard the keypad sound she was in the dining room. She looked over to see the accused come into the house carrying two coffees. Their mutual friend had slept on her couch to avoid driving home after drinking at the party. He joked with Mr. Reesor saying, "Where's mine?". Mr. Reesor became very upset and started yelling. Their son was upstairs. The complainant asked Mr. Reesor to step outside. He was angrier outside, calling her a slut and a whore, then he left.

[58] Later that day the complainant received several text messages from the accused set out in part at paragraph 29 above. To the complainant the messages sounded suicidal and she responded "Please don't do that" but she didn't take further action as he'd made similar threats before.

[59] The strong overreaction of Mr. Reesor is unfortunately consistent with the history of their relationship to that point. The complainant's account is consistent with the credible evidence of their mutual friend. The complainant's description of the intensity of the accused's reaction is consistent with the text messages he sent to her later that day, and consistent with Mr. Reesor's response to his friend's phone call. Finally, her evidence as to the events of February 4th is consistent with and logically explains the accused's actions the following day.

d) February 5th – The Confrontation

[60] The complainant worked late due to the Superbowl but she got up early the next morning to drive her son to high school. When she returned she went back to bed for a nap. Shortly after that she heard the keypad sound in her house. She heard someone enter and then Mr. Reesor walked into her room. She asked him what he was doing there and he asked where their son was. She told him their son was at school.

[61] Once he confirmed that his son was at school the complainant said Mr. Reesor pulled out a shotgun from behind his back and he demanded that she give him her phone. She tried to take her phone but he lunged at her and there was a struggle. He got hold of the phone, took it from her and threw it out of the room into the hallway. He was very angry and told her he was suicidal. He told her someone was going to die and she would have to choose which one. He said she was to take him to either RK or CP and he would murder that person and kill himself. If she refused to choose which one would die he would kill her.

[62] At first she nervously laughed at the threat, but there was a further struggle and when she tried to get her phone in the hallway he pushed her down. She was able to get back into her bedroom and was going to call 911 when there was a thump on her door and she saw the barrel of the shotgun break through. Mr. Reesor forced his way into her bedroom again and there was another struggle. At one point the complainant was able to break free and she made it down the stairs towards the front door where she screamed for help. The accused slammed the door shut to prevent her from leaving and pushed her down onto the floor of that hallway. He put the barrel of the shotgun to her head and said, "Do you think I'm kidding?". To make his point he slid the action on the shotgun and a shell was ejected onto the entrance way floor. The complainant kept screaming for help.

[63] Her screaming caused Mr. Reesor to become even angrier still and he put his hand over her mouth. He told her they could do it the nice way or the hard way, referring to his plan to take her from the residence and then to kill the other men. Mr. Reesor attempted to tape her up as she cried. Mr. Reesor then left the complainant and fled out the front door. She immediately called 911.

[64] During the struggle with the accused, SC unknowingly "pocket called" a friend LK who she had spoken with earlier that morning. LK heard an angry male voice she recognized to be Ryan Reesor's and a woman screaming in the background. She heard Mr. Reesor say, "you're a fucking slut", "you're fucking coming with me", "I'm going to tie you up", "I'm going to put you in the fucking trunk". LK's recollection about those statements was not challenged in cross-examination other than the suggestion that tie or "tape you" could have been "take you" as in take you with me and "trunk" could have been "truck". The witness was certain it was not "take you" as Mr. Reesor repeated those statements more than once. LK wasn't present when the complainant relayed some details of the event to the 911 operator so her evidence that she heard this during a "pocket call" was independent and reliable. The credible evidence of LK supports the credibility of the complainant's account.

[65] In response to what she heard, LK immediately went to the complainant's house as she lives close by. The complainant mentioned her arrival 4 minutes into the 911 call. LK's attendance at the house was consistent with her evidence and supports the credibility and reliability of her recollection. She found the complainant very upset, crying, sobbing, her face was beet red and her chest was red. Her observations of the complainant's demeanor are consistent with the complainant's evidence and inconsistent with the allegation of fabrication. LK noticed a shell casing on the floor of the complainant's entrance way. She did not touch or move the shell and the police arrived shortly afterwards. Once Constable Doyle arrived he stood over the shell to make sure it was not touched or moved. He too found the complainant distraught and trembling. The redness observed by LK and the minor injuries photographed by the police support the complainant's account of the physical struggle.

[66] The police photographed and seized the shotgun shell. As discussed above, the circumstantial evidence shows that shotgun shell could only have been put there by Mr. Reesor. The fact of the shell on the complainant's floor is real evidence confirming the credibility of the complainant's testimony not only in relation to the firearms charges, but also in relation to the assault with a weapon, assault, death threats and forcible confinement charges. The fact that the accused brought a loaded shotgun to her home to confront her in a jealous rage is a circumstance consistent with the entirety of the incident she described and inconsistent with his testimony.

[67] The complainant had no way of knowing that Mr. Reesor had a sawed-off shotgun unless she'd seen it at her house as she described. As explained above, the circumstances in which the police found and seized the sawed-off shotgun from the accused's shed after his arrest on that property strongly supports the credibility of the complainant's evidence. The fact that the shotgun was loaded with the same colour/type/gauge/make of ammunition as the shell ejected onto the complainant's floor provides further certainty as to the credibility of the complainant's account. The CFS evidence linking that shell to the seized shotgun is yet further evidence confirming the same point. The fact that the complainant described the sawed-off shotgun as shorter than it was is understandable given the circumstances where she understandably would have been focused on the barrel pointed at her head and not measuring the length of the stock behind it.

[68] The damage to the complainant's door as shown in the police photographs is consistent with her evidence. She provided the only logical and credible evidence as to how the damage was caused. The accused's plainly self-serving text message sent after the incident confirms that he was present in the complainant's home when the door was damaged and that he was aware she had called police. His admitted false claim in the text that she put a hole in her own bedroom door was also illogical and incredible as was his entire evidence about the events of that day. The fact of that damage added to the accused's presence in her home just after her son had been taken to school are further circumstances that are consistent with the complainant's testimony.

e) Conclusion

[69] The complainant testified in a straightforward manner. She plainly still cares for the accused, particularly in relation to his role as a father to their children. Nevertheless she answered all questions in examination-in-chief in a factual manner. While much of the evidence was upsetting to her and she cried at times she did not avoid difficult questions or topics. She gave detailed, responsive answers to both counsel.

[70] Despite careful cross-examination, the complainant's evidence was internally consistent on the central points. Only one detail was cited by the defence as different from her original statement – the description at trial of the accused putting his foot on her chest. The complainant did not know why she didn't mention that detail in her statement but confirmed her present recollection in that regard. Her evidence on this point is logical and consistent with the events she described to that point. The foot on her chest would be consistent with her position on the floor and would explain why she was unable to continue to struggle at that point. The scratches and redness on her chest as shown in the police photographs and as observed by her friend LK show her present recollection is credible and reliable.

[71] The complainant's account was logical, consistent with the credible evidence of the other witnesses, and consistent with the circumstantial and real evidence. I find the Crown has proved the complainant was a credible and reliable witness in the context of all of the evidence and I accept her testimony.

7. The Credibility of the Other Witnesses

[72] There was no challenge to the credibility of the police witnesses called to investigate these complaints. They were acting in a professional capacity and each officer gave their evidence in a neutral, detailed manner. I accept their evidence as reliable and credible.

[73] The accused's friend RK viewed Mr. Reesor's reaction on February 4th as a misunderstanding. He tried to call Mr. Reesor later that day but Mr. Reesor swore at him and hung up. The friend's evidence was factual and consistent with the credible evidence of the complainant and even the evidence of Mr. Reesor on a number of points. Mr. Reesor's claim of possible drug use was never put to him and found no support in the evidence. I find that RK was a credible and reliable witness.

[74] LK knows the complainant as they've both worked in the bar and restaurant industry in Markham. They are work colleagues and they're friends outside work. She knows Mr. Reesor although she hadn't seen him often after the complainant left that relationship. After that he occasionally came into the bar where they worked to have a few drinks. She was on friendly terms with Mr. Reesor. Her involvement in the February 5th incident was in response to an inadvertent "pocket call". Her evidence was consistent with the credible evidence of the complainant and consistent with the observations of the police officers who arrived at the house minutes later. The Crown has proved LK to be a credible and reliable witness.

[75] The accused's mother was understandably a somewhat reluctant witness when it came to answering questions put to her by the Crown, but when her original statement was shown to her she confirmed important details she initially provided to the police. I find it unlikely that the accused was as calm as she said after storming out of the complainant's house on the Sunday. The text messages he sent were more consistent with Ms. Reesor's original statement to Sgt. Mitchell that she was worried that he would lie awake all night stewing about finding a man on his ex-spouse's couch. Aside from that point I accept Ms. Reesor's evidence as credible.

8. Reasonable Doubt Review

[76] Even in a trial like this where the focus is on the credibility of the central witnesses, it is not sufficient to simply determine that the evidence of one witness is more credible than the other. The reasonable doubt standard requires a further assessment of all of the evidence to determine whether there is any credible evidence or circumstance that reasonably could leave a doubt on any count.

[77] In this case the credible direct evidence is strongly supported by circumstantial and real evidence including the photographs, texts and firearms and ammunition evidence. I've reviewed all of the evidence at trial with respect to each allegation but I'm unable to find any credible evidence that could reasonably leave a doubt on any of the charges before the court.

9. Conclusion

[78] The Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

• that the accused assaulted the complainant while using a shotgun contrary to s.267(a),
• that he physically assaulted the complainant during the struggle to get her phone s.266,
• that he threatened to kill the complainant, CP and RK contrary to s.264.1(2),
• that he pointed a shotgun at the complainant s.87(2),
• that he carried a shotgun in a careless manner contrary to s.86(3),
• that he possessed a prohibited sawed-off shotgun without being the holder of a licence s.91(3),
• that he committed mischief not exceeding $5000 in damaging the door to the complainant's bedroom s.430(4),
• that he forcibly confined the complainant as he prevented her from leaving the residence and then bound her with tape s.279(2),
• that he used a shotgun while uttering death threats contrary to s.85 (1)(a),
• that he possessed a weapon, a shotgun for a purpose dangerous to the public peace s.88(2),
• that he unlawfully stored a prohibited weapon in a careless manner s.86(3),
• that he possessed a loaded prohibited firearm without being the holder of a registration certificate for that firearm s.95(2),
• that he carried a concealed weapon, a long gun, without being authorized under the Firearms Act to do so s.90(2).

[79] There will be findings of guilt on each count.

Delivered: September 28, 2018

Justice Joseph F. Kenkel