ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. Voronova, 2022 ONCJ 568

DATE: 2022 02 04

COURT FILE No.: 21-70000292

Toronto Region – Old City Hall

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

HANNA VORONOVA

Before Justice H. Pringle

Heard on September 27, 28, 29, 2022; November 22, 2022

Oral Reasons for Judgment released on December 2, 2022

Written Reasons for Judgment released on December 4, 2022

Erin Winocur........................................................................................ counsel for the Crown

Lisa McCullough......................................................................... counsel for the defendant

PRINGLE J.:

OVERVIEW OF CHARGES

[1] Hanna Voronova is charged with committing four criminal offences: committing public mischief, carrying a concealed weapon, assaulting a peace officer while using a weapon [s. 270.01(1)], and committing an aggravated assault on a peace officer [s. 270.02].

[2] She pled not guilty and elected to have a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

OVERVIEW OF TESTIMONY

[3] I will give a brief overview of the evidence, which is not meant as an exhaustive summary.

[4] The initial events in this case are not controversial, and began with a call to 911.

[5] In a disjointed manner, Ms. Voronova told a 911 dispatcher she had killed someone and left the body in Ramsden Park. In more clear language, she said voices told her to kill. She spoke of pain, bushes, voices, and blood. She was largely unresponsive to the dispatchers questions, but added that the voices were very, very loud and were still telling her to kill.

[6] Police eventually determined her location to be close to Mount Sinai Hospital. The first officer to arrive was Sgt. Chang, who arrived in uniform and on bike. Sgt. Chang had nothing to do with investigating whether a murder had been committed, although he offered hearsay evidence that 53 Division was detailed to search that park.

[7] Dispatch communicated that Ms. Voronova’s call seemed to be from a person experiencing mental health crisis. When Sgt. Chang arrived on scene, he saw Ms. Voronova sitting inside an all-glass bus shelter, in front of Mount Sinai Hospital, alone.

[8] Sgt. Chang’s body camera footage was put into evidence. It showed that when he called her name, Ms. Voronova jumped up and stood, facing him, with her back to one of the shelter walls. She had her left hand to her ear, which was likely her holding a cell phone. Shortly before this, 911 dispatch asked her if she saw a police officer, to which Ms. Voronova replied “no” but added “a bicycle”.

[9] Ms. Voronova put her cell phone hand down and more officers started to arrive. She did not move or respond in any meaningful way whatsoever, but simply stood with her back close to the glass wall of the bus shelter, staring without inflection or reaction.

[10] Sgt. Chang, not wanting to overwhelm a person in probable mental health crisis, asked but a few officers to engage with her. PC Munroe, who had been the next to arrive on scene, started attempting to establish a rapport. Two female officers, PCs Fournier and Piatkowski, took secondary roles. All these officers perceived Ms. Voronova, who was largely non-communicative, to be in some sort of mental health crisis.

[11] While these officers stepped inside that bus shelter, no one rushed in or did anything which would have elevated the situation into a crisis. They all remained a careful, respectful distance from Ms. Voronova. The two female officers remained at the opposite end of the bus shelter from Ms. Voronova. PC Munroe stood, somewhat in the middle of the bus shelter at the entrance door, half in and half out, and about five feet from Ms. Voronova.

[12] PC Munroe began to speak to Ms. Voronova, using a calm and quiet tone. His body language was relaxed and non-aggressive. I have watched his body cam footage, as well as that of PCs Fournier and PC Piatkowski, multiple times. PC Munroe’s approach to Ms. Voronova was a textbook way to interact with a person in mental health crisis, in my opinion.

[13] He began by identifying himself as a police officer, asking if her name was Hanna and if she was okay, asking if she wanted help, and gently asking if she would like to go to hospital. During these questions, Ms. Voronova said “voices”. She also said that the voices were very loud. PC Munroe asked, again, if she wanted to go to the hospital. Ms. Voronova did not verbally respond, but placed her right hand inside the front right pocket of her parka.

[14] At this point, witness testimony diverged as between prosecution and defence.

[15] Ms. Voronova said that she had known, after the call to 911, that police would be coming to help her. She had just killed a black shadow, or a black silhouette, with an energy wave. Black creatures had been around her all day, and this one had come after her. She was not feeling well, did not want to harm anyone else, and decided to go to CAMH by foot.

[16] She had perceived that black silhouette to be a person, as I understood it. Even with her glasses on, she could only see clearly up to thirty or forty cm in front of her. During cross-examination, she described the Crown’s appearance as a dark silhouette with a white spot.

[17] She walked for a long time before stopping at a bus shelter to sit. She called 911 from her phone, because a medical professional had told her to do that if things got bad.

[18] While making that call, she saw black silhouettes appear and she stepped back, as far as she could, into the corner. They were saying something, including her name. She could not understand what they wanted. English was not her first language and she perceived them to be whispering. She heard her name.

[19] She was also hearing other voices. One demanded she kill herself. While testifying in court, Ms. Voronova told us the voices were present and were saying this to her again. Back on that day in the bus shelter, she responded to the voice’s demand by pulling out a knife and holding its blade to the left side of her neck.

[20] She first said one silhouette lunged at her, and “a different arm grabbed my arm” which held the blade to her neck. The silhouette tried to pull the knife from her hand with force. She subsequently described this as the silhouette grabbing the knife by the blade and pulling it toward himself with force. Ms. Voronova, in cross-examination, also denied the silhouette grabbed her by the arm. It was, she maintained, the blade he grabbed.

[21] She responded by holding onto the knife because she wanted to finish what she started and cut her throat. She denied moving the hand with the blade diagonally and down across her body. The silhouette was stopping her from cutting her throat, and she was resisting him. He jumped away suddenly, and bent over. Then she lowered the hand with the knife.

[22] Several black silhouettes swooped in and demanded she drop the knife. She did.

[23] PC Fournier testified that, after Ms. Voronova put the knife to her throat, PC Munroe said “whoa”. He moved towards her and reached out with his left hand. As he did, Ms. Voronova made a slashing motion, diagonally, down across her body towards her right hip. PC Fournier had not seen Munroe’s hand touch the knife, but after the slashing motion he bend over, clearly hurt.

[24] PC Piatkowski testified to witnessing PC Munroe reach out, with his hand, towards Ms. Voronova’s arm. More specifically, he was reaching towards Ms. Voronova’s hand which was holding a knife to her own throat.

[25] PC Piatkowski was unsure whether Munroe actually made contact with the defendant or not. What she saw next was Ms. Voronova moving her hand, the one that held the knife, away from her own neck and then downwards.

[26] In a physical demonstration of this action, PC Piatkowski mimicked her own hand starting at the left side of her own throat, moving down and diagonally across her body, and stopping at the opposite side of the body at the waist area. PC Munroe then grabbed his own hand, bent down, and retreated out of the bus shelter.

[27] When asked, in cross-examination, whether it was possible the defendant’s hand had slipped, PC Piatkowski disagreed. She described Ms. Voronova’s hand movement as deliberate, intentional, and done with a degree of force. In re-examination, she added that Ms. Voronova’s intentional movement, in her own personal opinion, seemed to be directed at getting PC Munroe away from her.

[28] PC Major testified he was three metres west of the bus shelter when PC Munroe got injured. He saw PC Munroe grab Ms. Voronova’s right arm, and Ms. Voronova making a downward slashing motion. PC Major saw Munroe clutch his left hand and run out of the bus shelter.

[29] PC Munroe’s version of these events was similar to the other officers. He had been verbally engaging with Ms. Voronova, offering to assist her in getting to hospital, when she reached into her right pocket and grabbed a large Exacto knife. She placed it hard against the left side of her neck on the skin and things, as he put it, went from zero to one hundred.

[30] He believed she was going to kill herself, then and there, and reached in towards her. He grabbed her jacket at the wrist but lost his grip. Ms. Voronova at the same time swung the hand with the knife down. He felt sharp pain in his left hand and realized his hand was sliced open. In cross-examination, PC Munroe denied sustaining this injury by grabbing the blade of the knife when he reached in.

[31] He backed out of the bus shelter, leaving other officers to apprehend Ms. Voronova, and sought nearby medical help.

[32] The other testimonial version of events was body camera footage. All officers who testified had a body camera on. PC Piatkowski’s body camera footage was particularly helpful, given the angle she was standing when the altercation occurred between PC Munroe and Ms. Voronova.

[33] The perspective of this footage was from inside the bus shelter, facing Ms. Voronova. It showed Ms. Voronova, backed into the corner of the bus shelter and standing. It showed PC Munroe, half in and half out of the shelter, calmly asking her if she would like to go to hospital. It showed Ms. Voronova responding that the voices were very loud.

[34] When PC Munroe again raised the topic of hospital, this footage showed Ms. Voronova placing her right hand, deliberately, into the pocket of her parka. She said something, withdrew her right hand, and quickly placed the blade of a box-cutter against the left part of her neck.

[35] PC Munroe said “whoa, whoa, whoa”, lunged forward, and reached his left hand toward Ms. Voronova’s right hand. Ms. Voronova leaned back like she did not want PC Munroe near her, and her right hand moved the knife from the left side of her neck, across her own body and diagonally downwards in a quick but deliberate motion.

[36] PC Munroe bent down and then left. Ms. Voronova remained, standing still, not responding, not flinching. She kept the knife at her right side until commanded to drop it.

CREDIBILITY, RELIABILITY, AND FINDINGS OF FACT

[37] Ms. Voronova testified in her own defence, which means this court must apply the analysis from R. v. W.(D.). If I believe the defence evidence, I must acquit. If I don’t believe the defendant but her testimony raised a reasonable doubt, I must acquit. Even if the defendant’s evidence is disbelieved and does not raise reasonable doubt, I must then consider the evidence I do accept, and ascertain if the Crown proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

[38] I found Ms. Voronova to be a very credible, truthful witness. She was honestly telling the court what happened, as she perceived it and as she recalled it. She admitted aspects of her behaviour that did not necessarily place her in a positive light, such as trying to bite an officer during arrest.

[39] However, I could not accept her evidence as reliable. There were large gaps in her narrative, where memory failed her. For example, she admitted making the 911 call but could not remember what she said. She could not remember if she cut her own throat or not. At the start of her testimony, she said PC Munroe/the black silhouette grabbed her arm, whereas later she denied that and maintained he grabbed just the blade.

[40] In addition, and with respect, I could not reconcile parts of Ms. Voronova’s testimony with common sense. In particular, she claimed to have killed “a black silhouette” in the park by hitting it/them with an energy wave. Ms. Voronova said something about the silhouette having damaged an energy web, something about a shot from a Glock, and could not remember if she herself was in possession of a Glock that night.

[41] Finally, Ms. Voronova, although fit to stand trial, was admittedly hearing voices both at the time of the alleged offences and while she was testifying. It was clear to me that, at times, Ms. Voronova was distracted by these auditory interruptions. When I considered her testimony overall, I found she was doing her best to tell the truth, but that her recall and perception of events could not be relied upon.

[42] As a result, I did not accept her testimony and, for the same reasons, it did not raise a reasonable doubt in my mind with respect to the essential elements of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

[43] It did raise a reasonable doubt on the issue of whether she knew PC Munroe was a police officer, however. The combination of the language barrier, the ongoing auditory hallucinations, her confusion, her poor eyesight, and the stress of the situation left me with a reasonable doubt.

[44] While she was expecting police to show up in response to the 911 call, and I could not rule out that she knew the persons were police, I also could not rule out that she perceived nothing more than black silhouettes inside that bus shelter.

[45] Returning to findings of fact relevant to the essential elements of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, my rejection of Ms. Voronova’s testimony on those issues does not end the analysis. I must consider the evidence I did accept, and assess whether that evidence meets the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

[46] Here, I accepted the testimony of each police officer as both truthful and reliable. Like Ms. Voronova, I found that every officer was doing their best to tell the truth about what happened that night. The officers did not exaggerate, and testified in a straightforward fashion, free of material inconsistency and animus. PC Piatkowski’s evidence, in particular, I found to be careful, precise, and compelling.

[47] Each officer in that bus shelter – PC Fournier, PC Piatkowski, and PC Munroe – corroborated one another with respect to Ms. Voronova moving the knife hand from her neck, diagonally and down across her body to the right hip area. PC Major’s evidence was also corroborative, although his observations were made from outside the shelter and further away. While PC Munroe’s evidence about that act was not as specific as the two officers standing behind him, it was generally corroborative of what the other officers said they saw.

[48] Most importantly, frankly, was the fact that the police testimony was corroborated by the body camera footage. This reinforced my conclusion of the officers’ testimonial reliability. I accepted that body cam footage as accurately depicting what happened that night, particularly from the vantage point of PC Piatkowski. That footage best permitted me the ability to see the motion her knife-holding hand made.

[49] Ms. Voronova’s body language, on video, further supported the conclusion that she moved the knife away from her neck and down, for the purpose of keeping PC Munroe away from her. She clearly knew he was coming at her, and reacted by recoiling backwards while slashing out in front of her body.

[50] As a result, I have made the following findings of fact about what happened inside that bus shelter.

[51] When PC Munroe moved in her direction and reached for her arm, Ms. Voronova leaned back while making a forward motion with her right hand, from the left side of her neck to her right hip, in a path that went down and across her body. Her right hand held the knife. While I found she did not do this for the purpose of stabbing or cutting PC Munroe, it was an intentional application of force, while holding an edged weapon, and done to prevent him from taking the knife away.

[52] From other angles in different body camera footage, it appears as though, at one point, Ms. Voronova’s hand was above her head. I found she did not raise the knife over her head. PC Piatkowski’s body cam footage showed that, after PC Munroe moved back, Ms. Voronova raised her left hand to her head to stop her hood from falling down. At the same time, her right hand was down by her right side and still holding the knife, until she obeyed the command to drop it.

APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS

[53] Ms. Voronova is charged with committing aggravated assault on a peace officer by wounding him, contrary to s. 270.02 of the Criminal Code. I could not be certain she knew PC Munroe was a police officer. However, that does not doom the Crown’s case on this charge. Aggravated assault contrary to s. 268 of the Criminal Code is an included offence.

[54] The essential elements of aggravated assault begin with proof of an assault. As per Rosenberg J.A. in R. v. Palombi, 2007 ONCA 486 at para. 28, this is “[a]ny intentional application of force – even relatively minor force – without the consent of the victim”.

[55] I found Ms. Voronova, in moving the knife from her neck area downwards and towards PC Munroe, intended to apply force to him. She did this to get him away from her and to stop him from preventing her suicide, but that does not change the fact that it was done. This element of the offence was made out. So, too, was the element of wounding. This was correctly not disputed.

[56] Finally, the wounding must have been reasonably foreseeable. Even if Ms. Voronova did not mean to wound PC Munroe, that does not necessarily lead to acquittal. As per para. 36 of Palombi:

It is no defence to a charge of assault that the intentional application of force caused more harm than was intended, or put another way, that the harm was caused accidentally: see R. v. Nette (2001), 2001 SCC 78, 158 C.C.C.(3d) 486 (S.C.C.) at para. 79. The offence is complete upon the non-consensual intentional application of force, barring the successful invocation of some defence, such as self-defence.

[57] The Supreme Court, in R. v. Godin, 1994 CanLII 97 (SCC), 1994 2 S.C.R. 484, said at para. 1:

The mens rea required for s. 268(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, is objective foresight of bodily harm. It is not necessary that there be an intent to wound or maim or disfigure. The section pertains to an assault that has the consequences of wounding, maiming or disfiguring.

[58] It is “bodily harm” that must be objectively foreseeable, and not wounding, maiming or disfigurement. “Bodily harm” means “any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature”: Criminal Code, s. 2.

[59] I found that Ms. Voronova intentionally swung her arm at PC Munroe to keep him from away from her, and to stop him from interrupting her attempt at suicide. As stated earlier, that was an intentional application of force.

[60] Ms. Voronova knew, when she swung her arm, that she had a knife in that same hand. Indeed, this fact must have been at the forefront of her mind because she wanted to kill herself with it.

[61] She also knew PC Munroe was approaching her, as evidenced by body camera footage showing her body recoiling from him. Bodily harm as a consequence of the assault was objectively foreseeable. Ms. Voronova must be found guilty of aggravated assault.

[62] For the same reasons, and on the same factual findings, I have found Ms. Voronova guilty of assault with a weapon, although I expect submissions on Kienapple. I found she swung the knife-holding arm in PC Munroe’s direction, specifically, to keep him away from her. I did not have any doubt about whether it was an accident, or a reflex. This application of force was intentional and it had a purpose.

[63] Again, I had a doubt on the element of whether she knew Cst. Munroe was a peace officer. Because of that doubt, I found Ms. Voronova guilty of the included offence of assault with a weapon.

[64] I have acquitted Ms. Voronova on the count of carrying a concealed weapon, contrary to s. 90(1). Clearly Ms. Voronova was concealing the box-cutter in her pocket. Clearly, the box-cutter fits the definition of a weapon.

[65] But I could not conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she intended the box-cutter to be used as a weapon when she concealed it. Here, the testimony of the police officers and the body camera footage was of no assistance. I was left very unsure why Ms. Voronova had that box-cutter in her pocket.

[66] It may have been to attack real people with. It may have been to protect herself from dark silhouettes. It may have been in there from the last time she cut boxes. It may have been in there for the purpose of self-harm. I am simply unsure of why she had it, and whether the purpose she concealed it for fell into the parameters of this offence. An acquittal must therefore result.

[67] Finally, Ms. Voronova is charged with public mischief, by causing a peace officer to enter an investigation by falsely reporting she murdered someone using a firearm.

[68] The salient evidence on this count was the contents of Ms. Voronova’s admitted call to 911, reporting she committed murder, Ms. Voronova’s testimony, and the testimony of the police officers who responded to the 911 call. None of those officers, I must add, took her confession to murder seriously.

[69] The essential elements of this offence are (i) a false report of an offence being committed (ii) the report must have caused a peace officer to investigate it (iii) in making the false report, having the intent to mislead and involving police to investigate the false report.

[70] As per R. v. Delacruz, 2009 CanLII 72072 (ON SC), [2009] O.J. No. 5536[^1] at para. 8:

The existing cases indicate that the actus reus of the offence is a statement falsely accusing another of having committed an offence, which thereby causes a peace officer to investigate; the mens rea is the intent to mislead a peace officer by so doing…

I accept this includes falsely confessing to a crime.

[71] The defendant’s call to 911 was admitted as proof of the actus reus and mens rea. I could not rely, wholesale, upon the testimony of Hanna Voronova as both credible and reliable. That said, her evidence raised a doubt on this count.

[72] Her version of events was that she had, in fact, committed murder and disposed of the body in a park. About this, I am sure she was telling the truth, as she perceived the events to have happened.

[73] Ms. Voronova believed – and still believes –that she committed murder and what she said on the phone was not false. She did not intend to mislead police into initiating a wrongful investigation. On this count, the defendant’s testimony raised a reasonable doubt with respect to the requisite intent.

[74] I considered the Crown’s case on this count, in the event that this conclusion was incorrect. Even if a reasonable doubt had not been raised by defence evidence, there were other evidentiary gaps barring a finding of guilt.

[75] Firstly, no police officer took Ms. Voronova’s confession at face value. No one believed her confession, and instead approached her call as one made by a women in mental health crisis. This is not meant as a criticism. They were right to take this approach.

[76] That said, it left a gap in the actus reus component on this count. There was no evidence of a false police report. Police disbelief in her confession cannot equate to positive evidence proving her confession was false.

[77] Moreover, there was no evidence that her murder confession resulted in any investigation into a murder. While police responded to her call, none of them were initiating a Criminal Code investigation. They were ascertaining whether a Mental Health Act apprehension was appropriate. There was hearsay information about another police division searching the park, which I disregarded as inadmissible.

[78] Finally, the Crown failed to prove that Ms. Voronova’s confession to murder was done with the intention of misleading police into investigating a false report. In typical cases, the fact of a false police report would generally suffice to meet the mens rea requirement. However, the circumstances of Ms. Voronova’s call to 911 were far from typical.

[79] For these reasons, she must be acquitted of public mischief.

Released: December 4, 2022

Signed: Justice H. Pringle

[^1]: Upheld for different reasons at 2013 ONCA 61.