Court Information
Ontario Court of Justice
Date: September 4, 2025
Court File No.: Toronto 998 25 50003049
Parties
Between:
His Majesty the King
— and —
Melissa Hossain
Judicial Officer and Counsel
Before: Justice Sean Gaudet
Heard on: August 13 and 14, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on: September 4, 2025
Counsel:
- Ben Snow and Matthew Park (summer law student) — counsel for the Crown
- Anthony Paas — counsel for the defendant Melissa Hossain
Reasons for Judgment
Gaudet J.:
Charges and Overview
[1] Melissa Hossain (Ms. Hossain) is charged with one count of theft under $5000 contrary to section 334(b) and two counts of assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, she is charged with stealing a purse and a jacket belonging to Victoria Langley (Victoria), and with assaulting Victoria and her friend at the time, Erica Keen (Erica).
[2] Victoria and Erica were assaulted with pepper spray by a group of three or four individuals wearing masks while they were hanging out with a friend in an alleyway across the street from 675 Kennedy Road. Victoria was also robbed of her purse by her assailants. Later she removed her coat when fleeing from someone whom she perceived to be her assailant, and dropped it to the ground. It is admitted that her jacket was immediately retrieved and retained by Ms. Hossain.
[3] The central issue in this case is identity.
[4] A significant amount of video surveillance evidence was introduced taken from various cameras located inside and outside 675 Kennedy Road. The defence admits that Ms. Hossain appears in these videos. The issue is whether the video evidence and the evidence of the two complainants establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Hossain was a party to the assaults committed upon the two victims and the thefts from Victoria.
[5] The Crown's case against Ms. Hossain is based upon circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence that Ms. Hossain committed an assault on Victoria or Erica, or that she stole Victoria's purse. Neither victim actually saw their assailants as they wore masks, and they were both pepper sprayed almost immediately.
[6] The defence's position was that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Hossain was present during the assaults and the taking of Victoria's purse, or that she had any other involvement to make her a party to the offences. There is no direct evidence of her participation or involvement, either as an actual participant or a party. As for picking up Victoria's jacket, the defence argues that Ms. Hossain was not pursuing Victoria at the time, and that she simply picked up an abandoned object, which is no crime.
The Testimonial Evidence
[7] Both victims testified. Ms. Hossain did not testify, and the defence called no evidence.
[8] In the late evening of December 12th 2023 Victoria and Erica went to meet up with a person they knew as "JJ", who lived in an apartment at 675 Kennedy Road. JJ was an acquaintance with whom they would occasionally hang out. According to Victoria, JJ lived with "Vanessa", whom he had described as his "sister". Victoria and Vanessa were school acquaintances, but they did not get along. Erica did not know Vanessa. Victoria testified that the accused, Ms. Hossain, is Vanessa's mother.
[9] JJ asked Victoria and Erica over to his place to smoke marihuana. They started smoking but at JJ's suggestion, they went to the alleyway across the street behind a Tim Hortons. JJ was not supposed to be outside of his apartment because he was under house arrest. While JJ and Erica were smoking marihuana, Victoria was not.
[10] Victoria testified that she saw three people approach them who were "masked up". She could not see their face or eyes. She had the feeling that they had been set up by JJ, because he lived with Vanessa, and he had just mentioned that Vanessa comes down to this area.
[11] Victoria asked "Is that Vanessa?", and someone with a female's voice who sounded older responded "Why would you say that?" or "why is Vanessa the first person you say?" At that point Victoria turned around and was pepper sprayed in the eyes by someone who was behind her. Her eyes were burning, and she could not see. She dropped her purse and ran, trying to find help.
[12] Video surveillance footage shows Victoria running across Kennedy Road and behind 675 Kennedy Road. At one point she looked back, and saw one or two people chasing her, and she took off her jacket and ran. Victoria recalled that one of her assailants was wearing camo-coloured pants.
[13] Victoria went back to look for her purse but it was gone. Later Victoria saw JJ outside of the building, who said that his chain had been stolen, although Victoria did not believe him because she suspected he had set her up to be robbed in the alleyway.
[14] Victoria later saw JJ in the lobby with Ms. Hossain after she returned to the building and police were called. Victoria admitted that she could not say whether she had seen Ms. Hossain earlier that night.
[15] Erica's evidence was substantially the same as Victoria's on most material respects. She had hung out with JJ in the past. Unlike Victoria, Erika was smoking marihuana with JJ behind the Tim Hortons across from 675 Kennedy Road. She described being approached by three or four assailants with bandanas around their mouth. She heard Victoria ask "Is that Vanessa?" and heard an older female voice answer "Why are you asking for Vanessa". Erica saw someone grabbing at Victoria's bag, and then they were pepper-sprayed, Victoria first, then Erica. Erica was pepper sprayed by someone she described as being a female. She ran off with JJ in a different direction than Victoria. The assailants were chasing after Victoria, not after her and JJ.
[16] Victoria was wearing a white puffer jacket that night. When she was being chased she dropped her jacket on the ground. It is undisputed that Ms. Hossain was walking closely behind Victoria as she was fleeing the scene of her assault, and picked up Victora's jacket moments after she dropped it.
The Video Evidence
[17] The Crown introduced video surveillance evidence from seven cameras located in the following locations:
- the lobby of 675 Kennedy
- in the front vestibule
- in the hallway leading to the east entrance
- outside the front entrance
- in the visitor parking area
- at the garage entrance of 30 Eppleworth (which shows the alley to the north of 675 Kennedy Rd)
- in the stairwell by the "Admin Office"
[18] The video surveillance evidence was entered through a police witness, Detective Constable Travis Gabbidon of the Toronto Police Service, who retrieved the footage. The defence has conceded that Ms. Hossain appears in this surveillance video footage.
[19] Based on my review of the surveillance video, I was able to make the following observations (times are noted as being for December 14th 2023):
At 00:39:20 Victoria, Erica, JJ and a fourth unidentified person walk out of the lobby elevator and leave 675 Kennedy through the front vestibule.
At 00:48:50, roughly nine minutes later, four persons wearing masks covering their face descend the stairs of the stairwell of the admin office, and leave the building through the fire exit door. One of them is wearing a red mask, a red hat covered by a hood, and sunglasses; one is wearing camo pants, and another a camo mask and camo jacket.
At around the same time, roughly 00:50:14, Ms. Hossain exits the elevator and leaves the building with a person who was identified by DC Gabbidon as "O'Brien" and a third person wearing a blue parka. Ms. Hossain is wearing a mask over the bottom of her face. The three of them then cross Kennedy Road at 00:50:50.
Three minutes later, and fourteen minutes after exiting the building with Erica and JJ, Victoria is seen running across Kennedy Road towards 675 Kennedy Rd.
Victoria then enters the visitor parking lot behind 675 Kennedy Rd, followed by someone walking just behind her at a brisk pace, at 00:54:05.
Victoria continues alternately walking and jogging in the visitor parking area in an unsteady and staggering fashion, when she appears to notice the person walking behind her, at which point she runs down the alleyway. As Victoria is running, she drops her jacket that is hanging about her shoulder, in what appears to be an attempt to enable her to run faster.
At 00:54:41 two of the four people (including one in camo-jacket) who were seen leaving the building through the fire exit door run in to the building through the same door and run up the stairs of the stairwell.
The person who is walking behind Victoria snatches up her jacket from the ground, immediately turns back toward Kennedy Road, and then turns toward 675 Kennedy. The defence concedes that this person is Ms. Hossain. Although there is no audio, based on her movements one can readily conclude that no effort was made by Ms. Hossain to let Victoria know that she had picked up her jacket, and no effort was made to return it to her.
At 00:55:11 Ms. Hossain proceeds to the front entrance of the building at the same time as O'Brien who is crossing Kennedy Road at the same time, who opens the door for her and lets her in to the building through the front vestibule using his pass. They are both walking very quickly.
Ms. Hossain and O'Brien then enter the lobby of the building and head down the hallway. O'Brien is running. Ms. Hossain is walking quickly, holding Victoria's jacket and rifling through its pockets.
O'Brien comes to the fire exit door and opens it, looks around outside, and holds open the door. Ms. Hossain is behind him and follows O'Brien outside, still holding Victoria's jacket, which she hands to O'Brien. O'Brien continues holding open the door, and lets in the person wearing sunglasses and the red mask who is carrying Victoria's purse. O'Brien follows him in carrying Victoria's jacket, that had been handed to him by Ms. Hossain. This occurs between 00:55:40 and 00:57:58.
Three minutes later, Ms. Hossain runs in to the building from the fire exit and runs up the stairwell, followed by O'Brien and JJ, who also run up the stairs.
The In-Court Identification
[20] Victoria identified Ms. Hossain in Court as being Vanessa's mother based on their physical resemblance. Victoria admitted that she had never seen Ms. Hossain before the night of the incident, and she could not recall whether she saw her that night. Victoria identified Ms. Hossain in the video surveillance when she is not wearing a mask as Vanessa's mother.
[21] Erica also identified Ms. Hossain in Court, although like Victoria, she had never seen Ms. Hossain before the night of the incident, and she too was pepper sprayed. Erica's identification of Ms. Hossain appeared to be based on her resemblance to the person seen in the video surveillance, which she saw for the first time in Court.
[22] Given the inherent frailties of in-Court identification, combined with the fact that neither Victoria not Erica had ever seen Ms. Hossain before the incident, I assign no weight to their in-Court identification.
Ms. Hossain Was a Party to the Offences
[23] This is a circumstantial case. Neither victim was able to clearly see who their assailants were because they were masked and because they were pepper-sprayed. In my view the circumstantial evidence is compelling, and leaves me with no reasonable doubt that Ms. Hossain was a party to the assaults and the theft of Victoria's purse.
[24] In particular, Ms. Hossain my finding is based on the following facts that are supported by the totality of the evidence from the witnesses and the video surveillance evidence:
a) Ms. Hossain left the building wearing a mask and crosses Kennedy Road, with O'Brien and another unidentified person three minutes before Victoria can be seen fleeing from the scene of the assault across Kennedy Road, which was mere moments after the assault occurred.
b) When Victoria was staggering behind the building after crossing Kennedy Road, she broke in to a run when she saw Ms. Hossain who just happened to be walking directly behind her minutes after he had been assaulted, which suggests that Victoria recognized Ms. Hossain as being involved in the incident and was afraid of her.
c) The manner in which Ms. Hossain picked up the parka, snatching it off the ground, immediately turning to head back to the front of the building at 675 Kennedy Road, making no effort to reach out to Victoria who had dropped it while clearly running away from her and to return the jacket to her, and rifling through the pockets looking for items of value, suggest that Ms. Hossain's was pursuing Ms. Hossain following the incident in the alleyway.
d) Ms. Hossain approached the entrance to 675 Kennedy Road at the very same moment as O'Brien who was coming from the direction of Kennedy Road, which suggests that their movements were co-ordinated, and they were both walking extremely quickly and appeared eager to get in to the building quickly.
e) Ms. Hossain and O'Brien immediately headed down to the stairwell, where he opened the door and let in other individuals wearing masks and, in one case, sunglasses. Ms. Hossain handed Victoria's jacket to O'Brien. The person wearing the red mask and sunglasses brought in Victoria's purse, which she was able to identify in Court. Ms. Hossain is seen in the same stairwell with these people, running up the stairs. All of these individuals were moving quickly. Victoria and Erica both recognized JJ in the stairwell with these people, which suggests that he was involved in setting them up.
f) Victoria and Erica both described the voice of the person who said "Why is the first thing you ask is about Vanessa" or "why would you say that?" as belonging to an older women, i.e. older to the ears of a teenaged young person. Victoria testified that Ms. Hossain appeared to be the oldest person there and that the others involved looked around her age. Based on my review of the video surveillance entered in evidence, of the masked and unmasked individuals seen entering the stairwell after the assaults, only two appeared to be female, and Ms. Hossain appeared to be the only female who was older, in the sense of being over the age of 30. Ms. Hossain is also Vanessa's mother, and the response attributed to her by Victoria and Erica suggests that the person who uttered it knew who Vanessa was.
g) Victoria could not recall very much about what her assailants were wearing, but she did note that one was wearing camo-coloured pants. The video footage showed that one of the persons wearing a mask wore a camo jacket and another wore camo-pants.
[25] I found both witnesses to be credible. They were both candid and forthright and testified without embellishment. I also found their evidence to be reliable, with the exception of the in-dock identification of Ms. Hossain. They admitted that they could not readily identify who their assailants were. Erica admitted that her memory may have been affected because she had consumed cannabis that night.
[26] I also find their evidence to be reliable, with the exception of Erica's in Court identification of Ms. Hossain. It is clear to me that her identification was based solely on the resemblance of Ms. Hossain with the images of the person who appears in the surveillance video (who is actually Ms. Hossain), which she had seen for the first time in Court. She admitted in cross-examination that she had never met nor seen a photo of Ms. Hossain before she testified. Erica admitted that she had been smoking marihuana that night and that this may have affected her memory.
[27] Based on the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Hossain planned with others, including JJ, to lure Victoria and Erica to the alleyway behind the Tim Hortons on the west side of Kennedy Road across the street from 675 Kennedy Road in order to steal from them.
Application of Circumstantial Evidence Principles
[28] R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R 1000 is the leading authority on the use of circumstantial evidence and its relationship to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Villaroman sets out the following principles that are applicable in this case:
The Crown must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
When the Crown's case consists wholly or substantially of circumstantial evidence, the standard of proof requires the trier of fact be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that guilt is the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence as a whole.
The trier of fact should consider other plausible theories and other reasonable possibilities which are inconsistent with guilt. If there are reasonable inferences other than guilt, the Crown will not have met the proof beyond the reasonable doubt standard.
Inferences other than guilt must be reasonable given the evidence and the absence of evidence, assessed logically, and in light of human experience and common sense.
Inferences consistent with innocence are not required to arise from proven facts; they may arise from lack of evidence.
An inference must not be drawn from a mere guess or suspicion, however shrewd that guess may be. An inference is much stronger than conjecture or speculation. Only reasonable alternative inferences can give rise to a doubt that the defendant is guilty.
[29] No plausible alternative explanation was suggested for why Ms. Hossain, and the other individuals (with the exception of O'Brien) she is seen with in and outside of 675 Kennedy Road, are wearing masks, or sunglasses for that matter, after midnight on December 14th 2023. The only plausible reasonable explanation for this is that Ms. Hossain and the others, were wearing masks to hide their identity from their victims, to avoid being identified to the police or in Court.
[30] Counsel for the defence admitted that Ms. Hossain picked up Victoria's coat after she dropped when running away from her and argues that Ms. Hossain committed no crime by picking up what was essentially an abandoned object. That may be so, but no plausible explanation was offered as to why Ms. Hossain happened to be following behind Victoria in the visitor's parking lot at 12:55 a.m. moments after the assaults had taken place. I do not accept that as mere coincidence the fact that Ms. Hossain was walking directly behind Victoria minutes after the incident when she is attempting to evade her assailants.
[31] I am prepared to infer as the only reasonable inference based on the evidence that Ms. Hossain was following Victoria to complete the offence that was started in the alleyway, which would explain why Ms. Hossain made no effort to let Victoria know she had picked up her jacket, no effort to give it back to her, why she immediately went back to the building with it where she met up with her co-perpetrator, O'Brien.
[32] There is no alternative plausible explanation for why the person with the red mask and sunglasses would be running in to the building carrying Victoria's purse, with other masked individuals. It is not reasonable to conclude that this person just happened upon her purse, wearing a mask at midnight, in concert with other individuals including Ms. Hossain, who just happened to be walking outside after midnight wearing a mask walking purposefully right behind Victoria as she was running away from her assailants.
[33] The only plausible explanation is that this person was present when the purse was stolen, either because he took it from Victoria, or someone else took it and handed it to him. I am satisfied that the so-called "doctrine of recent possession" as outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Kowlyk, [1988] S.C.J. No. 66 is applicable. The recency of the possession of the stolen purse and the lack of any explanation warrants an inference that the unidentified person wearing the red mask and sunglasses stole it.
[34] The evidence establishes that Ms. Hossain acted in concert with the other masked individuals who I find were involved in the assault on Victoria and Erica, and the theft of Victoria's purse.
[35] I am persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Hossain was a party to the offences of assault on Victoria and Erica, even if she was not the person who actually pepper sprayed them, and of theft under $5000. The Crown does not need to establish the role of each person who was involved in this incident. I find that Ms Hossain and the other masked individuals (and O'Brien, who was not masked) acted in concert, and that She either actually committed these offences, or aided and abetted others who did.
Verdict
[36] Accordingly, I find Ms. Hossain guilty on the two counts of assault, and the count of theft under $5000 in respect of the purse belonging to Victoria, but not of the jacket.
Released: September 4, 2025
Signed: Justice Gaudet J.