Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: October 2, 2025

Court File No.: 24-2100131000

Between:

His Majesty the King

— and —

Landon Thomas-Henry

Before: Justice Robert S. Gee

Heard on: April 2 and 28, 2025, July 15, 2025, August 27, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on: October 2, 2025

Counsel:

Anthony Minelli — counsel for the Crown

Jaime Stephenson and Cristina Valeri — counsel for the accused

Reasons for Judgment

Gee J.:

Introduction

[1] On May 6, 2024, someone exited a house on the Six Nations Reserve and started firing a gun at a van fleeing down the driveway. The Crown alleges the person doing the shooting was the accused, Landon Thomas-Henry.

[2] As a result of this incident, Mr. Thomas-Henry is facing 27 charges being; five counts of attempted murder, five counts of pointing a firearm, one count of careless use of a firearm, one count of possessing a firearm without a licence, one count of knowingly possessing a firearm while unlicenced, two counts of assault, one count of uttering a threat, one count of dangerous operation, two counts of breaching a probation order, one for not keeping the peace, the other for possessing a weapon, five counts of discharging a firearm with the intent to endanger life, one count of possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose, one count of possessing a firearm while subject to a prohibition order and last, one count of driving while prohibited.

[3] The Crown proceeded by indictment and Mr. Thomas-Henry elected to have his trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The defence has admitted that at the time of this incident, Mr. Thomas-Henry was subject to a probation order with terms he keep the peace and not possess weapons, that he was subject to a weapons prohibition order, that he was prohibited from driving and that he did not have a licence to possess firearms. Following the conclusion of the evidence, the Crown has conceded there is not sufficient evidence to prove the charges of attempt murder and has invited me to dismiss those counts.

[4] The balance of these reasons will explain why I find the Crown has proven most, but not all of the remaining 22 counts against Mr. Thomas-Henry.

Issues and Analysis

[5] The allegations in this matter, at their core, are fairly straightforward. Jaycee Greene was driving a rented dodge minivan with her four kids and two cousins, Rikki and Ashley General. It was after midnight on May 6, 2024, when they went to pick up Ms. Greene's brother Wesley Longboat to give him a ride to his father's place. When they picked him up, Mr. Thomas-Henry asked to be taken to McDonald's where he said he would buy everyone food. After McDonald's, they dropped off Wesley at his father's, but Mr. Thomas-Henry refused to leave the van. He said he wanted a ride to the bank, so Ms. Greene took him there too. After the bank, they proceeded to take him back to his house. Along the way, Mr. Thomas-Henry started becoming inappropriate toward the adult women and started showing them sexually explicit videos of himself on his phone. They told him to stop and that it was inappropriate. When they arrived at Mr. Thomas-Henry's house, words were exchanged, and a physical altercation took place between the women and Mr. Thomas-Henry. During this altercation, he is alleged to have made threatening comments including asking Rikki General if she wished to be shot. Upon him saying this, Ms. Greene fled down the driveway in the van while Ashley and Rikki, who were outside of the van ran down the driveway. As they got to the road, Ashley and Rikki were getting in the van when they heard 4 or 5 of what they describe as gunshots being fired toward them and the van. One shot shattered the rear window of the van, hit the seatbelt assembly at the top of one of the back seats and hit the inside pillar of the van damaging it. None of the women or the children were hit. They fled from the scene and went to Ms. Greene's aunt's house where they called the police.

[6] The police began an investigation and about two hours after the initial report, observed a vehicle they believed associated to Mr. Thomas-Henry. It fled from the police at a high rate of speed and contact was initially lost. It was spotted again a short time later and followed by police. It took a bend in the road near the Gaylord Powless Arena too fast and too wide, and the vehicle went in the ditch and rolled onto its driver's side. Mr. Thomas-Henry was then arrested by police as he was exiting through the upturned, passenger side window.

[7] There are several distinct issues that need to be decided to determine if the Crown has proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The first is the credibility and reliability of the Crown's three main witnesses, Rikki General, Ashley General, and Jaycee Greene. The credibility and reliability of the evidence of these witnesses is critical since they are the only three who testified to the most serious, firearm related incident that night that has led to the bulk of the charges against Mr. Thomas-Henry. The accused did not testify, nor did he call any other evidence.

[8] Whether the evidence of these three witnesses can be accepted, either in whole or part is necessary to determine first, as it will inform whether the next issue to be decided, whether identity of the shooter has been proven.

[9] The defence position is that the reliability of the evidence of Ashley and Rikki General is compromised by their alcohol consumption. The credibility of all three witnesses is suspect because there are simply too many inconsistencies between their evidence for the court to get a clear enough picture of what happened that night to make any findings beyond a reasonable doubt and, these witnesses have discussed the events of the night since, which has compromised the reliability of their individual accounts.

[10] I listened carefully to the testimony of these three witnesses, reviewed the transcripts of their evidence and have considered the submissions of counsel. In the end I disagree with the defence characterization of their evidence as incredible or unreliable. I found all three witnesses testified in a straightforward, measured manner. Their answers were responsive to questions asked by counsel, they did not hesitate when answering and admitted to gaps in their memories where applicable. They also acknowledged the parts of their understanding of the events they may have learned from others. In the end, I was left with the impression they were each doing their best to give an honest and truthful account of what happened.

[11] The inconsistencies highlighted by the defence I find were all on minor or inconsequential aspects of the narratives told by the witnesses. For instance, Ashley testified she had asked Ms. Greene for a ride earlier in the night to her Aunt's house, whereas Rikki testified Ms. Greene asked them if they wanted to go for a ride to pick up her brother Wesley. Another was whether when they picked up Wesley was Mr. Thomas-Henry picked up at the same time or after. A further was when at the bank whether Mr. Thomas-Henry got out of the van or whether they used the drive through. After the events, there was also an inconsistency between them as to who called the police. Ashley and Rikki testified Ms. Greene phoned the police while Ms. Greene testified it was Ashley who called.

[12] I find these inconsistencies are all on minor points and do not affect the overall credibility or reliability of the witnesses' accounts. Inconsistencies on minor points such as these are not uncommon when three people testify to a shared event that occurred to them almost a year earlier.

[13] On the other hand, on all the most salient aspects of the events of the night, their testimony is very consistent. They all testified Mr. Thomas-Henry did not leave the van after dropping off Wesley. They all testified they drove him to the bank. They all testified he then became inappropriate, showing sexually explicit videos and making unwanted advances toward the women. When they arrived at his house, they all agreed Mr. Thomas-Henry continued to be belligerent, became involved in a physical altercation and made threatening comments to them. After making the threats, he ran into the house and the three women fled as they interpreted his threats as a threat to shoot them. As well, all three testified to hearing what they thought were multiple gunshots being fired at them.

[14] This is also why I feel the alcohol admittedly consumed by Ashley and Rikki, did not impact the reliability of their evidence. Not only did they testify that it did not, as can be seen from the above, they both were able to recall and relay the most impactful events of that night in a detailed manner. Nor do I find the fact that they may have discussed these incidents between them before speaking to the police and since the events occurred, has lessened the quality of their evidence. I did not detect any hint their evidence may have been tainted by this, either intentionally or unintentionally. That people who have experienced a shared event like this would then talk about it is natural and to be expected. It would have been odder, I would think, if they had testified that after the events, they never spoke about it with each other.

[15] In the end, I find that all three of these witnesses, Ashley General, Rikki General and, Jaycee Greene, were being honest and truthful when giving their testimony and I am satisfied the events of that night unfolded as they have testified, they did.

Identity of the Shooter

[16] Just because I believe these witnesses, does not necessarily mean the Crown has proven Mr. Thomas-Henry was the shooter. None of Ashley General, Rikki General or Jaycee Greene, saw the shooter. The Crown is arguing that the only reasonable inference to draw is that when all the circumstances are considered, I can be satisfied it was him.

[17] When the proof of one or more of the elements of an offence rely on circumstantial evidence, Justice Cromwell in R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, stated at paragraph 30, that an inference of guilt should be the only reasonable inference permitted by the evidence.

[18] Justice Michal Fairburn, while she sat as a Superior Court Judge in the case of R. v. Gill, 2017 ONSC 3558, summarized the approach dictated by the Supreme Court in Villaroman as follows:

[9] I agree that this case is an almost purely circumstantial one, particularly as it relates to the issues of contention. In R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, Cromwell J. reviewed the correct approach to circumstantial evidence and the inference drawing process. Where one or more element of an offence relies largely or exclusively on circumstantial evidence, "an inference of guilt drawn from circumstantial evidence should be the only reasonable inference that such evidence permits": Villaroman, at para. 30. Staying focussed on the question of whether circumstantial evidence admits of other reasonable alternative inferences, ensures that the trier of fact does not "fill in the blanks" or "jump to conclusions" too quickly: Villaroman, paras. 29-30.

[10] While previous cases speak in terms of other "rational" inferences, the unanimous Villaroman court settled upon the term "reasonable": see, R. v. Griffin, 2009 SCC 28, at para. 33, Villaroman, at paras. 32-34. As Cromwell J. noted in Villaroman, while "reasonable" and "rational" inferences carry the same meaning, and it is not in error to speak in terms of "rational inferences", the use of the term "reasonable" guards against any confusion that may arise from the use of "reasonable doubt" and "rational inference".

[11] Inferences consistent with innocence do not have to arise from proven facts: Villaroman, at para. 35. As Fish J. observed in R. v. Khela, 2009 SCC 4, at para. 58, the defence does not have to "'prove' certain facts in order for the jury to draw an inference of innocence from them". To make this a requirement for finding alternative rational inferences would be to reverse the burden of proof. Ultimately, the court must consider the "range of reasonable inferences that can be drawn" from the circumstantial evidence. As in Villaroman, at para. 35, "[i]f there are reasonable inferences other than guilt, the Crown's evidence does not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

[12] A theory alternative to guilt is not "speculative" simply because there is no affirmative evidence supporting the theory. A "theory alternative to guilt" can arise from a lack of evidence: Villaroman, at para. 36. Gaps in the evidence can result in inferences other than guilt, but they must be "reasonable given the evidence and the absence of evidence, assessed logically, and in light of human experience and common sense": Villaroman, at paras. 36-38.

[13] Reasonable possibilities and theories inconsistent with guilt must be considered, but this does not require the Crown to "negative every possible conjecture, no matter how irrational or fanciful, which might be consistent with the innocence of the accused": Villaroman, at para. 37, adopting R. v. Bagshaw, [1972] S.C.R. 2, at p. 8. Other reasonable inferences must find support in logic and experience and not rest on speculation. As noted by Cromwell J., at para. 38, the "basic question" is whether the circumstantial evidence, "viewed logically and in light of human experience, is reasonably capable of supporting an inference other than that the accused is guilty".

[19] In this case, the Crown asserts that when all the evidence is viewed in its entirety, the only reasonable inference is that Mr. Thomas-Henry was the shooter. There are several factors the Crown points to which they argue are supportive of this inference. First it was Mr. Thomas-Henry's residence. Joan Henhawk was the landlord of the property Mr. Thomas-Henry was renting. She testified the residence leased by Mr. Thomas-Henry was a one-bedroom unit and her rental agreement was with him alone, though he often had others with him at the property. Second, when Mr. Thomas-Henry was being dropped off, he got into a physical confrontation with the three women in the van. Third, he made threats to the three women, including asking Rikki General if she wanted to get shot. Fourth, he ran into the house as the women fled and it was within seconds to under a minute that the shots were fired. Fifth, when the residence was searched, police located five .243 calibre and one 8mm round of ammunition.

[20] The defence argues there is also evidence pointing away from Mr. Thomas-Henry being the shooter in addition to no one seeing him doing it. There were two vehicles outside the residence at the time, there were clothes and shoes found by police in the house which they could not say didn't belong to someone else and no gun or firearm was ever located. Based on these factors, the defence alleges the shooter could have been some other unknown person and not Mr. Thomas-Henry.

[21] In assessing this evidence as a whole, both the factors referenced by the Crown supportive of Mr. Thomas-Henry being the shooter and the factors mentioned by the defence they say points away from such a finding, I am satisfied that the only reasonable inference available here is that Mr. Thomas-Henry was the person who was firing at the women and the van as it fled his residence. When keeping in mind Justice Cromwell's basic question from above, logic and human experience leads me to conclude that the unknown person other than Mr. Thomas-Henry theory as advanced by the defence is not a reasonable inference on the facts of this case.

[22] It is not logical or reasonable to think that in under a minute of Mr. Thomas-Henry coming into the house, some unrelated person would exit the house and open fire on the fleeing women and the van when they were not involved in the altercation in any way. As well, that the police never located a firearm is not determinative. The shots were fired at about 1:58 am. The vehicle Mr. Thomas-Henry was later found in was observed leaving the residence by police at 3:52 am. That's an almost two-hour period for the weapon to be hidden or disposed of. Also having two vehicles in the driveway, does not necessarily mean there were others in the residence. It is not uncommon for individuals to own or possess more than one car.

[23] When the evidence is viewed as a whole, the only reasonable inference is that Mr. Thomas-Henry was the shooter. He had, just before, been involved in the altercation in the driveway. I'm satisfied he made the threat to shoot Rikki General, Jaycee Greene says he uttered. He rushed into his house and in under a minute someone exits the house and starts firing at the same people Mr. Thomas-Henry was just fighting and threatening to shoot. Further, when the house is later searched firearm ammunition is found. In all these circumstances, I am satisfied the person who exited the house and fired the shots at the van was Mr. Thomas-Henry.

Definition of Firearm

[24] This finding, that Mr. Thomas-Henry was the shooter is not determinative of guilt for the charges that require proof the weapon used was a firearm. Depending on the charge, the Crown must prove the item met the definition of a firearm found in s. 2 of the Criminal Code or, s. 84(3)(d) of the Criminal Code.

[25] In s. 2 of the Criminal Code the definition of firearm is "…a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm."

[26] In this matter the Crown must prove Mr. Thomas-Henry used a firearm that met this definition in relation to the counts of pointing a firearm, careless use of a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, weapons dangerous since it was particularized as a firearm and, possessing a firearm while prohibited.

[27] The s. 91(1) offence of possessing a firearm without a licence, and the s. 92(1) offence of knowingly possessing a firearm while unlicenced, require the Crown to prove the item met the definition of a firearm found in s. 84(3)(d) of the Criminal Code. This section requires the Crown to prove the firearm was designed to fire a projectile with a muzzle velocity exceeding 152.4 m/s or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.7 joules.

[28] Based on the totality of the evidence in this matter I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt the firearm used by Mr. Thomas-Henry met the definition of a firearm in s. 2 of the Criminal Code but, I am not satisfied it met the definition of a s. 84(3)(d) firearm.

[29] Notwithstanding no gun was recovered, it is still possible for the Crown to prove the gun used met the definition of a firearm found in s. 2 of Criminal Code. The Crown points to several cases where no gun was recovered but the courts found the totality of the evidence in the case could lead to a finding the gun used was a firearm. These cases were: R. v. Charbonneau, [2004] O.J. 1503, R. v. Richards, [2001] O.J. No. 2286 and, R. v. Dillon, 2018 ONCA 1085.

[30] In assessing the totality of the evidence on this issue in this matter I am satisfied the gun used by Mr. Thomas-Henry was a firearm for these reasons. First, were the words he used testified to by Ms. Greene. While apparently looking at Rikki General, he called her a vulgar name and asked her if she wanted to get shot. Second, although no firearm was found, when searched police located firearm ammunition in his house. Third, the witnesses all described a sound they heard as a gunshot based mostly on how loud the sound was. The fourth and most compelling evidence though is the damage caused to van. It penetrated through the back window, struck the seat belt assembly of one of the seats, damaged the inside pillar to the van and shattered the side window on the van as well. Additionally, the shot came from a considerable distance. Although there was no evidence as to any precise measurements being done from Mr. Thomas-Henry's house to where the van was when struck, there is some. Ms. Henhawk testified she thought the laneway in total was about 400 metres long with Mr. Thomas-Henry's house about halfway down. This would mean the distance from where the shot came to where the van was, would be about 200 metres. I am not making any finding that this is the precise distance the shot travelled as witnesses can be notoriously inaccurate when estimating distances, I only make this observation to demonstrate this was not a shot taken at close range. This was a mid-range to long-range shot that travelled a considerable distance before striking the van and causing it significant damage.

[31] In all these circumstances, I have no hesitation in finding that if the projectile had struck one of the persons inside the van or outside close to the van, it would have lead to their death or serious bodily harm. As such, for these reasons I find the gun used by Mr. Thomas-Henry meets the s. 2 definition of a firearm.

[32] The counts that require proof the gun meets the s. 84(3)(d) definition though are different. There was no evidence presented what the muzzle velocity was or would need to be to cause the damage done to the van in this case. I think it is likely the gun used was capable of discharging a projectile in excess of 152.4 m/s given the distance it travelled and damage caused, but I am unable to make a finding in that regard to the degree required in a criminal matter.

[33] These findings are now dispositive of some, but again not all the firearm related offences.

Pointing a Firearm

[34] Counts 6 to 10 are charges of pointing a firearm at Ashley General, Rikki General, and Jaycee Greene as well as at two of the children in the van. Given the evidence presented I am satisfied the Crown has proven these charges. Mr. Thomas-Henry had just been in the van with all these people so knew they were still there. He shot the firearm upwards of 4 to 5 times and hit the van directly once. In these circumstances, given he knew these persons were in the van and the fact he fired at the van, when firing as he was, he necessarily was pointing the firearm at the persons alleged, therefore he is guilty of these offences.

Careless Use of a Firearm

[35] Count 11 is careless use of a firearm. Pointing the firearm and shooting as he was at the van is a careless use of a firearm alone. However, this was the shooting of a firearm, after dark, toward a road, without any consideration of who or what else may be in the line of fire. This as well demonstrated the careless nature of the use being made by Mr. Thomas-Henry that night and as such a finding of guilt on this charge is made out as well.

Possessing a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose

[36] Count 24 is a charge that Mr. Thomas-Henry possessed a weapon, to wit a firearm for a dangerous purpose. This charge is also made out on the facts of this case. The Crown must prove Mr. Thomas-Henry intended to use the firearm for a dangerous purpose when he possessed it, prior to his actual use of it. When he ran into his house and retrieved the firearm, his intention while he possessed it for the period prior to using it, was for a dangerous purpose, that being to fire it a van he knew was full of people. Therefore, a finding of guilt is appropriate on this count too.

Probation and Prohibition Breaches

[37] Based on the admissions made that Mr. Thomas-Henry was on a firearms prohibition order at the time and a probation order with terms to not possess weapons and to keep the peace, findings of guilt on these three charges are also made out.

Firearm Licensing Charges

[38] Counts 12 and 13 are the two counts of possessing a firearm without a licence and knowingly possessing a firearm while unlicenced, are the two counts that required the Crown to prove the firearm used met the s. 84(3)(d) definition. As the Crown has not proven the firearm used met that definition, these two counts have not been proven and not guilty findings will be made.

Discharging a Firearm with Intent to Endanger Life

[39] This just leaves counts 19 to 23 which are the counts of discharging a firearm with the intent to endanger the life of Ashley General, Rikki General, Jaycee Greene and two of the children in the van. On these counts the Crown must prove when he fired the gun, Mr. Thomas-Henry did so with the intent to endanger the lives of the persons named.

[40] In criminal law a person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of their actions. Again, Mr. Thomas-Henry knew all these named persons were in or associated with the van. He had, just before retrieving his gun, threatened to shoot Rikki General. He then retrieved his firearm and fired multiple rounds at the van and the women as they fled. The firearm he was using when doing this could cause death or serious bodily harm. The shot that did hit the van hit it at a height that if it had hit one of the passengers, it would have hit them in the body or head. When all these circumstances are considered in their entirety, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt when Mr. Thomas-Henry was discharging his firearm he was doing so with the intention of endangering the lives of the persons associated with the van. See also: R. v. Boomhower, [1974] O.J. No. 709. As such, findings of guilt are made out on these counts as well.

Assault Charges

[41] This leaves the non-firearm related charges to be dealt with. Starting with counts 14 and 15, the assaults on Ashley and Rikki General, I am not satisfied the Crown has proven these charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence as to how the altercation started when the van reached Mr. Thomas-Henry's house and who did what to whom, is too unclear to determine to the standard necessary in a criminal case. There are inconsistencies between the witnesses in whether Mr. Thomas-Henry got out of the van when asked, whether Rikki General had to pull him out or whether he got out only after Rikki went to his door. Also, if Rikki pushed Mr. Thomas-Henry first or he head butted her or pressed his head into hers is also unclear. As such on these two charges, findings of not guilty will also be made.

Uttering a Threat

[42] Count 16 is a charge of making a threat to Rikki General. This is the threat referenced earlier that he would shoot the women. It is alleged to have happened just prior to him entering his house and retrieving the firearm. Ms. Greene testified as she was separating him from the other women he yelled "fuck you, you fat bitch, do you want to get shot" as she was holding him. Ms. Greene said he yelled this while looking behind her in the direction of Ashley and Rikki. I am satisfied that Mr. Thomas-Henry made this threat as alleged. Ms. Greene was near him when he said it, she was clear in recalling the precise words said and she was sober at the time. Given all this, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. Thomas-Henry uttered the words alleged and they constitute a threat and as a result this charge is made out.

Driving Offences

[43] This leaves only the driving related offences. Count 17 is a charge of dangerous operation and count 27 is a count of driving while prohibited. The police were initially dispatched to this matter a few minutes before 2:00 am. Officers responded to the scene of the shooting but did not enter the residence. A couple officers remained there without seeing the accused or anyone else until they were called away to an unrelated matter. Other officers attended to the location the complainants had fled to. At 3:52 am Officers Troy Monture and Quinn Powless were driving past the accused's residence when they saw a vehicle pull out of the driveway. It was a dark coloured SUV with tinted windows. They were unable to see how many people were in the vehicle or who the driver was. They turned their cruiser around to stop the SUV and when they activated their lights and sirens, it fled at a high rate of speed. Officer Powless testified he was trying to catch up to it and reached speeds of 150 kmh and still was unable to do so. At one point the SUV failed to stop at an intersection controlled by a 4 way stop sign. Eventually, the officers lost sight of it.

[44] A few minutes later they again saw the SUV on a road that led into Gaylord Powless Arena in Ohsweken. Officer Powless pulled his cruiser into the arena through a different entrance that allowed him to approach the SUV head on. When the SUV saw the police, it did a u-turn and again fled away. At this time, it was travelling at approximately 80kmh in a 40 or 50 kmh zone. It reached a sharp right-hand bend in the road which it was unable to navigate due to its speed. It entered the ditch and rolled onto its driver's side. Officers Monture and Powless were directly behind it as this happened. They immediately exited their cruiser and as they approached the SUV, Mr. Thomas-Henry was attempting to exit through the upturned passenger side window. They extracted him from the vehicle and arrested him. At no time did they observe any other person emerge from the SUV.

[45] The defence has argued I ought not be satisfied the Crown has proven that Mr. Thomas-Henry was the driver of the SUV. They point to the fact it had tinted windows which prevented the officers from seeing inside during the time it was in operation and the fact they lost sight of the vehicle for a few minutes. I disagree. I am satisfied Mr. Thomas-Henry was the lone occupant of the SUV the entire time. This is based on the circumstances at the time. It was nearly 4:00 am, the person driving felt the need to flee from the police not once but twice, and when the SUV finally did come to a rest, Mr. Thomas-Henry was the only person inside. When taken together, I am satisfied that the Crown has proven Mr. Thomas-Henry was the driver of the SUV.

[46] Given his admission he was a prohibited driver at the time, this means the count of driving prohibited has been proven. The remaining issue is whether the driving amounted to dangerous operation.

[47] Again, I am satisfied it did. Mr. Thomas-Henry purposely fled from the police at speeds in excess of 150kmh. He failed to stop at least one stop sign, he then fled from police again at an excessive speed, failed to negotiate a bend in the road and crashed into a ditch, flipping his vehicle onto its side. At the time he was arrested, the officers indicate he was exhibiting signs of being under the influence of alcohol. When taken together, I find this driving behaviour, in these circumstances was a marked departure from the standard of care a reasonable person would drive at the time and as such, the Crown has proven this count beyond a reasonable doubt too.

Conclusion

[48] To conclude then, the following findings will be made on the counts Mr. Thomas-Henry faces.

[49] On counts 1 to 5, being the attempt murder counts, given the Crown's concession, there will be not guilty findings.

[50] On counts 6 to 10, the pointing of a firearm count, there will findings of guilt.

[51] On count 11, careless use of a firearm, there will be a finding of guilt.

[52] On counts 12 and 13, possess firearm without a licence and knowingly possessing a firearm while unlicenced there will be not guilty findings.

[53] On counts 14 and 15, the assault charges, there will be not guilty findings.

[54] On count 16, the uttering a threat count, there will be a finding of guilt.

[55] On count 17, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, there will be a finding of guilt.

[56] On count 18, failing to comply with the keep the peace term of a probation order, there will be a finding of guilt.

[57] On counts 19 to 23, the charges of discharging a firearm with the intent to endanger lives, there will be findings of guilt.

[58] On count 24, weapons dangerous, there will be a finding of guilt.

[59] On count 25, failing to comply with a no weapons term of a probation order there will be a finding of guilt.

[60] On count 26, breaching a firearms prohibition order, there will be a finding of guilt.

[61] And last, on count 27, driving while prohibited, there will be a finding of guilt.

Released: October 2, 2025

Signed: Justice Robert S. Gee