ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2026 02 13

COURT FILE No.: Toronto 4810 998 25 48110963

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

NAHOME TEKESTE

Before Justice R. Wright

Heard on December 15, 16, 27, 2025, and January 21, 2026

Reasons for Judgment released on February 13, 2026

T. Sarantis............................................................................................ counsel for the Crown

J. DiCecca..................................................... counsel for the accused Nahome Tekeste

R. WRIGHT J.:

[ 1 ] Nahome Tekeste stood trial before me on four counts associated with a single alleged incident; the core allegation is that he wounded/maimed Maurice Stone with a metal pole and a knife.

[ 2 ] The parties filed a number of admissions which significantly expedited proceedings:

(1) The nature of injuries to Mr. Stone and his medical records;

(2) The authenticity of video from a neighbouring apartment;

(3) That Mr. Stone and Mr. Tekeste are the individuals depicted in that video;

(4) That Mr. Tekeste was bound by conditions to keep the peace and be of good behaviour in two Probation Orders.

[ 3 ] Much of the Crown’s case was not disputed. Mr. Tekeste and Mr. Stone are neighbours, residing one floor apart in units 320 and 420, respectively. On May 3, 2025, police were called to the building for reports of a wounding. Officers attended unit 420 and found Mr. Stone bleeding with significant injuries. Officers also attended unit 320 and located Mr. Tekeste. His door was locked and fastened against entry. Officers had to exert force to breach the door. Mr. Tekeste was hiding in a large blue bin in his living area, hidden from sight under some boxes. Police also located a metal pole leaning against the wall, that appeared to have blood on it, and a cleaver-style knife on the ground outside of the building, below the window to Mr. Tekeste’s unit. The knife also had what appeared to be blood on it.

[ 4 ] Mr. Tekeste acknowledges that he caused Mr. Stone’s injuries. He testified that he acted in self-defence. As such, the trial before me turns on the following issues:

(1) The credibility and reliability of Mr. Stone and Mr. Tekeste;

(2) Whether there is an air of reality to the defence of self-defence; and

(3) If so, has the Crown negatived any aspect of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt and proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

[ 5 ] As defence evidence was led, this is a case to which the framework from R. v. D.W. , [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, applies. That framework exists to ensure that the burden of proof remains solely on the Crown to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Distilled as simply as I can:

(1) If I accept Mr. Tekeste’s evidence, then he must be acquitted;

(2) If I do not believe his evidence, I could still be left with a reasonable doubt because of it, and again he must be acquitted;

(3) Even if the defence evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt, I must consider all of the evidence, including that adduced by the Crown, to satisfy myself that the Crown has met its high burden and proven all of the essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

[ 6 ] Everyone is presumed innocent until their guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The onus is on the Crown throughout. The Crown faces a high burden; proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires credible and reliable evidence in order to displace the presumption that the person charged and before the court is innocent.

[ 7 ] It is important to distinguish between the concepts of credibility and reliability. In R. v. H.C. , 2009 ONCA 56 at para. 41 , the Court of Appeal explained that:

Credibility and reliability are different. Credibility has to do with a witness's veracity, reliability with the accuracy of the witness's testimony. Accuracy engages consideration of the witness's ability to accurately observe, recall and recount events in issue. Any witness whose evidence on an issue is not credible cannot give reliable evidence on the same point. Credibility, on the other hand, is not a proxy for reliability: a credible witness may give unreliable evidence.

[ 8 ] With respect to credibility, one of the most valuable means of assessing it is to examine any inconsistency between what the witness said in testimony and what he or she has said on other occasions. Inconsistencies may also arise where things are said differently at different times within testimony, including omitting certain details at one time while referring to them on other occasions.

[ 9 ] Inconsistencies vary in nature and importance. Some are minor, while some concern material issues. When an inconsistency involves a material point on which an honest witness is unlikely to be mistaken, the inconsistency may demonstrate a carelessness with the truth about which the Court should be concerned.

[ 10 ] There are other factors that can affect an assessment of credibility. These include but are not limited to whether the account is inherently logical, whether the account is inconsistent with other evidence (such as video), and whether the witness has a criminal record for crimes of dishonesty.

[ 11 ] Reliability of a witness’s evidence can be undermined by the circumstances under which the observations were made. The reliability of an account can also be undermined by a diminished recollection of the events over time, evidence of tainting, or other factors such as impairment by alcohol or a drug at the time that the observations were made.

[ 12 ] As I assess the testimonial accounts in this case, I am mindful that I may accept some, none, or all of an account and can give different weight to the portions of evidence that are accepted.

Evidence

Maurice Stone

[ 13 ] Mr. Stone testified that he and Mr. Tekeste had known each other for more than 20 years.

[ 14 ] Mr. Stone's evidence is that Mr. Tekeste came to his door, he believed looking for a woman named Nina. Mr. Stone testified to a string of such appearances by either Mr. Tekeste or another man in the days leading up to the day of the assault, and prior attacks on his door, including having the doorknob knocked off.

[ 15 ] On May 3, Mr. Tekeste was armed with a metal bar and a knife when he appeared at Mr. Stone’s door. Mr. Stone exited his apartment, into the hall.

[ 16 ] Mr. Tekeste struck at him with the metal bar. Mr. Stone defensively raised his left arm to block the bar, resulting in a fractured arm from the strike.

[ 17 ] Mr. Stone did not remember much about the next motions. He recalled “sweeping” Mr. Tekeste, which he described as using a wrestling move where he went low and took him to the ground. He struggled with him. Mr. Tekeste dropped the metal bar and was just using the knife.

[ 18 ] The men wrestled down the hall to the front of his neighbour's unit. Mr. Stone described head butting and biting at Mr. Tekeste.

[ 19 ] The neighbouring unit had a camera recording the area directly outside of it. Prompted mostly by having the opportunity to review that video, Mr. Stone described how the fight moved to its conclusion with Mr. Tekeste striking him repeatedly in the back of the head with the knife while they wrestled. Mr. Stone bled from these injuries. They separated when exhausted and Mr. Stone returned to his unit while repeatedly asking, “why?”

[ 20 ] Mr. Stone called 911 and passed out in his apartment while awaiting the police.

[ 21 ] Mr. Stone had consumed crack cocaine on this date and hospital records showed he also had fentanyl in his system.

Nahome Tekeste

[ 22 ] Mr. Tekeste testified that he and Mr. Stone have known each other for years, but not as long as Mr. Stone would say.

[ 23 ] He testified that he had been in custody and when he was released, he returned to the building, where the superintendent had kept his apartment for him. He had not seen his lady friend Nina for a couple of weeks.

[ 24 ] Mr. Stone and acquaintances of his had been calling Mr. Tekeste a rat when they would see him around the neighbourhood. There was a constant threat from these men.

[ 25 ] A few days before May 3, some men came to his door. He heard screaming and yelling from Mr. Stone’s unit above, and then banging down the staircase, which is across the hall, and then an assault on his door, trying to bust in. He saw one of the men he knew to hang out with Mr. Stone, and believed that this event involved Mr. Stone.

[ 26 ] He denied attending Mr. Stone’s apartment to ask about Nina. His testimony was that on May 3, Mr. Stone came to his door with a knife. He was banging on his door saying, “open up.”

[ 27 ] Mr. Tekeste grabbed a metal pole that was near his door and opened the door. He saw Mr. Stone with the knife. Mr. Tekeste came out of the apartment and immediately started poking toward Mr. Stone with the metal pole. They were cursing at each other. Mr. Stone was backing away from him toward the stairwell door. Mr. Tekeste followed him to the stairwell door. Mr. Stone was trying to swing at him. Mr. Tekeste kept poking at him with the metal pole and Mr. Stone backed away from him up the stairs. Mr. Tekeste followed him to his doorway.

[ 28 ] Mr. Tekeste testified that he followed him because he was angry. They were cursing at each other. He thought Mr. Stone was there to kill him with the knife; he had been calling him a rat and these men had been threatening him.

[ 29 ] As he pursued Mr. Stone, he hit him with the metal pole in the arm. He then hit him in the knife hand. Mr. Stone dropped the knife. Mr. Tekeste picked it up. Mr. Stone came inside the range of the pole, and they grabbed each other. They went down to the ground. Mr. Tekeste was trying to keep the knife away from Mr. Stone. He was telling Mr. Stone to get off him and then began hitting him with the knife. He hit him a couple of times with the knife and then was getting up. He had both the knife and the metal pole, and he was saying, “now, walk away.” Mr. Stone moved as though to come at him further, to try to charge him, but Mr. Tekeste had both weapons and was telling him to walk away. Mr. Tekeste backed away to the stairwell. He saw Mr. Stone open the door to his own apartment and then went down to his apartment.

[ 30 ] In his apartment, he put the metal pole against the wall and threw the knife out the window. He was sweaty and frightened. He got into a large blue bin and hid in it. That is where police located him.

[ 31 ] He had used alcohol, crack and fentanyl that day. He had been using steadily for two or three days.

Video

[ 32 ] The video from unit 419 depicts what occurred while the two men were in front of that unit:

(1) It shows both men on the ground;

(2) Mr. Stone starts somewhat on top of Mr. Tekeste;

(3) Mr. Tekeste has a knife with a large blade in his right hand and a black metal pole in his left;

(4) Mr. Stone appears to be trying to prevent Mr. Tekeste from moving his arms. Mr. Stone appears to be trying to butt his head into Mr. Tekeste and bite at him;

(5) As they grapple, Mr. Tekeste swings the knife several times making contact with the back of Mr. Stone's head;

(6) Mr. Stone is bleeding from these strikes, and quite a large amount of blood is smeared on the door and doorframe as they continue to grapple;

(7) Blood also begins dripping on the floor from the wound to the back of Mr. Stone's head;

(8) As the strikes hit him, Mr. Stone appears to focus his strength at controlling Mr. Tekeste's hand, which is holding the knife. He eventually gets both of his hands on Mr. Tekeste’s right arm and appears to be pushing the knife away;

(9) Mr. Tekeste swings this knife several more times in the grappling at Mr. Stone, but does not appear to contact him with these swings;

(10) After one minute and 26 seconds, the two men are no longer visible and it appears they may have separated and stood up. Mr. Stone’s stockinged foot appears in the video, and he appears to be backing away toward his apartment; and,

(11) Mr. Stone can be heard on the video shouting, “call the police” and at the end asking repeatedly, “why,” “why you do,” “why bro,” and similar phrases.

Issue 1: The Credibility and Reliability of Mr. Stone and Mr. Tekeste

[ 33 ] There were several internal inconsistencies in Mr. Stone’s evidence. In his evidence-in-chief, he seemed unwilling to formally identify Mr. Tekeste. He referred to the man who had come to his door, or a man who looked like Mr. Tekeste. When he returned for cross-examination the next day, he clearly identified Mr. Tekeste as the person who had both come looking for Nina and assaulted him. While I find this was an inconsistency, it is one that makes sense. He had described Mr. Tekeste as a man he did not have issues with and in his evidence-in-chief seemed to be reluctant about testifying directly against him. But at the end of his evidence, he was shown the video from unit 419. After that, his attitude shifted. He then directly identified Mr. Tekeste and no longer described a man who may have looked like Mr. Tekeste. I find this inconsistency to be satisfactorily explained.

[ 34 ] He was also inconsistent in his evidence about what he had consumed on May 3. In his evidence-in-chief, he testified to having been drinking and said he drinks most days. In cross-examination, he stated that he had not been drinking and said he only drinks socially.

[ 35 ] There were also two areas of inconsistency with his police statement: he acknowledged that he did not tell the police about either the prior attacks on his door or his knowledge that Mr. Tekeste’s door had been attacked. He testified to both of these and indicated he believed he had told police; his explanation was they must have failed to note it down.

[ 36 ] Mr. Stone has a criminal record, which includes both crimes of dishonesty and crimes against the administration of justice. His record is somewhat dated. It ends in 2011.There has been a long stretch with no convictions. While I have considered his criminal record as it reflects on his credibility, I have not put significant weight on his record given the lengthy gap.

[ 37 ] What was of the most concern was the manner in which he addressed his prior record. He repeatedly claimed that he was not guilty of offences on his record, that he had pled guilty when he wasn’t, but then would not agree to that proposition when it was suggested to him in cross-examination. In this area, he was argumentative and circular in his answers. He was inconsistent in his evidence about his record, and about what specific offences related to, factually, and whether he had misled courts by pleading guilty to offences he was not guilty of.

[ 38 ] There were also several reliability concerns. He acknowledged he had been using crack cocaine, and that his hospital tests indicated fentanyl in his system. He also repeatedly acknowledged memory issues, or gaps in his recollection of events from May 3, and expressed that those gaps in his ability to recount might cause someone to have a reasonable doubt.

[ 39 ] I have some concerns about accepting Mr. Stone's evidence. Despite these issues, I did find him generally to be doing his best to tell the truth and be accurate.

[ 40 ] Several pieces of evidence confirm some of his testimony:

(1) Video – The video from unit 419 is clear, compelling, and would tend to confirm Mr. Stone's evidence that he took Mr. Tekeste to the ground, that they grappled, that he headbutt and bit at Mr. Tekeste, and that he was trying to get the knife from Mr. Tekeste who had it in his hand while they were outside unit 419. It also confirms that the injuries to the back of his head and upper back were from the knife swung by Mr. Tekeste as they grappled in front of the doorway to unit 419. It confirms the presence of the metal pole, which can be seen for some of the video in Mr. Tekeste's other hand before he lets go of it;

(2) Photos of injuries and medical records – These confirm that Mr. Stone had a fractured left arm, abrasions and a bruise to his right wrist with a deep laceration to his lower right arm, and wounds to both his upper back and the back of his head. These injuries confirm his evidence that Mr. Tekeste swung the metal pole at him, which he blocked with his left arm, hit him in his right arm with the pole, and that Mr. Tekeste struck him with the knife in his upper back and the back of his head; and,

(3) That Mr. Tekeste is holding both weapons on the video and took both weapons back to his apartment with him. This would tend to confirm Mr. Stone’s evidence that Mr. Tekeste initially carried both with him.

[ 41 ] Mr. Tekeste's evidence also had some significant issues. He had several internal inconsistencies. He was internally inconsistent and confusing in his evidence about when he had last seen Nina, and whether he had been looking for or asking after her. He was also internally inconsistent about whether he got into the blue bin to hide from police, first acknowledging that he was most likely concerned about police attending, but then refusing to agree he had hidden from police.

[ 42 ] Some of his evidence was also inconsistent with common sense, human experience and his own stated state of mind. He testified that he was very afraid of Mr. Stone; he believed he had been involved in almost breaking down his door days before May 3, and that he was so scared of these men that he had used wood to barricade his door, but when Mr. Stone came to his door armed with a knife, he opened that door to confront him. This does not make sense or accord with his own testimony of his state of fear. Similarly, that he would follow Mr. Stone all the way to Mr. Stone’s apartment, when he did not know who might be there, does not make sense or accord with his testimony about fearing Mr. Stone and his acquaintances.

[ 43 ] Mr. Tekeste’s evidence is also inconsistent with the video evidence on two important points:

(1) He testified that Mr. Stone was coming after him again after the two men had got up. The unit 419 video shows Mr. Stone’s foot. He is standing still and then appears to stagger backwards toward his unit while yelling, “why.” There is nothing about this that appears to be a move forward. I appreciate that the video does not capture the entire hallway, but what it shows is inconsistent with what Mr. Tekeste described of Mr. Stone as coming back at him or charging at him and watching until Mr. Stone had gone to his apartment door before he left; and,

(2) He testified that he was trying to keep the knife away from Mr. Stone. The video contradicts this evidence as it repeatedly shows him moving the knife closer to Mr. Stone, including while swinging it at him and hitting him with it. The video does not show man trying to keep a weapon away from Mr. Stone, it shows him trying to use that weapon to hit Mr. Stone.

[ 44 ] In cross-examination, it became clear that Mr. Tekeste has serious gaps in his memory regarding details. He did not remember:

(1) Taking off his bloody jersey;

(2) Throwing the knife out the window;

(3) Covering himself with boxes while hiding in the bin;

(4) Whether he said “call the police” as can be heard on the video being said by one of the men;

(5) Who was saying, “why” etc. on the video (it is Mr. Stone); and

(6) Whether he heard police announce themselves at his door and when they were entering his unit.

[ 45 ] Mr. Tekeste also has a criminal record that includes crimes of dishonesty and against the administration of justice. There is a lengthy gap in that record of 12 years, but it resumes in 2023. The recent convictions for crimes against the administration of justice cause concern about Mr. Tekeste’s credibility.

[ 46 ] I have considered the police evidence of damage to Mr. Tekeste’s door, which would potentially confirm his evidence that men had attempted to breach his door days before. While the recent damage would tend to confirm that portion of his evidence, his other evidence about the door being almost broken in and in a flimsy state is contradicted by the amount of force it took police to break through the door. In my view, there is no real confirmatory impact on his evidence.

[ 47 ] With the many issues in Mr. Tekeste’s evidence, I am unable to accept it. In particular, I do not accept his evidence that Mr. Stone came to his door armed with the knife and that he pursued Mr. Stone up to the fourth floor. This evidence did not make sense, is inconsistent with common sense, human experience, and Mr. Tekeste’s own state of mind, and with the way the two men are behaving in the video.

[ 48 ] I do not accept Mr. Tekeste’s evidence. I am also satisfied that his evidence does not raise a reasonable doubt.

[ 49 ] On the basis of Mr. Stone’s evidence where it is confirmed by other evidence, and the video, I am able to make the following findings of fact:

(1) On May 3, 2025, Mr. Tekeste banged on Mr. Stone’s door. When Mr. Stone opened the door, Mr. Tekeste was there with both the metal pole and the knife.

(2) Mr. Tekeste swung the metal pole at Mr. Stone, striking him in the left arm, and fracturing his ulna. He also struck him in the right arm causing the injury there.

(3) Mr. Stone tackled or swept Mr. Tekeste to the ground. The men ended up in front of unit 419 where Mr. Stone attempted to head butt and bite Mr. Tekeste.

(4) Mr. Tekeste struck Mr. Stone multiple times with the knife causing lacerations to his scalp and upper back, and significant bleeding. As the two men grappled for the weapon, this blood was smeared outside the doorway of unit 419.

(5) Mr. Stone was shouting to call the police, and variations of “why?”

(6) The two men grew exhausted from the fight, separated and stood up. Mr. Stone backed away from Mr. Tekeste toward his apartment, where he lay down on his chairs and called the police.

(7) Mr. Tekeste went back to his unit. He locked the door and braced it against entry. He placed the metal pole against the wall, threw the knife out the window, and climbed into the blue bin where he hid until police located him.

Issue 2: Is Self-Defence Available

[ 50 ] Having rejected Mr. Tekeste’s evidence, there is no evidence that would support the defence of self-defence.

[ 51 ] Had I been prepared to accept Mr. Tekeste’s evidence, in my view, even his own testimony did not support the defence.

[ 52 ] In R. v. Khill , 2021 SCC 37 , the Supreme Court of Canada explained the three elements of a successful self-defence claim:

(1) The catalyst: the accused person must reasonably believe that force is being used against him or another person;

(2) The motive: the accused person’s subjective purpose for responding to the threat must be to protect himself or another; and

(3) The response: the accused’s act must be reasonable in the circumstances ( R. v. Khill at para. 37 ).

[ 53 ] Where there is an air of reality to the defence, the burden is on the Crown to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown is required to disprove any one of the three elements in s. 34(1) to satisfy its burden ( R. v. Khill at para. 185 ).

[ 54 ] A defence has an air of reality when there is some evidence upon which a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could acquit on that basis: R. v. Cinous , 2002 SCC 29 .

[ 55 ] The trial judge must act as a gatekeeper: the judge decides as a matter of law whether the evidence meets this threshold. If it does, the defence must be left with the trier of fact; if not, it is withheld. This has been described as a minimal evidential burden. The defence must point to “some evidence” supporting each essential element of the defence.

[ 56 ] For the purpose of assessing air of reality, I must assume the defence evidence is true and may not weigh credibility or likelihood of success. Limited, common ‑ sense weighing is allowed only to determine whether the defence requires unreasonable inferences.

[ 57 ] In my view, there is no evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could act on either the second or third prongs of self-defence.

[ 58 ] Mr. Tekeste did not testify that his purpose was to protect himself. He testified that he had been threatened by Mr. Stone and his associates, called a rat, and that he believed that Mr. Stone would kill him with the knife, but he clearly testified that he pursued Mr. Stone out of anger. His motive was anger, not self-defence.

[ 59 ] Further, his response could not be found to be reasonable in the circumstances upon consideration of all of the circumstances, including the factors set out in s. 34(2). On Mr. Tekeste’s own evidence:

(1) Mr. Stone backed away from him up the stairs. He followed Mr. Stone away from his residence poking him with a metal pole;

(2) He disarmed Mr. Stone by fracturing his arm with his own weapon;

(3) He acted in anger, pursuing and recklessly escalating the risk of injury; and,

(4) After he fractured Mr. Stone’s arm, effectively disarming him he sliced him repeatedly with the knife including strikes to the back of Mr. Stone’s head. The violence he utilized was excessive and unreasonable.

Issue 3: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Post Offence Conduct

[ 60 ] The Crown submitted that Mr. Tekeste’s acts after parting from Mr. Stone – throwing the knife out of the window and hiding in the blue bin from police – should be considered as circumstantial evidence of his guilt.

[ 61 ] Evidence of post-offence conduct is not fundamentally different from other kinds of circumstantial evidence. In some cases, it may be highly incriminating, while in others it may play only a minor corroborative role. Like any piece of circumstantial evidence, an act of concealment may be subject to competing interpretations and must be weighed by the trier of fact in light of all the evidence, to determine whether it is consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any other rational explanation.

[ 62 ] A trier of fact must be careful about inferring guilt on the basis of this conduct because there might be other explanations for it. Only if alternative explanations for the conduct are rejected may it be used.

[ 63 ] In my view, Mr. Tekeste’s conduct in throwing the knife out the window and hiding in the blue bin in his apartment from police are inconsistent with the defence advanced of self-defence. As I have rejected his evidence on other grounds, and found that self-defence does not arise, I have not considered the post-offence conduct further.

[ 64 ] On my acceptance of Mr. Stone’s evidence, where it was supported by other evidence, and the video, the Crown has proven each of the essential elements of the four charges beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) Assault with a weapon: On May 3, 2025, Mr. Tekeste intentionally assaulted Mr. Stone with the knife. Mr. Stone in no way consented to this assault. Mr. Tekeste knew that Mr. Stone was not consenting to the force. These are the essential elements of assault with a weapon, and the Crown has proven them beyond a reasonable doubt.

(2) Aggravated assault: Mr. Tekeste is also guilty of this offence. The force used with the metal pole fractured Mr. Stone’s arm. This meets the definition of wounding or maiming: wounding is any injury that breaks some part of a person’s body, whereas maiming includes to disable or cause a person to lose the use of some part of his body. The force used with the knife cut Mr. Stone’s upper back and the back of his head. These injuries meet the definition of wounding. The Crown has proven that this was an aggravated assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

(3) Breach of Probation: Mr. Tekeste conceded that he was bound by two Probation Orders with conditions that he keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Assaulting Mr. Stone amounts to a breach of that condition. These two counts are also proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[ 65 ] Findings of guilt are entered on all four counts.

Released: February 13, 2026

Signed: Justice R. Wright