COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-4705
DATE: 2020-11-13
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
HABIBULLAH DANIEL AHMADI
Renee Puskas, counsel for the Crown
Patricia Brown and Lana Strain, counsel for Habibullah Daniel Ahmadi
HEARD: July 29, 30 & 31, 2020; August 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 27 & 28, 2020; September 2, 3, 4, 15 & 17, 2020 at Chatham.
Thomas, RSJ.:
The Matters in Issue
[1] Habibullah Daniel Ahmadi, (Daniel Ahmadi), is charged with second degree murder. It is admitted that he caused the death of Sara Anne Widholm by repeated blows to her head with fists and elbows. The only issue then is whether the Crown can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that in his application of force, Daniel Ahmadi had the necessary intent to commit the offence of murder.
[2] While the Defence suggests an argument can be made for a complete acquittal based on Mr. Ahmadi’s degree of intoxication, akin to automatism, I reject that argument for reasons I will touch on later in this decision. The result then can only be manslaughter or murder.
Discovery of the Victim
[3] The morning of Sunday, October 8, 2017 in Windsor was cool and clear. It had rained overnight and there were puddles on the ground. The overnight precipitation did not deter 75-year-old Sara Anne Widholm. As she did every Sunday morning, she was out by herself on the Ganatchio Trail, picking up discarded beer and liquor containers which she would later return for deposit and then donate the money to her church. It was about 7:45 a.m. when she came upon two teenage males on the isolated trail, Evan Hooper-Gelinas and Daniel Ahmadi.
[4] Mrs. Widholm was a regular on these trails around Little River in East Windsor. She was known to others who frequented these walking and biking paths, including Sheila Campbell. Ms. Campbell took her dog out for a walk every morning in the area of the Ganatchio Trail and she often parked in the paved lot near the Little River Pumping Station and the East Windsor Parks facility.
[5] Ms. Campbell was expecting Sara Anne Widholm to appear at any moment, consistent with her Sunday routine, but instead when she heard someone on the path coming down from the trails, she found it to be 17-year-old Evan Hooper-Gelinas. Hooper-Gelinas was out of breath as he ran towards her and was clearly agitated. He held his cell phone in his hand explaining it was dead and he needed a phone to call 911, exclaiming that his friend was hurting someone back up on the trail. When Ms. Campbell advised she had no phone, Hooper-Gelinas ran off in the direction of Little River Acres, a subdivision just across the river, explaining he had to find someone with a phone immediately.
[6] Ms. Campbell reacted quickly. She located a couple with a cell phone. Emergency services were notified and Constable Pelaccia arrived moments later at 7:58 a.m. The officer drove her police vehicle up the path in the direction indicated by Sheila Campbell. Constable Pelaccia found a “body” just west of the trail with face and head covered in blood and blood pooling on the ground. The facial features were so distorted by swelling from the beating, that at first the officer thought the victim was a male and notified dispatch to that effect. It was only after lifting her shirt and seeing a bra that Constable Pelaccia realized it was in fact an elderly female. The victim was unresponsive with no pupil activity and shallow rapid breaths. Constable Pelaccia, now with the help of Constable Bal, attempted to apply pressure to a bleeding head wound.
[7] By 8:05 a.m. paramedics were on the scene. At 8:24 a.m., Mrs. Widholm was on her way to the hospital with a police escort. By 10:00 a.m. on the same date, Daniel Ahmadi was arrested and in police custody.
[8] The events leading up to and immediately after the beating of Sara Anne Widholm can be pieced together from a variety of evidentiary sources offered by the Crown. In addition, while Mr. Ahmadi did not testify, I have the benefit of utterances made by him together with his almost two-hour videotaped statement to Detective Shaw, recorded in the early evening of October 8, 2017.
[9] The following summary of the events leading up to the assault are not in dispute and are gleaned from the testimony of Hooper-Gelinas, his friend Nick Mero, and the statement of Mr. Ahmadi.
Earlier Events
[10] On October 7, 2017 Daniel Ahmadi was in the company of a number of young men. He and his brother, Brian Ahmadi, were originally picked up by Nick Mero at about 3:00 p.m. The group, consisting of Mero, the Ahmadi brothers and Evan Hooper-Gelinas, drove around smoking marijuana. From time to time, Ahmadi was also in contact with Pat Carr and Tony Laramie. It seems that each of them had their own marijuana to smoke and that they smoked over the course of the afternoon and evening. There is no way to accurately estimate Ahmadi’s marijuana consumption on this date. Hooper-Gelinas described his own marijuana use at the time as “significant”, likely a half ounce or 30 marijuana cigarettes a day. Eventually they all ended up at Ahmadi’s residence at 1208 Copperfield in Little River Acres, close to the Ganatchio Trail.
[11] Hooper-Gelinas had brought psilocybin (magic mushrooms) with him that day. Hooper-Gelinas was a close friend of Mero and it is clear that they had ingested this drug before. The evidence is consistent that Hooper-Gelinas had an ounce or 28 grams of mushrooms in a plastic baggie. Mero declined to consume the drug, and so at about 2:00 a.m. on October 8, 2017, Hooper-Gelinas and Daniel Ahmadi ate mushroom pieces out of the baggie. Hooper-Gelinas does not know how much Ahmadi consumed, whether it was more than half the bag and whether there was any left in the baggie. Mero seems to recall they each had seven grams. In his statement to police on October 8, 2017, Ahmadi stated that he took about 10 grams of the magic mushrooms and that he had used the drug about 20 times before this occasion.
[12] The best estimate from the evidence is that their consumption of the drug was completed somewhere between 2:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m.
[13] Let me now turn to the other evidence at trial, including that evidence impacting on Mr. Ahmadi’s intent.
The Evidence of Evan Hooper-Gelinas
Drug Consumption
[14] Evan Hooper-Gelinas had never met Daniel Ahmadi before October 7, 2017. Their connection was through Hooper-Gelinas’s friend, Nick Mero.
[15] Mero picked him up at about 3:00 p.m. and Mero, Hooper-Gelinas, Daniel Ahmadi and his brother Brian drove around in the afternoon smoking marijuana. They spent some time at a location known as suicide hill just off the Ganatchio Trail in East Windsor and a short distance from Daniel Ahmadi’s residence in Little River Acres. Apparently, suicide hill was a popular location for teenagers to smoke and drink.
[16] Hooper-Gelinas and Mero spent some time together and then they ended up back at Ahmadi’s house with Ahmadi, Pat Carr and Tony Laramie. They were all on the back deck smoking marijuana. According to Hooper-Gelinas, there was some conversation about MMA (mixed martial arts) and for about 20 seconds, Ahmadi shadow-boxed and then threw kicks into the air.
[17] It was at this time that Hooper-Gelinas and Ahmadi consumed the magic mushrooms Hooper-Gelinas had brought. Hooper-Gelinas said he had used the drug about four times before and as mentioned earlier, while he believes they both ate about the same amount, he has no real recollection of the quantities they consumed, or whether there was any left, or where the baggie of mushrooms finally ended up.
[18] Consistent with his previous use, Hooper-Gelinas says that in 20 minutes he felt high. He did not hallucinate but felt happy and relaxed and more appreciative of nature and the things around him.
[19] At about 3:30 a.m., Mero and Carr went to the gym to work out and Hooper-Gelinas and Ahmadi went for a walk back to the top of suicide hill and lay on their backs looking at the sky. Hooper-Gelinas and Ahmadi had casual conversation and he detected no inability in either of them to comprehend or communicate.
[20] Hooper-Gelinas testified that he was definitely higher at this point and that he consistently starts to come down between two to two-and-a-half hours after eating the mushrooms. When coming down he testified he gets tired but still has some effects including what he called a “heightened perception.”
Events on the Ganatchio Trail
[21] Hooper-Gelinas believes they were at suicide hill for about an hour and then walked toward the gym and were subsequently picked up by Mero and Carr at a Tim Horton’s. He recalls that he was still pretty high, but definitely coming down. His observation of Ahmadi was that he was feeling similar effects; spaced out, admiring the scenery, definitely high. Upon returning to Ahmadi’s residence, Mero and Carr called it a night, and after smoking a bit more, Daniel Ahmadi suggested to Hooper-Gelinas that they go for another walk. Again, they walked over to the Ganatchio Trail. After a period of time, Hooper-Gelinas was falling asleep and told Ahmadi that they should head back.
[22] As they were proceeding, they came upon a building with a fence around it. Other evidence established that this was the East Windsor Parks facility and that the fence was six feet high with barbed wire at the top.
[23] Hooper-Gelinas says that Ahmadi was definitely acting differently. He climbed the fence without difficulty and once inside invited Hooper-Gelinas in, but he declined. In a short time, Ahmadi climbed out and they continued down the trail. Hooper-Gelinas recalls that he was cold and was wearing a grey hoodie given to him by Ahmadi along with his orange Detroit Tigers baseball cap and a black jacket previously worn by Ahmadi.
[24] As they were walking up the trail, Ahmadi, without warning, grabbed him from behind and placed him in a bear hug, squeezing hard and exclaiming “let’s fight”. Hooper-Gelinas says he told Ahmadi he did not want to fight as he had an injured ankle and wrist, and he slipped out of the black jacket he was wearing and escaped the hold Ahmadi had upon him.
[25] Hooper-Gelinas said that Ahmadi’s behaviour had changed from before when he had seemed relaxed and “chill”, and at that point Ahmadi stared as if spaced out for a short time before they carried on. Hooper-Gelinas was unsure whether Ahmadi had been serious about wanting to fight him.
[26] It was at this point that they came upon Sara Anne Widholm, who he described as an elderly lady wearing a blue top and carrying a grocery bag. Hooper-Gelinas testified that Sara Anne Widholm seemed “freaked out” at coming upon the two of them on the path. She carried on ahead of them and Hooper-Gelinas tried to give her some space. It was at this point he says that Ahmadi asked, “do you think she needs help with her bag?” Hooper-Gelinas told him no, that it would just freak her out more, but Ahmadi was not deterred and said he was going to help her and ran up the approximately 75 yards to her. Hooper-Gelinas said that he and Ahmadi were having no problem speaking to each other and that in fact it seemed Ahmadi spoke to Mrs. Widholm for about 30 seconds, although he could not hear what was said.
The Attack
[27] At that point, he saw Ahmadi attempt to put the black jacket on the lady who began to flail her arms and tell Ahmadi in a loud voice to get away from her. Ahmadi dropped the jacket and punched Mrs. Widholm one time directly in the face and she dropped straight down eventually landing face first. Ahmadi then kneeled down over her with a knee on each side of her back and started punching and elbowing her head into the ground.
[28] Hooper-Gelinas says that he ran up to Ahmadi at this point. He was shocked that there was blood everywhere and Mrs. Widholm said “please help …. what is your friend doing to me, I’m 65.” She then became unresponsive. Hooper-Gelinas says Ahmadi was using quick strikes to the head of Mrs. Widholm. At least 10 punches and 10 elbows to her head and face and was then picking her up and slamming her into the ground.
[29] Hooper-Gelinas testified that he tried in vain to pull Ahmadi off, but was pushed away. Ahmadi looked him straight in the eyes and it was clear to him he would not be able to stop the beating. He knew his cellphone was dead and he tried to find Ahmadi’s phone in the black jacket but could not.
[30] Hooper-Gelinas says that while he was still coming down from the drugs he felt more or less sober at this point and he ran down the hill on the path to get help. It was light out at this point and he saw a gold minivan in the parking lot and an older woman doing gardening. He told her what was happening and that his phone was dead, and he needed to call 911. She did not have a phone and so he ran on over the Little River bridge into the subdivision hoping to find Ahmadi’s residence so he could make the call. He encountered a cyclist, but he road away from him. He could not locate the house, but he then heard the sirens of emergency vehicles and ran back to the parking lot where he flagged down a police car and spoke to police telling them what had happened.
[31] It was Constable Bal who first spoke to Hooper-Gelinas. Bal confirmed that Hooper-Gelinas was breathing heavily and looked exhausted. He checked Hooper-Gelinas’s phone and indeed found it to be dead. Hooper-Gelinas provided him with the name “Danny Ahmadi” and from there Bal was able to connect Ahmadi to the Copperfield residence only a short distance away.
The Police Evidence
[32] After learning the address of the Ahmadi residence, Constables Bal and Stramacchia, along with Detectives Shaw and Westenberg drove to the address at 1208 Copperfield in Little River Acres.
[33] After conversations with those at the residence, Bal and Stramacchia saw Daniel Ahmadi coming up the street toward his residence. He seemed surprised to see police. He was shirtless and his shorts, hair, socks and shoes were dripping wet. Ahmadi was carrying a bag containing his blood-soaked sweatshirt and t-shirt inundated with Sara Anne Widholm’s blood as confirmed by CFS biologists. The clothing in the bag was dry. Ahmadi complied with the demand to stop and drop the bag. He provided his name and complied with cuffing upon his arrest. He was read his right to counsel saying he understood. He stated “I don’t have a lawyer and can’t pay for one… I think someone slipped me something”, and then “never mind, I want to speak to my lawyer.”
[34] Both Bal and Stramacchia indicated they saw no signs of impairment. Ahmadi spoke clearly, responded quickly with no apparent comprehension issues. He was stoic and emotionless. This contact with police was two hours and fifteen minutes from the time of his assault on Sara Anne Widholm.
[35] Detective Shaw had returned to the scene of the arrest at 10:08 a.m. and found Ahmadi clear and coherent but obviously nervous. He provided Shaw with his height and weight which subsequently on booking turned out to be accurate responses.
[36] I heard from two officers who had contact with Daniel Ahmadi once he was returned to police headquarters. Neither reported observations differing from those of the arresting officers.
Evidence of City of Windsor Employees
[37] Monday, October 9, 2017 was the Thanksgiving holiday. When City employees came to work early on Tuesday morning, they entered the fenced area of the Parks Department. Inside on the ground they found Daniel Ahmadi’s wallet containing his identification. About 15 feet from the wallet they located a Bluetooth speaker.
Security Cameras
[38] The portion of the Ganatchio Trail of interest in this investigation runs alongside the Little River wastewater treatment facility. This expansive facility included numerous buildings, staged treatment holding tanks and paved roadways. It is surrounded by six-foot-high chain-link fencing. Most importantly, for our purposes, it was equipped with six security cameras mounted on three different buildings which recorded various stages of these events.
[39] The images are taken from a distance and do not allow for facial recognition, but the clothing seized from Hooper-Gelinas and Daniel Ahmadi, along with the clothing found on Sara Anne Widholm, together with the consistency of timing, allow for me to identify all three of these parties as well as several of the officers and the images of Sheila Campbell. The video is in colour and the orange Detroit Tigers hat of Hooper-Gelinas and the blue top of Sara Anne Widholm stand out like beacons. The Defence concedes that the video taken post-offence is that of the accused, Daniel Ahmadi. They are less sure of the images recorded as the parties approach the site of the assault. I do not have the same concern and find as a fact that the images I am about to describe are those of the persons intimately involved in this offence.
[40] Security video depicts Daniel Ahmadi on a Ganatchio Trail walk bridge at 7:34 a.m. He is joined by Hooper-Gelinas at 7:36 a.m., and they clearly make their first contact with Sara Anne Widholm on that bridge at 7:42 a.m. About three minutes later, another camera picks them up as they progress down the trail, a short distance from where the assault occurs. The video shows Sara Anne Widholm now walking ahead and Daniel Ahmadi coming up behind her. The two of them disappear from view, blocked by undergrowth. At 7:46 a.m., Hooper-Gelinas has travelled up the path and raises both his hands to the sides of his head in a clear reaction of dismay to whatever is taking place on the path out of the camera’s view.
[41] At 7:47 a.m., Hooper-Gelinas is seen leaving this area and hurries down the path where his meeting with Sheila Campbell and her dog is recorded. At 7:48 a.m., Hooper-Gelinas is captured on video running across the Little River Bridge with a cyclist riding away from him. Mrs. Campbell is herself on video securing her dog and then finding two people with a cell phone that allows for the 911 call.
[42] By 8:22 a.m., police have arrived, and Mrs. Campbell points out Hooper-Gelinas who has returned to the parking lot and the discussion with Hooper-Gelinas and Constable Bal is video-recorded.
[43] Meanwhile, video shows Ahmadi moving through the undergrowth up the hill away from the place where Sara Anne Widholm is found alongside the path. He eventually disappears into the undergrowth and trees. Constable Pelaccia’s vehicle can be seen driving up the path and stopping near the location of Sara Anne Widholm at 7:59 a.m. Between 8:05 a.m. and 8:14 a.m., multiple emergency vehicles arrived with emergency flashing lights and sirens. There are now officers shown on the path.
[44] At 9:00 a.m., the manager of the treatment plant, Richard Wilschut drove a Kubota vehicle to the main gate to speak to Detective Westenberg. We know from other evidence that the officer is inquiring about the existence of security cameras. The video captures Richard Wilschut at 9:08 a.m. driving the Kubota back to the main administration building down a long driveway that takes him away from the police presence. Within a minute of his vehicle disappearing, Daniel Ahmadi appears from the undergrowth. At 9:12 a.m., he slips without difficulty through an opening in a locked gate in the fence and walks calmly across the paved roadway, heading westbound, and disappearing from view at 9:12 a.m. At that time, Ahmadi is not carrying the bag found with him at the time of his arrest, but he is wearing his hoodie and the bloodstained elbows are easily seen.
Sara Anne Widholm’s Injuries
[45] On October 8, 2017, Mrs. Widholm was transported by ambulance to Windsor Regional Hospital, Ouellette Campus. She was met by Dr. Jhawar, a neurosurgeon. It was immediately clear to Dr. Jhawar that Sara Anne Widholm had a life-threatening head injury. She had depressed displaced skull fractures with extensive hematomas. Both eyes were swollen shut. Her right ear was swollen with a large hematoma.
[46] Dr. Jhawar performed multiple surgeries, including removing an acute right subdural hematoma that had pushed the brain out of its space and was life-threatening on its own. He attempted to piece the skull back together with a series of titanium screws and plates. He noted a shearing disconnection of Mrs. Widholm’s scalp from the underlying tissue and muscle consistent with significant force and resulting trauma, not normal even in a trauma setting. There was a hole through the right side of Mrs. Widholm’s skull, and pieces of her skull had lacerated her brain. All of these devastating head injuries were documented by Dr. Jhawar through photographs that he took as his treatment progressed.
[47] Sara Anne Widholm never regained consciousness and was never more than minimally responsive. She developed an infection of her scalp and skull and was transferred on December 8, 2017 to University Hospital in London for plastic surgery. She underwent two surgeries in London for infections and a skin graft was used to cover her brain as the skull itself had now crumbled.
[48] Mrs. Widholm was returned to Windsor on December 18, 2017. Her condition had significantly deteriorated. She was diagnosed by Dr. Jhawar as being in a persistent vegetative state.
[49] Mrs. Widholm was transferred to the Y. Emara Centre on May 2, 2018 and eventually to palliative care. Her feeding tube was removed on the direction of her Power of Attorney after a referral to the Consent and Capacity Board. She died December 15, 2018, 14 months after she had been attacked.
[50] Dr. Tweedie performed the post-mortem, determining the cause of death to be acute pneumonia and a persistent vegetative state due to or as a consequence of blunt force head trauma.
[51] The defence from the outset admitted that the assault by Daniel Ahmadi caused the death of Sara Anne Widholm.
[52] The evidence of the treating physicians and the forensic pathologist was admitted, and their reports filed without the necessity of oral evidence.
Crown Expert
[53] Dr. Karen Woodall is a forensic toxicologist. She provided the Court with expert evidence related to the pharmacological effects of psilocybin and cannabis on the human body.
[54] Dr. Woodall was careful to say that she could only speak of the effects of those two substances in general terms. The effects on an individual varied depending on that individual’s personal characteristics. The effects would also vary depending on the level of the active ingredient in each substance (psilocin in psilocybin and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in cannabis).
[55] Dr. Woodall testified that psilocybin, commonly known as “magic mushrooms” originates in a group of psychotropic mushrooms used for their hallucinogenic properties. In general, psilocybin was thought of as a safe drug with not a lot of toxicity and only very rarely causing death. The drug was thought to create a pleasurable experience because of its hallucinogenic effects. It brought on relaxation, euphoria and psychedelic experiences. Perceptual and sensory distortions were possible, which could include seeing something that was not real.
[56] Common recreational doses of psilocybin typically range from one to five grams of diced mushrooms. Any dose above five grams would be considered high, and high doses increase the chance of adverse effects. The adverse effects could be extreme, including fear and anxiety often characterized as a “bad trip”. An extreme adverse reaction might cause the drug user to slip into a psychotic state, which could be associated with violence. Generally, the higher the dose of the drug, the greater the chance of an adverse reaction.
[57] The effect of ingesting psilocybin can generally be felt within 30 minutes. The high is usually strongest in the first few hours, but effects can last up to six hours after the ingestion of the substance.
[58] Cannabis is most often consumed in the dried plant form known as marijuana. The THC level varies from plant to plant but has generally increased in the last decade. Typical effects include relaxation, euphoria and altered time perception. High doses can cause paranoia, disorganized thinking, impairments in attention and memory and even psychosis. Again, the effects of cannabis usually wear off within six hours.
[59] It was Dr. Woodall’s opinion that concurrent use of multiple drugs could increase the risk of the adverse reactions described. She testified that there were no controlled studies related to the effects of psilocybin and cannabis used together.
[60] Dr. Woodall made it clear that opinions regarding specific actions of an individual involving perception, intent, reasoning or decision-making were in the realm of the psychiatrist not a forensic toxicologist.
The Statement of Daniel Ahmadi
[61] Detective Shaw commenced his video recorded interview with Daniel Ahmadi at 7:41 p.m. on the day of the offence. Throughout the lengthy interview, Ahmadi was subdued, often with his head down. He spoke in low tones, answered at times with shakes of his head. At times he wiped his eyes, clearly crying. I infer from his demeanour that he recognized the situation he was in and the condition of his victim.
[62] I have quoted extensively from the statement as many of these passages were relied upon by defence and I found them instructive of the issue of intent. They are set out in the order the statement progressed. Constable Shaw let Daniel Ahmadi know that he had a statement from Hooper-Gelinas, and the interview moved forward from there.
CONSTABLE SHAW: He says you guys first kind of see that old lady where the trails meet and that she said hi to you guys and Evan said hi back to her. Do you remember that at all?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively) Like I say, it’s all blurry. I don’t really remember it that well.
CONSTABLE SHAW: No? What little pieces do you remember?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively) Not that much.
CONSTABLE SHAW: No. Do you remember seeing her where the trails meet or where did you first see her and where you kind of remember seeing her?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I just remember seeing her in the trails.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I don’t know if it was 6:30. I think it was before that, ‘cause like, the sun wasn’t out.
CONSTABLE SHAW: The sun wasn’t out?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively) No.
CONSTABLE SHAW: How dark was it?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: It was pretty dark, ‘cause we were inside the trails too I think. I think it made it even darker.
CONSTABLE SHAW: … Do you think you startled her?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: Probably.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Probably. Do you remember what you said to her?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively)
CONSTABLE SHAW: Do you remember what she said to you?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively)
CONSTABLE SHAW: What’s with the wrestling with Brian all the time? Is that just ‘cause he’s your brother or ‘cause you guys are, like, MMA enthusiasts or….
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: Yeah. (Nods affirmatively)
CONSTABLE SHAW: Yeah. How much training and that have you put yourself through?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: Like, five years of wrestling and, like, a bit of stand up. Not too much.
CONSTABLE SHAW: No.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: But like, I feel like I’m just better than people that have just – that have been doing it for years.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Yeah. Well, some people are just naturals. And you know that, right? Have you got fast hands? How good are your leg kicks?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: They’re pretty good.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Pretty good. because Evan was saying that when you guys were partying at your house you guys were out on the back deck and you guys were smoking week or whatever, or smoking cigarettes and weed, and that you were shadowboxing and throwing kicks and stuff. Do you remember doing that?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods affirmatively)
CONSTABLE SHAW: No. What’s the most devastating move you have?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: The most devastating would have to, like – it wouldn’t be accurate. That’s the thing.
CONSTABLE SHAW: What do you mean?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: The more power you’re going to throw out the less accurate the hit is going to be.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Right. Well that’s – yeah, that’s understandable.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: So, you’re better off hitting them with, like, light punches.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Where do you think you got the bruises from your hands?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I’m not sure. My hands are, like, bruised pretty often ‘cause the….
CONSTABLE SHAW: What’s what?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: My hands get pretty bruised often.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Yeah. Why is that?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I don’t know. Like, we do, like, a lot of physical activity and stuff.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Yeah. When is the last….
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: Like, wrestling and stuff.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: All I remember is her just scaring me.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I ran up to her, she said something, I don’t remember what happened clearly.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Do you think she was somebody else? Did you not think it was an old lady? Like, how did she scare you?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: Yeah.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Yeah what? You thought what?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: Yeah, something like that.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Like what?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I think, what do you call it, I was trying to help her and then she scared me, it was really dark, and then I blacked out.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Don’t remember. But she scared you you said?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: Yeah.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively) I don’t remember. It’s like a blur.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: It was really dark. I wasn’t in my right mind.
CONSTABLE SHAW: No? Well, why did you run up to the person in the first place?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: To help them.
CONSTABLE SHAW: To help them. To help them do what?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I don’t remember. When I ran up they scared me and that’s all I remember.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: Then I blacked out
CONSTABLE SHAW: You blacked out. So, do you remember throwing punches?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively)
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I didn’t – I didn’t see a 75-year-old lady when I looked at her.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively) I can’t explain it.
CONSTABLE SHAW: You can’t explain it?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I was scared and I just started running and I fell in water.
CONSTABLE SHAW: You fell in the water. Where did you fall in the water at?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively) I don’t remember. I was in the trails.
CONSTABLE SHAW: So, after this happened did you run towards Copperfield or did you run the other way?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I don’t know. I was getting lost in the woods.
CONSTABLE SHAW: You ran in the woods?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: Yeah, in the woods. I was, like, lost in there.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: Everything you hear when you’re on that stuff you don’t know if you’re actually hearing that.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Yeah. When did the – when did your high wear off?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: When I got arrested.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Like instantly? Yeah.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods affirmatively)
CONSTABLE SHAW: Do you remember seeing me when you got arrested after I pulled up? ‘Cause I talked to you and I said, how much – how tall are you and how much do you weigh? Do you remember?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods affirmatively)
CONSTABLE SHAW: You answered me. You didn’t seem high to me. You understood my question, right?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods affirmatively)
CONSTABLE SHAW: So, it must have wore off before that.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: Yea, it did; when I started – when I ran it started running off – it started….
CONSTABLE SHAW: Wearing off?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods affirmatively) Yeah.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: But I wasn’t in my right mind. (Nods negatively)
CONSTABLE SHAW: Why did you try and wrestle with Evan before this happened?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I thought he was going to….
CONSTABLE SHAW: Thought he was going to do what?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I was hallucinating really badly.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Okay, what were you seeing?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: And I thought he was going to kill me.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I remember she – I ran up, I think she hit me and then – then I just blacked out.
CONSTABLE SHAW: So, she hit you with what?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively) I don’t remember.
CONSTABLE SHAW: You don’t remember?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively)
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively) I don’t know. Everything. All of it together. Like, the moment it all, like - the stuff with Evan before too, like, he was scaring me and then when I started running and then she scared me even worse and I just – it got real bad.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively) I don’t remember. I just remember I was running up and then she scared me.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Okay, and what do you do when someone scares you?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I think she hit me and then….
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively) I don’t remember what I got hit by, I just remember getting hit.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Okay.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: And then blacking out.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I pretty much, like, I remember, like, parts of the night. I don’t remember the whole thing.
CONSTABLE SHAW: That’s fair. But you remember everything up to….
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: ‘Cause it started getting stronger and stronger…
CONSTABLE SHAW: Yeah.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: …when I was in the woods and was walking with Evan.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively) I didn’t see, like, a human face. That’s the problem. That’s the thing.
CONSTABLE SHAW: What kind of face did you see?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively) I’m not sure.
CONSTABLE SHAW: You never carry a weapon?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively) Never.
CONSTABLE SHAW: You didn’t hit her with a club or a bat?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively) No. No.
CONSTABLE SHAW: No?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively) No.
CONSTABLE SHAW: And do you remember not hitting her with a club or a bat?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods affirmatively) Yeah.
CONSTABLE SHAW: How can you remember that?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods negatively) Because I didn’t have a weapon on me.
CONSTABLE SHAW: How can you be sure?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: Because I remember everything I left the house with.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Okay, what did you leave the house with?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: Just my phone.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Okay.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: My speaker and my jacket.
CONSTABLE SHAW: What kind of phone do you got?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: It was my brother’s phone.
CONSTABLE SHAW: Your brother Brian?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods affirmatively)
CONSTABLE SHAW: What kind of speaker? Like, a plug into your phone?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods affirmatively)
CONSTABLE SHAW: Where is the phone speaker now?
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I’m not sure.
CONSTABLE SHAW: No.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I lost it.
CONSTABLE SHAW: In the woods or…
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I think so.
CONSTABLE SHAW: I’m going to check with my partner to see if I missed asking you any questions. Okay? And then I’ll come back and talk to you again. And if you have any questions for me, if I can answer them I will. Okay? ‘Cause I’ve been honest with you from he start and I think you’ve been pretty honest with me, other than the part about blacking out at the very instant where she was assaulted.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: I didn’t quite black out. It’s just the memory is a blur.
CONSTABLE SHAW: So, you didn’t black out. Your memory is a blur.
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: (Nods affirmatively)
HABIBULLAH AHMADI: Just like all the memories are getting mixed together.
Position of the Crown
[63] It is the position of the Crown that there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support a conviction for second degree murder. The actus reus has been admitted. I should find there is evidence that supports both paths to the intention for murder: (a) a specific intention to kill Sara Anne Widholm (s. 229(a)(i)); and (b) an intention to cause Mrs. Widholm bodily harm that Daniel Ahmadi knew was likely to cause death and being reckless whether death ensued (s. 229(a)(ii)).
[64] The Crown points to Daniel Ahmadi’s conversations both before and after the offence. His ability to navigate away from police. The fury and accuracy of the beating. The Crown suggests he then removed his bloody sweatshirt so as not to draw attention and otherwise found a source of water to wash himself off. Where, in his statement, Ahmadi seeks to describe his confusion and lack of comprehension, the Crown’s position is that it was all simply a lie.
Position of the Defence
[65] Defence counsel recognizes the burden placed upon it to provide a successful defence of non-mental disorder automatism. Despite that, counsel argues that Daniel Ahmadi was so impaired by his consumption of a significant quantity of psilocybin combined with cannabis, that he was in the throes of a drug-induced psychosis and cannot be held criminally responsible for his actions as they were involuntary.
[66] For the same reasons, relying upon the evidence of his ingestion of the drugs, coupled with his statement describing the event, defence argues that I cannot find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to satisfy the necessary intent for murder. A major component of this argument is that while I can accept some of Hooper-Gelinas’s testimony, for the most part, I should find him untrustworthy and untruthful. He is, it is suggested, unreliable because of his own drug intoxication and pandering to police to escape prosecution for drug trafficking.
The Assessment of Hooper-Gelinas’s Testimony
[67] The importance of the testimony of Hooper-Gelinas to the case for the Crown is obvious. He testified as to the amount of intoxicating substances consumed and, perhaps most importantly, he is the eye witness to events leading up to and surrounding the attack on the victim. The defence argues that I should reject much of his testimony.
[68] In assessing the credibility and reliability of Evan Hooper-Gelinas, I recognize that he was, at the time, 17-years-old. I recognize as well that just as with the accused, he had smoked numerous marijuana cigarettes and consumed a significant dose of psilocybin. I caution myself that if I am to accept his evidence, I must scrutinize it closely and look for corroboration.
[69] Hooper-Gelinas accepts his responsibility for providing the magic mushrooms. He is candid about his habit of using cannabis to excess. There is simply no evidence that he was concerned as a 17-year-old about supplying his friends and acquaintances with some of his drugs. I do not agree with the defence that his credibility is impacted by the fact that he was technically engaged in trafficking of drugs. While undoubtedly committing a technical act of trafficking, the suggestion by defence that police, as part of this investigation, should have arrested him for that offence is simply folly.
[70] I accept his evidence where it describes the matters in issue. It is corroborated by numerous other pieces of evidence offered by the Crown including the following:
(a) Tony Mero provides corroboration for the approximate amount of magic mushrooms consumed by each and for Hooper-Gelinas’s observations of Ahmadi’s demeanour while high on the drug.
(b) Security video corroborates Hooper-Gelinas’s evidence of Ahmadi’s contact with Sara Anne Widholm and Hooper-Gelinas’s evidence about his actions before, during and after the offence. It documents his contact with Sheila Campbell and his return to provide his statement to the police, as well as the fact his cell phone was dead.
(c) The extensive injuries to the face and head of the victim are consistent with his description of the assault by Daniel Ahmadi.
(d) Ahmadi’s wallet and speaker, found by Windsor city employees inside the fenced area, corroborate his evidence that Ahmadi climbed into that area.
[71] There are some minor inconsistencies with his evidence. Clearly, he and Ahmadi came upon Mrs. Widholm earlier on the path than he recollects. It would seem he has inflated the extent of his previous injuries to his ankle and wrist, as well as his act of flagging down police to provide them with information. Much of this springs, I suspect, from his recognition that he did little to save Sara Anne Widholm at the time of the beating. These issues with his evidence are minor and do not affect my finding that he is both credible and reliable.
[72] Having accepted his evidence, I make the following findings of fact:
(a) Throughout the afternoon and evening of October 7, 2017 and early morning of the next day, Ahmadi and Hooper-Gelinas smoked a number of marijuana cigarettes. There cannot be accurate estimate of the amount.
(b) Sometime between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. on October 8th, they each ate approximately the same amount of magic mushrooms.
(c) Hooper-Gelinas and Ahmadi made two trips by foot to the Ganatchio Trail.
(d) Hooper-Gelinas did not see any inability in Ahmadi to speak or comprehend although he was high on drugs.
(e) Ahmadi was acting strange on the second trip when he climbed into the fenced area and then bear-hugged Hooper-Gelinas and wanted him to fight. At that time, Hooper-Gelinas was coming down from his high and just felt tired.
(f) That Ahmadi chose to run up to Sara Anne Widholm to assist her with her bag and when she flailed away with her arms, telling him to get away, he punched her once in the face and then when on top of her, punched and elbowed her in the head approximately 20 times before slamming her head into the ground. That Ahmadi seemed to dig his elbows into her head.
(g) That Hooper-Gelinas was unsuccessful in his attempt to stop the beating as Ahmadi pushed him away and continued.
[73] I will now turn to the central questions. Was the accused acting voluntarily at the time of the offence? Did the accused have the requisite intent for murder?
Non-Mental Disorder Automatism
[74] I will only discuss this area briefly. Extreme intoxication akin to automatism was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in both R. v. Daviault, 1994 61 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63 and R. v. Stone, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 871. The state of the law is summarized in para. 45 of R. v. Daley, 2007 SCC 53, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 523:
[45] As for extreme intoxication akin to automatism, the approach adopted in Daviault and confirmed in Stone imposes an evidentiary burden on the accused to satisfy the trial judge that there is evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could find that the accused acted involuntarily on a balance of probabilities. In all cases, this will require that the defence make an assertion of involuntariness and call confirming psychiatric evidence: see Stone, at paras. 182-84; Daviault, at pp. 101-2.
[75] I have no psychiatric evidence of the type clearly required to make out such a defence. The defence has failed to meet the burden resting upon it to prove involuntariness on a balance of probabilities. In any event, the evidence, viewed as a whole, could never support the suggestion that the accused was labouring under a level of extreme intoxication which would negate voluntariness and act as a complete defence to criminal responsibility (Daley, para. 43). Here, the presumption of voluntariness must remain intact (Stone, para. 171).
[76] While defence counsel reminded me of the decision of Paciocco J.A. in R. v. Chan, 2020 ONCA 333 and its affect on s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code, I am aware that in Chan the Court had expert psychiatric evidence to consider.
[77] In R. v. Brown, 2020 ABQB 166, Justice Hollins acquitted the accused of serious break and enter and aggravated assault charges, finding extreme intoxication akin to automatism after Brown drank alcohol and ate magic mushrooms. Again, the defence have the benefit of experts in toxicology and psychology.
The Intent to Commit Murder
[78] It is the obligation of the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Daniel Ahmadi had the requisite intent to commit murder. There is a common-sense inference that sane and sober persons intend the natural and probable consequences of their actions. In other words, if a person acted so as to produce certain predictable consequences, it may be inferred that the person intended those consequences (R. v. Seymour, 1996 201 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 252, para. 19).
[79] It however follows that where, as here, there is evidence of intoxication at the time of the offence, I must take into account the evidence of Ahmadi’s consumption of drugs along with all the other evidence relevant to his intent in considering the application of this inference in this case (Seymour, para. 21).
[80] In Daley, the Supreme Court described three legally relevant degrees of intoxication (Daley, para. 41). For the purposes of this analysis, having rejected category 3, that is extreme intoxication akin to automatism, I am focussing on category 2, “advanced” intoxication.
[81] The Court, in Daley, described it this way:
[41] … This occurs where there is intoxication to the point where the accused lacks specific intent, to the extent of an impairment of the accused’s foresight of the consequences of his or her act sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about the requisite mens rea. The Court in Robinson noted that this will most often be the degree of intoxication the jury will grapple with in murder trials:
In most murder cases, the focus for the trier of fact will be on the foreseeability prong of s. 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46 , that is, on determining whether the accused foresaw that his or her actions were likely to cause the death of the victim. For example, consider the case where an accused and another individual engage in a fight outside a bar. During the fight, the accused pins the other individual to the ground and delivers a kick to the head, which kills that person. In that type of a case, the jury will likely struggle, assuming they reject any self‑defence or provocation claim, with the question of whether that accused foresaw that his or her actions would likely cause the death of the other individual. [para. 49]
A defence based on this level of intoxication applies only to specific intent offences.
[82] I accept the evidence of Dr. Woodall that if Daniel Ahmadi took the amount of psilocybin he described, it was a high dose of psilocybin. I accept that psilocybin, while normally a safe psychotropic drug, can cause severe adverse reactions and states resembling psychosis; states that have, in some instances, caused the person to act out with significant violence. Further, that use of cannabis concurrently could increase the adverse reaction.
[83] I do not find that happened here. While I find that Daniel Ahmadi was no doubt at a level of intoxication by the use of the drugs mentioned, the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended bodily harm to Sara Anne Widholm that he knew was likely to cause her death and was reckless whether death ensued (s. 229(a)(ii)). It may be as well, based on the nature of the attack, that he intended to cause her death from the outset, but that conclusion is less clear to me. I find on this evidence in this case I can draw no other conclusion. Let me, at this point, set out how I arrive at this finding.
[84] First, the evidence establishes that the accused was able to function, react and process events in a rational fashion. Subsequent to the consumption of the psilocybin between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. on October 8, 2017, Daniel Ahmadi, while observed to be experiencing a “high” was nonetheless able to communicate with Hooper-Gelinas, Mero and others. He was able to walk significant distances and find his way along the darkened path of the Ganatchio Trail. He was able to scale a six-foot fence with barbed wire at the top. He was aware that the person he met on the path was an older woman. He communicated to Hooper-Gelinas that he intended to assist her with her bag. He then punched her hard in the face and then straddled her, directing at least 20 quick and accurate blows to her face and head with his elbows and fists.
[85] Second, the devastating and ultimately fatal injuries to Sara Anne Widholm also impact on intent. Those injuries have been detailed elsewhere in these Reasons.
[86] The impact of an attack such as this, on the issue of intent, was considered by Fairburn J.A. in R. v. Herlichka, 2020 ONCA 307. Similarly, in that case, the defence ran a straight intoxication defence to murder. The following portions of Herlichka provide a view of Justice Fairburn’s interest in the nature of the assault:
[11] For instance, the injuries suffered by Mr. Mixemong had the potential to inform the question of state of mind for murder. They demonstrated the brutality of the attack, both in terms of the sheer force of the blows and the spread of the attack over different parts of the body, which spoke to the appellant’s foresight of likely death under s. 229(a)(ii). …
[12] As well, some of the interaction at the back door of the restaurant was caught on videotape, as was a significant portion of the beating. This video allowed the jurors to see for themselves the appellant’s level of coordination during the offence and the length of time over which it occurred, both of which could inform his state of mind at the time of the attack.
[15] There was also evidence from eyewitnesses to the events, leading up to, during and following the attack, each of whom was able to speak to some degree about various subjects, including the appellant’s apparent ability to comprehend what was happening around him, his responsiveness to others, his ability to communicate his thoughts, and his level of physical coordination during that period of time.
[16] Police officers also testified about the appellant’s ability to communicate, respond and perform coordinated actions at the scene of the crime.
[36] This case is unlike more typical murder cases involving the defence of intoxication, where the victim is injured by a simple push to the sidewalk, resulting in a strike to his or her head, or single kick to the head. In those cases, even in the absence of intoxication, foreseeability of likely death is a trickier subject for a jury’s consideration. That was not this case. Like a bullet to the head at close range, the blistering, vicious and unrelenting nature of the attack on Mr. Mixemong had the unmistakable markings of death. Indeed, this would have been why the jury was instructed under both ss. 229(a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code. So brutal and prolonged was the attack that the specific intention to kill was an available path to the state of mind for murder. Experienced defence counsel no doubt spoke in terms of capacity because he no doubt understood that anything short of the appellant’s inability to appreciate what everyone else witnessing the attack appreciated would have little traction with the trier of fact.
[87] The evidence revealed that Daniel Ahmadi was an MMA enthusiast. He was practicing his strikes and kicks earlier on the deck of his house. The Crown suggests that his urging Hooper-Gelinas to climb into a fenced area with him (not unlike an MMA caged ring) and his later bear hug and desire to fight Hooper-Gelinas, along with his attack on Sara Anne Widholm, are consistent with someone who knew what they were doing and someone who had “fighting on their mind.” Whether or not that is true, the very nature of the attack on this victim, including the furiosity and accuracy of the blows, always only to the head, is an important factor leading to my conclusion.
[88] The nature of the attack in Herlichka, being long and brutal, dictated that defence counsel had to argue for a lack of capacity, as the attack “had the unmistakeable markings of death” (Herlichka, para. 36). Here, the MMA-like blows were precisely delivered, always to the head, accurate and savage, and could easily be characterized in the same language.
[89] Third, I find as well that the after the fact conduct displayed by Daniel Ahmadi assists me in finding he had the necessary intent for murder. Defence counsel has brought to my attention that the Supreme Court of Canada and other courts of appeal have held that an accused’s after the fact conduct may be probative to an accused’s culpability, but not the level of the culpability (R. v. Angelis, 2013 ONCA 70, para. 53; R. v. Arcangioli, 1994 107 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 129; R. v. White, 2011 SCC 13, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 433).
[90] Here, the after the fact conduct is not being used to demonstrate a consciousness of guilt. It is being used to assess the level of the accused’s intoxication, and his ability to form intent at the time of the crime. In those cases, the after the fact conduct was being sought to be admitted to prove consciousness of guilt. The accused could be fleeing or destroying evidence subsequent to either of those offences. It might be consciousness of guilt but for what offence? Here, the defence is one of intoxication by drugs. The evidence of what Daniel Ahmadi did immediately after the offence is instructive on the issue of capacity and thence on the issue of his intent at the time of the offence.
[91] As Laskin J.A. said at para. 55 in Angelis:
[55] Post-offence conduct, therefore, is not subject to blanket rules. It is circumstantial evidence whose probative value depends on the nature of the evidence, the issues at trial and the positions of the parties. Thus, we do not automatically label certain kinds of post-offence conduct as always or never relevant to a particular issue. Rather, we must consider all the circumstances of a case to determine whether the post-offence conduct is probative and, if so, what use the jury may properly make of it. In the words of Rothstein J., at para. 36 of R. v. White (2011) , the overriding question is this: what do “logic and human experience” suggest that a jury can legitimately or rationally infer from the accused's post-offence conduct?
[92] The security cameras show Ahmadi negotiating his way through thick ground cover within minutes of concluding his assault. It shows him an hour and 24 minutes later sliding through an opening in the fence surrounding the waste water facility. He waited until Richard Wilschut disappeared on the Kubota before he made his move. He was moving away from the police and EMS and a host of flashing emergency lights at the scene of his offence. He then walked calmly and without issue across the pavement and disappeared.
[93] Fourth, the ability of the accused to act in a focussed and rational fashion is supported by his statements to police. Two hours and fifteen minutes after the offence, Daniel Ahmadi encountered police near his residence. He had removed his bloody shirts, I find, so that he did not draw attention. He had washed himself off. He comprehended the instructions and questions of the police and answered appropriately. The first thing he said to Constable Bal was that someone slipped him something. I find that he was already setting up his narrative for the act he knew he had committed.
[94] Daniel Ahmadi’s formal statement to police evolved as it progressed, pressed by Detective Shaw to explain what he recalled, saw and heard. He began his statement by suggesting he did not remember what happened. He had no recollection of what he said to Widholm or what she said to him. The only real interest he had in the questions of Shaw came when they discussed his prowess in MMA-like training and moves.
[95] He then stated that he was trying to help Widholm, but she scared him, and he blacked out. But he remembered he wanted to help her. He did not know why he was scared. He didn’t see a 75-year-old lady when he looked at her, but he did not know what he saw. His drug induced high wore off instantly when he got arrested. Ahmadi then said he remembered that he ran up and she hit him and then be blacked out. He didn’t see her with a human face. But he was not sure what kind of face he saw. He was able to describe the items he had with him on the trail, and that he had lost his brother’s phone speaker, likely on the trail.
[96] When Shaw suggested he didn’t believe he blacked out at the instant of the assault, Ahmadi stated he didn’t quite black out, but rather his memory was a blur.
[97] I find his self-serving interview comments, a further attempt to disguise his knowledge of his actions by suggesting his mind was simply overpowered by the hallucinogenic drug he ingested. There is no doubt, during his interview, Daniel Ahmadi knew the extent of his peril and the extent of the beating he had exacted on a defenceless elderly woman.
[98] The evidence of Dr. Woodall also assists me in rejecting the narrative offered by Daniel Ahmadi. Always subject to specific circumstances, the peak of his high should have come within two hours of ingestion. Even using 3:00 a.m. as the outside limit, by 7:45 a.m. he should have been coming down, consistent as well with the effects of the drug on Hooper-Gelinas. Finally, one does not instantly sober up. Dr. Woodall described a gradual elimination, usually ending within six hours of ingestion
[99] I must apply the analysis of R. v. W.(D.), 1991 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 to my assessment of credibility. In considering the statement made to police, I reject it as self-serving designed to detract from the jeopardy he found himself in upon arrest. Nothing about that evidence raises a reasonable doubt on the issue of intent, which is the only issue in this trial. Considering the evidence as a whole in this case, I am content that the Crown has met its significant burden.
[100] Ultimately it simply boils down to this; taking into account the evidence of the consumption of drugs along with the rest of the evidence that throws light on his state of mind, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Daniel Ahmadi had the intention to cause Sara Anne Widholm bodily harm, that he knew was likely to cause her death, and that he was clearly reckless as to whether death ensued.
[101] I therefore conclude that Daniel Ahmadi committed second degree murder by repeated blows to the head of Sara Anne Widholm.
Regional Senior Justice B. G. Thomas
Released: November 13, 2020.
COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-4705
DATE: 2020-11-13
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
HABIBULLAH DANIEL AHMADI
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Thomas, RSJ.
Released: November 13, 2020.