REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DAVIES J. (Orally)

A. OVERVIEW

[1] At approximately 6:00 p.m. on May 26, 2019, Brandon Boodram got on a TTC bus with his girlfriend. Mr. Boodram was arguing with his girlfriend in an aggressive and threatening manner. Another passenger on the bus, Michael Hill, intervened in order to protect Mr. Boodram’s girlfriend. An argument ensued between Mr. Boodram and Mr. Hill that escalated into a physical altercation, during which Mr. Boodram stabbed Mr. Hill 11 times in the abdomen, back, ribs, arm, neck and head. Mr. Hill’s girlfriend, Jessica Wylie, was also stabbed three times as she tried to stop Mr. Boodram’s attack on Mr. Hill.

[2] Mr. Boodram was arraigned on three counts on the Indictment: two counts of aggravated assault and one count of attempted murder. Mr. Boodram pleaded guilty to aggravated assault in relation to Mr. Hill and Ms. Wylie but pleaded not guilty to attempted murder.

[3] Mr. Boodram’s counsel conceded that he was not acting in self-defence when he stabbed Mr. Hill, nor was he provoked by Mr. Hill. Therefore, the only issue is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Boodram had the subjective intent to kill Mr. Hill at the time of the attack: R. v. Ancio, 1984 69 (SCC), [1984] 1 S.C.R. 225.

[4] Mr. Boodram testified in his own defence. He admitted that he intentionally stabbed Mr. Hill. He also admitted that he intended to hurt Mr. Hill. But he testified he did not intent to kill him. Because Mr. Boodram testified and denied culpability on the attempted murder charge, I must apply the framework articulated by the Supreme Court in R. v. W.(D.), 1991 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. If I believe Mr. Boodram that he did not intend to kill Mr. Hill, he must be acquitted. If I do not believe Mr. Boodram, he is still entitled to an acquittal if his evidence leaves me with a reasonable doubt about his intent. Even if Mr. Boodram’s evidence does not leave me with a reasonable doubt, that does not necessarily mean he is guilty of attempted murder. I must go on to consider whether, based on the evidence I do accept, the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Boodram intended to kill Mr. Hill.

[5] For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Boodram had the specific intent to kill Mr. Hill during the altercation on May 26, 2019 and I find him guilty of attempted murder.

B. The Uncontested Facts

[6] There is almost no dispute about what happened between Mr. Boodram and Mr. Hill on the bus May 26, 2019. The entire encounter, which lasted only two and a half minutes, was captured on video by the surveillance system on the bus.

[7] At approximately 5:51 p.m., Mr. Hill got on the bus with Ms. Wylie. They sat in the very back row. At 6:03 p.m., Mr. Boodram got on the bus with his girlfriend. They sat a few rows in front of Mr. Hill and Ms. Wylie.

[8] At 6:05:10 p.m., Mr. Hill spoke to Mr. Boodram from his seat at the back of the bus. Mr. Hill testified that he noticed Mr. Boodram was speaking in an aggressive and threatening manner to a woman on the bus. At first, Mr. Hill did not realize that woman was Mr. Boodram’s girlfriend. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Boodram in an aggressive tone, “what’s your problem?” and told him to get off the bus because nobody wanted to hear him speak like that. Mr. Boodram responded and told Mr. Hill to mind his own business.

[9] Approximately 10 or 15 seconds later, Mr. Hill got out of his seat, walked towards Mr. Boodram and confronted him. Mr. Hill and Mr. Boodram stood face to face shouting at each other for about a minute. Mr. Hill testified that he was continuing to tell Mr. Boodram to get off the bus. At some point, Mr. Hill noticed that the woman Mr. Boodram was harassing had bruises and burns on her legs, which made him more angry and more determined to get Mr. Boodram away from her.

[10] At 6:05:53 p.m., Mr. Hill pushed his belly into Mr. Boodram. Mr. Boodram did not move. A few seconds later, Mr. Hill head-butted Mr. Boodram. Mr. Boodram and Mr. Hill then stood forehead to forehead shouting at each other. As the confrontation continued, the driver stopped the bus. She told Mr. Hill and Mr. Boodram to get off the bus or she would call the police.

[11] At 6:06:45 p.m., Mr. Hill shoved Mr. Boodram twice in the chest with his hand. Mr. Boodram stumbled backwards a few feet. As Mr. Boodram walked back towards Mr. Hill, he had his hand in the waist of his track pants. He was unclipping and opening a folding knife that was clipped to his shorts. Mr. Boodram and Mr. Hill continued to argue for another 20 seconds. Mr. Boodram had his hand on the knife as they argued but kept it hidden from Mr. Hill.

[12] At 6:07:18 p.m., Mr. Boodram grabbed Mr. Hill around the waist and stabbed him in the left side of his abdomen. At first, Mr. Hill did not realize he had been stabbed. He thought Mr. Boodram had punched him. Mr. Hill then used his bodyweight to push Mr. Boodram out the back door of the bus. Mr. Boodram stabbed Mr. Hill four or five times in the neck and face as they stumbled off the bus.

[13] At 6:07:22 p.m, Mr. Hill fell to the ground just outside the bus. Mr. Boodram then charged at Mr. Hill while he was on the ground and stabbed him forcefully in the side or ribs. Mr. Boodram tried to stab Mr. Hill a second time while he was on the ground but Ms. Wylie intervened. Ms. Wylie was stabbed three times as she tried to stop Mr. Boodram’s attack.

[14] Mr. Hill got to his feet and grabbed the strap of Mr. Boodram’s backpack. Mr. Hill held on to Mr. Boodram’s backpack for about 10 seconds before he let go and fell to the ground a second time. During those 10 seconds, Mr. Boodram stabbed or tried to stab Mr. Hill another eight or nine times, including three blows to Mr. Hill’s back as he was on the ground. At 6:07:36 p.m., Ms. Wylie intervened a second time and Mr. Boodram walked away.

[15] In total, Mr. Boodram stabbed or tried to stab Mr. Hill at least 16 times.

[16] Mr. Hill and Ms. Wylie were taken to hospital. Ms. Wylie suffered two lacerations to her right hand and a stab wound to her left abdomen. Mr. Hill sustained two stab wounds to the left side of his neck, one stab wound to his left ear, two stab wounds to his chest, one stab wound to his abdomen, three stab wounds in his upper back, one stab wound to his left forearm and one stab wound to the back of his right hand. Mr. Hill also suffered a collapsed lung and an injury to his diaphragm that required surgery to repair.

C. Mr. Boodram’s Evidence

[17] In many respects, Mr. Boodram was a very candid witness. He did not try to minimize the seriousness his actions. He admitted that he intentionally stabbed Mr. Hill in vital areas of his body that could have resulted in his death.

[18] Mr. Boodram also admitted that he was mad at Mr. Hill for interfering in his argument with his girlfriend. He testified that when Mr. Hill head-butted him and shoved him, he exploded and lost control. Mr. Boodram testified that his anger boiled over and he decided to stab Mr. Hill. He also admitted that his anger increased throughout his attack on Mr. Hill.

[19] Mr. Boodram acknowledged that he had several opportunities to walk away from the altercation before he stabbed Mr. Hill. Mr. Boodram admitted that by the time they were off the bus, Mr. Boodram knew he had stabbed Mr. Hill several times and hurt him. He also admitted he could have also ended things at that point by just walking away.

[20] Nonetheless, Mr. Boodram maintained he only intended to hurt Mr. Hill, he did not intend to kill him. Mr. Boodram testified that after the first stab on the bus, he was just swinging the knife wildly and did not know precisely where he was stabbing Mr. Hill. Mr. Boodram explained that he continued to stab at Mr. Hill after they got off the bus to distance himself from Mr. Hill and to get Mr. Hill to let go of his backpack. Mr. Boodram testified that when the altercation was over, he looked at Mr. Hill to make sure he was still alive before he walked away.

[21] In assessing whether I believe Mr. Boodram’s evidence that he did not intend to kill Mr. Hill, I cannot consider his evidence in isolation. Rather, I must consider it in the context of all the evidence adduced at trial.

[22] Defence counsel urged me to accept Mr. Boodram’s evidence that he did not intend to kill Mr. Hill. Counsel argued this was a spontaneous, impulsive stabbing in the heat of an aggressive confrontation. Counsel noted that there is no evidence that Mr. Boodram said anything during the attack on Mr. Hill that would reflect an intent to kill. He did not utter a threat of any kind to Mr. Hill or say that he wanted Mr. Hill to die.

[23] Defence counsel suggested there are several factors that support Mr. Boodram’s evidence that he did not intend to kill Mr. Hill including the location of the stab wounds, the lack of any significant pre-meditation and the dynamics of the whole encounter. Counsel argued that if Mr. Boodram formed the intent to kill Mr. Hill as he was unfolding the knife, he would have stabbed Mr. Hill somewhere more lethal than in the side of his body. Counsel argued that once the attack started Mr. Boodram was just swinging the knife wildly and stabbing at Mr. Hill randomly.

[24] Counsel argued that once Ms. Wylie intervened and Mr. Hill gabbed the strap of Mr. Boodram’s backpack, the dynamics of the situation changed. From that point, Mr. Boodram was trying to release himself from Mr. Hill’s grasp. Counsel noted that Mr. Boodram stopped stabbing Mr. Hill as soon as Mr. Hill let go of his backpack. Finally, counsel argued that if Mr. Boodram wanted to kill Mr. Hill, he would not have walked away knowing that Mr. Hill was still alive.

[25] Because the whole altercation was captured on video, I am able to parse the attack second-by-second and blow-by-blow. I must, however, resist the temptation to analyze the attack in minute detail because, in reality, it unfolded very, very quickly. In assessing Mr. Boodram’s state of mind, I must remember that Mr. Boodram first grabbed for his knife at 6:06:48 p.m. and the incident was over less than a minute later.

[26] I agree with defence counsel that there were times during the attack when Mr. Boodram was swinging the knife at Mr. Hill wildly and indiscriminately. During those times, it is not clear that Mr. Boodram was aiming for any particular part of Mr. Hill’s body. However, I find that there were several strikes that were deliberate and calculated. The nature, location and timing of those strikes contradict Mr. Boodram’s testimony that he only intended to hurt Mr. Hill.

[27] This was not a spontaneous stabbing as defence counsel suggested. The first stab to Mr. Hill’s abdomen was planned. Mr. Boodram admitted that he could have walked away after Mr. Hill pushed him. Instead, Mr. Boodram decided to stab Mr. Hill and spent close to 30 seconds planning his attack. Mr. Boodram acknowledged that he kept his knife hidden so Mr. Hill would not know the attack was coming. Mr. Boodram also designed the first blow to maximize its impact. Mr. Boodram grabbed Mr. Hill around the waist and pulled him into the knife as he was stabbing him. He admitted he did this so the knife would penetrate deeper into Mr. Hill’s body. While Mr. Boodram could have chosen a more lethal place to stab Mr. Hill, the first blow was to a part of Mr. Hill’s body where there are vital organs and was intentionally inflicted with maximum force.

[28] Mr. Boodram also made a deliberate decision to charge at Mr. Hill while he was on the ground outside the bus and stabbed him again in the chest or abdomen. Mr. Boodram admitted that he was even angrier at Mr. Hill by this point in the attack. Mr. Boodram also admitted he knew he had already hurt Mr. Hill at this point in time and could have walked away. Instead, he ran at Mr. Hill and appears to put his full force into delivering another blow to a vital part of Mr. Hill’s body. At this point, Ms. Wylie intervened to stop the attack but Mr. Boodram was not deterred. Mr. Boodram continued to try to stab Mr. Hill even after Ms. Wylie intervened. This is all inconsistent with Mr. Boodram’s position that he only wanted to hurt Mr. Hill.

[29] When Mr. Hill fell to the ground a second time near the very end of the attack, Mr. Boodram stabbed him three times directly into his back. I do not accept Mr. Boodram’s evidence that these blows were just designed to make Mr. Hill let go of his backpack. Mr. Boodram admitted that he was in control of the situation and was in a position of dominance over Mr. Hill when Mr. Hill was on the ground. If Mr. Boodram just wanted to dislodge Mr. Hill’s grip, his attention would have been on Mr. Hill’s hand. He would not have stabbed Mr. Hill three times in the upper back.

[30] In my view, the nature and persistence of Mr. Boodram’s attack as depicted in the video are inconsistent with his testimony that he only intended to hurt Mr. Hill.

[31] Defence counsel also argued that Mr. Boodram’s level of intoxication supports his position that he only wanted to hurt Mr. Hill. Mr. Boodram testified that he drank approximately 20 oz of vodka on the morning of May 26, 2019 and another 6 beers during a basketball game that afternoon. The police were called to the basketball game because Mr. Boodram and his girlfriend were being disruptive. One of the officers who spoke to Mr. Boodram noted that Mr. Boodram had been drinking and was slurring his words. Mr. Boodram testified that he was angry and frustrated after his interaction with the police. He also testified that he was angrier during the altercation with Mr. Hill than he would have been if he were sober. He said his anger boiled over and he lost control when Mr. Hill pushed him.

[32] There is an admission that Mr. Boodram’s consumption of drugs and alcohol did not render him incapable of forming the specific intent to kill. Rather, defence counsel argued that because Mr. Boodram was intoxicated, I should not infer that he foresaw the probable consequences of his actions or that he intended to bring about those consequences: R. v. Seymour, 1996 201 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 252 at para. 19. In my view, the evidence of intoxication does not logically support Mr. Boodram’s testimony that he only intended to hurt Mr. Hill. If anything, it tends to suggest that he was so angry that he wanted to do more than just hurt Mr. Hill.

[33] Regardless, I find that Mr. Boodram’s conduct and persistence throughout the attack is inconsistent with his evidence that he did not intend to kill Mr. Hill. I do not believe that aspect of his testimony and it does not leave me with a reasonable doubt. That does not, however, mean that Mr. Boodram is guilty of attempted murder. I must still decide whether I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence that I do accept, that Mr. Boodram intended to kill Mr. Hill.

D. Circumstantial Evidence of Mr. Boodram’s Intent

[34] Absent a direct expression of intent by Mr. Boodram, I am left to infer his state of mind from the circumstances of the attack including the type of the knife used, the nature and location of the injuries, the nature and persistence of the attack and the presence or absence of premeditation: R. v. Wielgosz, 2018 ONCJ 666; R. v. Ryan, 2008 ONCJ 350 at para. 47.

[35] I heard evidence about Mr. Boodram’s actions after the altercation ended. Mr. Boodram walked away from the bus through a residential neighbourhood. He discarded some of the clothes he was wearing during the stabbing that had blood on them. I also heard that Mr. Boodram initially denied any involvement in the stabbing when the police first confronted him a few minutes after the attack. The Crown acknowledged that Mr. Boodram’s conduct after the attack is not relevant to the issue of intent and I have not considered that evidence in reaching my decision: R. v. White, 2011 SCC 13.

[36] The knife Mr. Boodram used to stab Mr. Hill had a two-inch folding blade. Unlike a gun, a knife with a two-inch blade is not necessarily designed to kill. Nonetheless, it is capable of inflicting a fatal injury. The nature of the weapon does not support an inference one way or the other in relation to Mr. Boodram’s state of mind. Nonetheless, Mr. Boodram’s level of anger, the persistence and force of his attack and the location of the stab wounds that he deliberately inflicted satisfy me beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Boodram intended to kill Mr. Hill.

[37] Mr. Boodram testified that he exploded when Mr. Hill pushed him. Mr. Boodram concealed the knife from Mr. Hill so the first blow would be a surprise. He delivered that first blow in a way to maximize its impact. Mr. Boodram then stabbed Mr. Hill repeatedly in the abdomen, neck and back. Mr. Boodram testified that he knew those were vital parts of Mr. Hill’s body. The injuries to Mr. Hill were severe, including damage to his internal organs.

[38] Mr. Boodram admitted he chose to stab Mr. Hill in the neck and chest because they were vital areas of his body and he knew those injuries could kill Mr. Hill. To be clear, it is not enough for the Crown to prove that Mr. Boodram intentionally caused injuries that he knew were likely to be lethal and was reckless about whether Mr. Hill died. The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Boodram subjectively intended to kill Mr. Hill. Nonetheless, the fact that Mr. Boodram deliberately stabbed Mr. Hill in a part of his body he knew could result in his death is relevant in assessing Mr. Boodram’s state of mind and supports an inference that Mr. Boodram intended to kill Mr. Hill.

[39] Finally, the fact that Mr. Boodram stabbed Mr. Hill several times after Mr. Hill was already injured is also relevant. Mr. Boodram charged at Mr. Hill and stabbed him with full force when Mr. Hill was on the ground. By this time, Mr. Hill had been stabbed several times. Mr. Boodram knew Mr. Hill was injured. Mr. Boodram admitted he could have walked away and ended the altercation. However, Mr. Boodram testified that his anger increased during the attack and he decided to stab Mr. Hill again while he was on the ground. This demonstrates a clear intention to do more than just hurt Mr. Hill. The same is true of the three plunging stab wounds directly to Mr. Hill’s upper back a few seconds later when Mr. Hill fell to the ground a second time. I have already rejected Mr. Boodram’s evidence that these blows were designed to get Mr. Hill to let go of his backpack. The persistence of Mr. Boodram’s attack after Mr. Hill was already injured supports an interference that he did not just intend to hurt Mr. Hill but intended to kill him.

[40] The fact that Mr. Boodram walked away while Mr. Hill was still alive does not raise a doubt about his intention to kill Mr. Hill during the attack. By the time Mr. Boodram walked away, Mr. Hill had collapsed on ground after being stabbed many, many times and Ms. Wylie had intervened for a second time to stop any further attack. In my view, the only reasonable inference from the nature, circumstances and persistence of this attack is that Mr. Boodram intended to kill Mr. Hill. I, therefore, find Mr. Boodram guilty of attempted murder.

___________________________ Davies J.

Oral Reasons Delivered: April 9, 2021

Written Reasons Released: April 15, 2021

COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-30000213-0000

DATE: 20210409

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

Brandon boodram

Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Davies J.

Oral Reasons Delivered: April 9, 2021

Written Reasons Released: April 15, 2021

R. v. Boodram, 2021 ONSC 2800

Case Summary

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

A. OVERVIEW

B. The Uncontested Facts

C. Mr. Boodram’s Evidence

D. Circumstantial Evidence of Mr. Boodram’s Intent

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues

Legal Tests 1