His Majesty The King v. Terrel Edwards

Court File No.: CR-23-0261-00 Date: 2024-05-27 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty The King And: Terrel Edwards

Counsel: N. Sohail, for the Crown A. Goldkind, for Mr. Edwards

Heard: March 11-13, 2024

Reasons for Judgment

L. Shaw J.

Introduction

[1] The accused, Mr. Edwards, is charged with eight offences. Three of those offences involve an alleged assault and threats towards his former girlfriend, Ms. Aliyah Moody. Five of the offences are with respect to his alleged possession of a restricted firearm. Mr. Edwards has pled not guilty to all the following charges:

• Assault of Ms. Moody on August 28, 2022 contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code;
• Two counts of uttering a threat to Ms. Moody, one on July 28, 2022 and the second on August 28, 2022, contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code;
• Possessing a loaded restricted weapon, a handgun, without a license contrary to ss. 92(1), 92(2), and 95(1) of the Criminal Code, carrying a concealed weapon contrary to s. 90(1) of the Criminal Code and being the occupant of a motor vehicle in which he knew there was a firearm contrary to s. 90(1) of the Criminal Code in connection with a handgun found in his vehicle on September 1, 2022.

[2] Mr. Edwards was tried by me, sitting without a jury. The Crown called Ms. Moody as its only witness. Mr. Edwards testified on his own behalf. The parties also filed an agreed statement of fact.

Background

[3] Ms. Moody and Mr. Edwards, who are both 25 years of age, have been friends since high school. They began to spend more time with each other in an intimate partner relationship about two months prior to the alleged assault in August 2022.

[4] There is no dispute that Mr. Edwards came to Ms. Moody’s residence in the early hours of Sunday, August 28, 2022 to collect a ring he left there the prior Wednesday. There is also no dispute that after he entered Ms. Moody’s apartment, he decided to take a pair of sneakers, in addition to his ring. Ms. Moody objected to this, and an altercation ensued. Ms. Moody claims that Mr. Edwards pushed her onto her bed, choked her and punched her in her face resulting in injuries. She also alleges that he threatened to shoot her. While Mr. Edwards does not dispute that there was physical contact, he denies pushing, choking, or punching Ms. Moody or threatening her. His evidence is that she tried to take the sneakers from him. As she did so, he lost his balance and they fell onto her bed. He alleges that Ms. Moody was the aggressor who then tried to pull a valuable chain from his neck that he took steps to protect. While there was a struggle, Mr. Edwards denies striking or choking Ms. Moody or threatening to shoot her as she alleges.

[5] Ms. Moody reported the incident to the police on August 29, 2022. At that time, she also disclosed to the police another incident in July 2022 when Mr. Edwards threatened to punch her while they were shopping. Mr. Edwards did not recall this incident.

[6] Ms. Moody also disclosed to police that Mr. Edwards carried a gun and that she had seen it in his possession when he was at her apartment. After conducting surveillance, the police arrested Mr. Edwards on September 1, 2022 while he was walking to his car. The police found a restricted firearm and ammunition in a satchel on the floor of the rear passenger side of his vehicle. While Mr. Edwards admitted it was his satchel and car, he denies knowing there was a firearm in it. He denies possessing the firearm. His evidence is that a close friend asked to borrow the satchel the prior day. This friend was a backseat passenger in Mr. Edwards vehicle. While Mr. Edwards did not see his friend put a firearm in the satchel, the inference he asks the court to draw is that it was this friend who left the firearm and ammunition in the satchel in his car without Mr. Edwards’s knowledge.

Agreed Statement of Fact

[7] An agreed statement of fact was filed in connection with the firearm offences. The Crown and defence agree to the following:

i) A search warrant was granted on September 1, 2022 to search Mr. Edwards’s rented vehicle, a 2018 Porsche Macan. ii) Between August 31, 2022 and September 1, 2022, Peel Regional Police (“PRP”) surveilled Mr. Edward’s vehicle. iii) Around 1:30 am on September 1, 2022, PRP observed the vehicle parked in and then exiting the parking lot at 130 Bellany Rd North, Toronto – Mr. Edwards’s residential address. PRP observed Mr. Edwards as the driver and sole occupant of the car. iv) Around 3:30 pm on September 1, 2022, PRP resumed surveilling Mr. Edwards’s vehicle near his place of work. The vehicle was located at 3:40 pm in a parking garage near his work. Around 4:40 pm, PRP arrested Mr. Edwards in the parking garage. He was arrested as he left his workplace and approached his vehicle. v) Upon arrest, Mr. Edwards was wearing a satchel within which were the keys to his vehicle. vi) The vehicle was rented by Mr. Edwards for the period of August 25, 2022 to September 1, 2022 pursuant to a written Car Rental Agreement. vii) At the time of Ms. Moody’s statement to the police and at the time of the execution of the search warrant, Mr. Edwards had possession of the rental vehicle. viii) Mr. Edwards’s vehicle was searched. A black satchel was located on the rear passenger floor. A search of the black satchel revealed the following: a. A loaded Taurus G2C 9 mm firearm with a laser sight and high-capacity magazine; b. $260 Canadian dollars in cash and some loose change; c. Movie stubs; d. Debit receipts; e. A watch; and f. Mr. Edwards’s driver’s license. ix) After the car was seized, PRP and/or the Centre of Forensic Sciences maintained continuity and control of the firearm, magazine and ammunition. All three items were tested by an expert. x) Examination and testing of the firearm revealed that it is an operational Taurus G2C 9 mm centre-fire semi-automatic handgun that is prohibited according to s. 84 of the Criminal Code. xi) Examination and testing of the detachable box cartridge magazine with a capacity of 12 cartridges revealed that it could hold more than 10 cartridges of 9 mm centre ammunition. This is a prohibited device according to s. 84 of the Criminal Code. xii) Examination and testing of the 17 cartridges of 9 mm centre-fire ammunition revealed that each cartridge is of a design suitable for use with the Taurus semi-automatic handgun and is ammunition according to s. 84(1) of the Criminal Code. xiii) At the time of this incident, Mr. Edwards was not the holder of an authorization, licence, acquisition certificate and/or registration certificate to possess a firearm.

Position of the Parties

[8] The Crown argues that Ms. Moody is a credible and reliable witness. Her evidence was not shaken on cross-examination. The Crown urges me to accept her evidence and find Mr. Edwards guilty of each count.

[9] The Crown argues that Mr. Edwards was in possession of the firearm that was found in his vehicle. Based on either Ms. Moody’s evidence and/or the totality of the circumstantial evidence, the Crown argues that it has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Edwards’s possessed the firearm and knew it was in his vehicle. The Crown urges me to reject Mr. Edwards’s evidence that his friend placed the firearm in his satchel and left it in his car, without his knowledge.

[10] The defence position is that Mr. Edwards was not shaken in his denial that the assault and threats occurred and that he was unaware that a firearm was in his vehicle. Based on the principles from R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, I should either accept his evidence or be left with a reasonable a doubt. The defence also argues that Ms. Moody is not credible and has a motive to fabricate the allegations because of a feeling of animus towards Mr. Edwards. The defence urges me to acquit Mr. Edwards on each count.

Analytical Framework

[11] I have considered the following general legal principles in reaching my decision in this case.

Reasonable Doubt

[12] At all times, the onus to prove the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt remains with the Crown. The Crown must prove each element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Edwards is presumed innocent. This presumption remains throughout the whole of the trial, unless and until the court is satisfied that the charges have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. At the end of hearing the evidence and submissions, if I am not satisfied that the Crown has proven any element of the offences charged beyond a reasonable doubt, then the accused will be acquitted of the charge.

W.(D.) Analysis

[13] Given the conflicting evidence of Ms. Moody and Mr. Edwards, credibility assessments are key to the determination of guilt or innocence in this case. Therefore, the three-step analysis set out at pp. 757-758 of W.(D.) must be followed to prevent the burden of proof shifting to the accused. The three steps are as follows:

I. If I believe the evidence offered by Mr. Edwards that he did not commit the offences for which he is charged, I must find him not guilty. II. If I do not believe the evidence offered by Mr. Edwards that he did not commit the offences, but I am left in a reasonable doubt regarding any essential element of the alleged offences, I must find him not guilty. III. Even if I am not left with a doubt by the evidence offered by Mr. Edwards, I must ask myself whether, based on all the evidence which I do accept, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of Mr. Edwards.

[14] An accused is not to be found guilty, after accepting the evidence of the complainant, without properly assessing whether the accused’s evidence, or the evidence as a whole, raises a reasonable doubt: R. v. J.H., 2018 ONCA 245, at para. 37.

[15] In summary, the mere disbelief of the accused’s evidence will not satisfy the burden of proof upon the Crown: W.(D.), at p. 757. If, after considering all the evidence, I am unable to decide whom to believe, then I must acquit. I must be satisfied, on the totality of the evidence, that there is no reasonable doubt as to Mr. Edwards’s guilt.

Assessing Credibility and Reliability

[16] When assessing credibility, I can consider how reliably or accurately a witness recalls events and the way the witness presents their evidence. This includes whether they do so in a truthful and complete manner and whether they are being frank, biased, or careless with the truth.

[17] Reliability is separate from credibility. Credibility focuses on a witness’s veracity. Reliability has more to do with accuracy – the ability to observe, recall, and recount events that are in issue: R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56, 244 O.A.C. 288, at para. 41. A witness may be credible but give unreliable evidence. A witness whose evidence is not credible on a certain issue cannot be reliable on that same issue.

[18] Trial judges rely on several factors to assess the weight to be given to a witness’s evidence such as the following:

1. Does the evidence make sense?
2. Does the evidence have an internal consistency and logical flow?
3. Are there any prior inconsistencies, and if there are, how significant are they and are they adequately explained?
4. Is there independent confirming or contradicting evidence?
5. Is there an interest in the outcome or a motivation to lie?

[19] None of these factors are alone determinative. I have considered each of these factors in assessing the credibility and reliability of the witnesses.

[20] Lastly, I am mindful that I can accept some, none or all of a witnesses’ evidence.

Circumstantial Evidence

[21] Circumstantial evidence is different from direct evidence and requires an inference to be drawn from the evidence to the fact it is offered to prove. When dealing with circumstantial evidence, to find Mr. Edwards guilty of the offences relating to the firearm, the court must be satisfied that Mr. Edwards’s guilt is the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the totality of the circumstantial evidence: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at paras. 30 and 55. As Cromwell J. held at para. 71, “it is fundamentally for the trier of fact to draw the line… that separates reasonable doubt from speculation.”

[22] The trier of fact must consider other plausible and reasonable theories or inferences that are inconsistent with guilt: Villaroman, at para. 37. These inferences do not have to arise from proven facts and can arise from the evidence, from gaps therein, or from a lack of evidence: Villaroman, at paras. 36. At para. 35, Cromwell J held that, “[i]n assessing circumstantial evidence, inferences consistent with innocence do not have to arise from proven facts”. Inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence must be reasonable, assessed logically, and in light of human experience and common sense – not based in speculation: Villaroman, at paras. 36-38. If there are reasonable inferences other than guilt that arise from the evidence, the Crown has not satisfied the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[23] Given that each circumstantial piece of evidence may be insufficient on its own to support the required inference, I must consider all the individual pieces of evidence cumulatively to determine whether the Crown has met its burden.

Motive to Fabricate

[24] The defence argues that Ms. Moody had a motive to fabricate or lie about Mr. Edwards’s assaulting and threatening her and his possession of a firearm. Care must be exercised when dealing with issues of motivation to fabricate and there are several principles from jurisprudence to consider. It is important to remember that at no time does the onus shift to the accused to prove motive to fabricate. Questions directed to show that a witness has a motive to fabricate are, however, admissible. The reason for this is that proof of a motive to fabricate by a complainant provides a compelling alternative to the truth of the allegations. Conversely, a proven absence of motive to fabricate can be used to assert that the complainant must be telling the truth. The difficulty arises where the evidence is unclear (i.e., where there is no apparent motive to fabricate, but the evidence falls short of proving absence of motive). In those cases, it is impermissible to use an apparent lack of motive to conclude that the complainant is being truthful: R. v. Bartholomew, 2019 ONCA 377, at paras. 21-22. On its own, whether a person has a motive to lie is not generally a reliable basis upon which to assess credibility: R. v. Sanchez, 2017 ONCA 994, at para. 25. It is, however, a factor to consider in assessing credibility: R. v. Batte (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.), at para. 121.

Elements of the Offences

[25] Assault is proven by establishing that the accused applied force to the complainant, that she did not consent and that he knew she did not consent.

[26] Threatening death or bodily harm is proven by establishing that the accused made a threat, that the threat was to cause death or bodily harm to the complainant and that the accused made the threat knowingly.

[27] Carrying a concealed weapon is proven by establishing that the accused carried a weapon, that the weapon was concealed and that the accused meant to conceal the weapon.

[28] To prove that Mr. Edwards was in possession of the firearm found in a satchel on the rear floor of his vehicle, the Crown must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, not who placed it in the satchel and on the floor, but that it was there with Mr. Edwards’s knowledge and under his control.

[29] With these principles in mind, I will now consider the evidence presented by the Crown and defence.

The Weapons Offences – Review of the Evidence

[30] Given the differences in the evidence of Ms. Moody and Mr. Edwards, a summary of their evidence is necessary, as the outcome of these charges turns on the issue of credibility.

Ms. Moody’s Evidence

[31] Ms. Moody testified that during their relationship, Mr. Edwards had a gun in his possession each time he slept over at her apartment, which was about four to five times per week. She first saw the gun in a satchel or side-bag that Mr. Edwards wore across his body. She last saw the gun on Wednesday August 24, 2022 when he was at her apartment. He put in on her dresser before he went to bed.

[32] Ms. Moody testified that she told Mr. Edwards she did not like guns. He told her he would take out the clip and put the safety on when they went to bed. She denied any prior interaction or experience with guns.

[33] Although she was not pleased that he had a gun, Mr. Edwards explained to her why he carried it. To be a good girlfriend, she did not take any further issue with it.

[34] She saw Mr. Edwards clean the gun and ammunition often. She held the gun. She said it was heavy. She saw bullets in the gun. Mr. Edwards told her it was a real gun. Ms. Moody said the handle of the gun was black and the rest was a silver/grey colour. She could not recall the make of the gun but said it stated with the letter “T”.

[35] She said Mr. Moody stored the firearm in his satchel that he wore. She described it as a black bag with zippers and a black logo on it. She was not sure of the logo but thought it said “Nike” or “Dicky”. She also saw the gun in Mr. Edwards’s vehicle multiple times. She saw him put it in and take it out of the trunk of the red Porsche Macan that he was renting.

[36] She never saw him give the gun to any of his friends.

[37] According to Ms. Moody, Mr. Edwards always carried his gun. The only time he did not was when he could not carry it, such as when they went to a club in which case, he would leave it in his car.

[38] When she was cross-examined, Ms. Moody explained that she never went to the police about the gun prior to the assault in August 2022 as she was trying to be a good girlfriend even though she was not “ok” with him carrying a gun.

[39] She agreed that she and Mr. Edwards argued about his friends who carried guns. She recalled that this happened once. She also testified that she did not see the gun when he came to her home on August 28, 2022 but she believed he had it with him.

[40] Ms. Moody denied knowing a person by the name of Robert Pike, but she was familiar with someone who went by the initials “RJ”.

Mr. Edward’s Evidence

[41] Mr. Edwards denied ever having a firearm in his possession. His evidence was that Ms. Moody may have testified that he had a gun because he has friends who carry guns. He also denied knowing there was a firearm in the satchel in the rear of his car until the police arrested him.

[42] Mr. Edwards gave a detailed explanation about why a restricted firearm and ammunition were found in his Moncler satchel located on the floor of the rear passenger side in his vehicle just two days after Ms. Moody spoke to the police.

[43] He testified that on Wednesday, August 31, 2022, his friend Robert Pike, who goes by “RJ”, called him to arrange to meet two girls they met the prior Sunday at a club. RJ lived down the street from Mr. Edwards’s home in Scarborough. He drove to RJ’s home and when he arrived, RJ asked if he could borrow his Moncler side bag (satchel). Mr. Edwards emptied the large pocket in the satchel and put some of the contents into his Nike satchel, that he said he normally wears. He did not empty the smaller pocket of the Moncler satchel.

[44] They left RJ’s home and drove in Mr. Edwards’s car to meet the two women at a restaurant called Markham Station near the intersection of Markham and Shepperd in Scarborough. They arrived around 11:00 pm or “probably a little bit later”. After they ate, they talked about where they could buy alcohol and Mr. Edwards said he knew of an afterhours place that sold alcohol. After buying the alcohol, they drove to the home of one of the women where they drank, watched television, and listened to music for a couple of hours. While there, Mr. Edwards’s girlfriend called; this was not Ms. Moody but another woman he dated before Ms. Moody. She asked where he was as he was supposed to spend the night with her. He told her he was on his way. He then left with RJ and one of the women and dropped them off at RJ’s home before driving to his girlfriend’s home. According to Mr. Edwards, RJ and the woman sat in the rear seat of his car.

[45] The following morning, Mr. Edwards left his girlfriend’s home in Scarborough at 7 am and drove to work in downtown Toronto. He was working at a retail store called Jump.

[46] Mr. Edwards testified that he and RJ were close friends and spent time together every day. He agreed that firearms are valuable, and that people do not leave valuable items lying around. He thought that RJ may have been drunk and that is why he forgot the satchel and gun in the rear of Mr. Edwards’s car.

[47] Mr. Edwards testified that he had been around that gun, but it was never in his possession. He explained that at parties his friends would sometimes show off their guns, and that is when he saw this gun.

[48] When he was arrested, Mr. Edwards was wearing a Nike satchel across his body. The keys to the car where in the satchel.

[49] He denied seeing RJ put a gun into the Moncler satchel.

[50] His lawyer asked Mr. Edwards to explain how Ms. Moody identified the model of the gun she saw in his possession starting with the letter “T” and the gun found in his car was a Taurus. His evidence was that he was trying to figure that out and he had no information about that.

Analysis

[51] Because Mr. Edwards testified, my assessment is grounded in the W.(D.) principles. I must not decide this case merely by choosing between competing versions of events. I must acquit if I have a reasonable doubt on any of the essential elements of the offence, even if I do not believe Mr. Edwards’s version of events: R. v. MacKenzie, 2020 ONCA 646, 395 C.C.C. (3d) 421, at para. 22. I must consider all the evidence and decide whether I am satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the events that form the basis of the charges occurred and that Mr. Edwards committed those offences.

[52] As Mr. Edwards denied that he ever had a gun in his possession or that he knew there was a gun in his satchel found in his car, I must decide if I accept his evidence or, if I do not, whether all the other evidence, or absence of evidence, leaves me with a reasonable doubt. If I am left with such a doubt or if I believe his evidence that he never had the firearm in his possession and did not know it was in his car, I must find him not guilty of the charges.

[53] Even if I do not believe Mr. Edwards and his evidence does not leave me with a reasonable doubt concerning any of the essential elements of the offences, I must still consider the balance of the evidence that I do accept in deciding if the Crown has proven the charges against him beyond a reasonable doubt.

[54] When dealing with crimes of possession, it is “not necessary for the prosecution to prove the required knowledge by direct evidence…it could be inferred from the surrounding circumstances”: R. v. Aiello (1976), 38 C.C.C. (2d) 485 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 488. Frequently, such cases are proven by circumstantial evidence: R v. Meggo, at para. 1.

[55] In this case, the loaded firearm was found in Mr. Edwards’s satchel in a car he rented. From that evidence, his knowledge of the presence of the gun can be inferred. However, if I accept Mr. Edwards’s evidence that RJ had his Moncler satchel that evening and that Mr. Edwards did not know RJ placed a gun in it, then knowledge cannot be inferred from the discovery of the gun in his satchel in his car.

[56] After carefully considering and reviewing Mr. Edwards’s evidence, I have concluded that I do not believe his evidence that he never possessed the firearm or that he did not know it was in his Moncler satchel in his car. His evidence, either alone or when I consider all the other evidence, does not leave me with a reasonable doubt.

[57] There are a few reasons why I have found him not credible.

[58] There was a critical internal inconsistency in Mr. Edwards’s evidence regarding the events of August 31, 2022 and how the police found a loaded firearm in his satchel on the floor of his vehicle.

[59] In chief, Mr. Edwards testified in detail about the events of August 31, 2022; he went to RJ’s home, drove to meet two women at a restaurant, went to the home of one of the women, drove RJ home, spent the night at his girlfriend’s home and then drove to work the following morning. He testified that he did not return to his home at 130 Bellany Rd after he left to pick up RJ at his home and before he went to work the following morning.

[60] Mr. Edwards recalled very specific details from that evening such as what items he removed from which satchel pocket before he gave it to RJ, his discussion with RJ at his house before they went out, discussions about where to buy alcohol after-hours, and the discussion with his girlfriend that evening. He needed little prompting when questioned about the evening and gave a very long and detailed response to a single question: explain how a gun was found in his satchel in his car.

[61] On cross-examination, he confirmed his evidence that he did not return to his home at 130 Bellany Rd before his work shift on September 1, 2022.

[62] The Crown then confronted Mr. Edwards with the agreed statement of facts which states that the police saw his car at his home at 130 Bellany at 1:30 am on September 1, 2022 and then saw him leave, alone, driving his car. This contradicts his evidence that he did not go back to his home after he left to drive to RJ’s home on August 31, 2022.

[63] When confronted with the contradiction, Mr. Edwards said he was confused. He then changed his evidence and said it was possible that he left to go to RJ’s home at 1:30 am. He explained that the times he gave earlier when he testified were just estimates.

[64] Mr. Edwards was clear when he testified in chief and gave many details of the events of August 31, 2022, including that he and RJ met the girls at the restaurant at 11 pm “or probably a little later”. Leaving his house at 1:30 am to go to RJ’s and then meet the girls at the restaurant is more than a “little later” than 11 pm.

[65] When confronted with what I consider to be a critical fact that did not corroborate his version of events, Mr. Edwards changed and moulded his evidence to fit the fact that his car was observed leaving 130 Bellany at 1:30 am.

[66] This was a significant internal inconsistency that calls into question the entire timeline of events that he said occurred on August 31, 2022.

[67] The second reason I reject his evidence is that ammunition was found in his Nike satchel that he was wearing when he was arrested. The ammunition fit the Taurus firearm found in his Moncler satchel.

[68] Mr. Edwards initially testified that he did not recall there was ammunition in his Nike satchel. After the Crown refreshed his memory, he agreed that four bullets were found in his satchel. Given his specific and detailed recollection of the events that evening, it does not stand to reason that he did not recall the very important detail of bullets being found in his Nike satchel.

[69] Bullets found in his Nike satchel is not consistent with Mr. Edwards’ denials that he ever possessed a firearm.

[70] Mr. Edwards also testified that he removed the important things from the Moncler satchel before he gave it to RJ such as his keys, phones, and money. He said he knew the contents of the satchel. His driver’s license was found in the Moncler satchel. As he knew the contents and removed the important items, common sense and logic support that he would have removed his driver’s license before he gave the satchel to RJ as that would be considered an important item.

[71] Mr. Edwards also tried to distance himself from the Moncler bag. He testified that he normally carries his Nike satchel. However, he had his Moncler satchel with him when he went to RJ’s house on August 31, 2022. On cross-examination, he was asked about a movie stub dated August 30, 2022 that was also found in the Moncler satchel. He then recalled that he went to a movie with his girlfriend that day. Thus, on the prior two days he was wearing his Moncler satchel and not his Nike satchel.

[72] Lastly, I also reject Mr. Edwards’s evidence that RJ asked to borrow his satchel the day before the police found it in his car. His story defies plausibility. It is too unbelievable that by coincidence, just two days after Ms. Moody reports to police that Mr. Edwards possesses a gun, that his friend just happens to ask to borrow his satchel and then forgets it in his car, with a gun in it matching the description given to the police by Ms. Moody.

[73] While Mr. Edwards did not see RJ put a firearm in the Moncler satchel, that is the inference he is asking this court to make. In chief, Mr. Edwards agreed that guns have value on the street. He also agreed that people do not tend to leave valuable things, such as a firearm, lying around. His only explanation about why RJ may have forgotten the satchel with the gun in it in his car is that he may have been impaired. Even if that is the case, a loaded firearm would not likely accidentally be misplaced or forgotten. If RJ forgot it in Mr. Edwards’s car as he was impaired, a commonsense inference is that RJ would have reached out to Mr. Edwards the next day to arrange to collect his loaded firearm from Mr. Edwards’s car. There was no evidence he did so. Even though RJ may have trusted Mr. Edwards to keep his valuable firearm secure in his car overnight, as Mr. Edwards said they were very close, given Mr. Edwards’s evidence that he was unaware of the firearm in his satchel, I consider it unbelievable that RJ would not have reached out to retrieve his loaded firearm the following day.

[74] In my view, Mr. Edwards fabricated his evidence about RJ asking to borrow his Moncler satchel for the sole purpose of providing an explanation about why this firearm was found in his satchel in his car.

[75] For these reasons, I have concluded that Mr. Edwards is not a credible witness. I reject his evidence and I am not left with a reasonable doubt when I consider all the evidence. I must, however, consider if the evidence that I do accept leads me to find that the Crown has proven the essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

[76] I will now consider Ms. Moody’s evidence.

[77] Ms. Moody’s evidence that that she saw Mr. Edwards with a gun each time he was at her home was not shaken when she was cross-examined. She said he always carried it, except when he went to places such as a club.

[78] The defence argues that if Mr. Edwards always had the gun in his possession, as Mr. Moody testified, it does not make sense that he would leave it in his car for the entire day while he worked, as he did on September 1, 2022. That does not cause me to have any concern with Ms. Moody’s evidence as she would not know what Mr. Edwards did with the gun during the day when he worked. She also said he did not carry it when he went to certain places such as a club. It makes sense that he might not carry his firearm when at work.

[79] Ms. Moody also accurately described the gun found in Mr. Edwards’s car. The colour she described matched the photographs of the gun: a black handle and the rest was silver/grey. She also knew it was a model that started with the letter “T”. The gun found in Mr. Edwards’ car was a Taurus model; the name is written in black on the firearm. Based on the photographs, I am satisfied that Ms. Moody must have been in close proximity to the gun rather than at a distance to see the model name written on it and to know it started with the letter “T”.

[80] The defence suggests that Ms. Moody may have seen one of Mr. Edwards’s friends with this gun. I reject that suggestion as her detailed description of the gun is not consistent with her seeing it in passing or at a distance. She testified about seeing Mr. Edwards cleaning the gun and bullets. She held the gun. She knew it was heavy. She knew its colour and that the model started with the letter “T”. Other than the name of the logo on the satchel, Ms. Moody also accurately described the black satchel with a black logo on it in which Mr. Edwards carried the gun. The Moncler bag found in Mr. Edwards’s car was a black satchel with a black logo written on it. All these details corroborate Ms. Moody’s evidence of the gun she saw in Mr. Edwards’s possession.

[81] I do not agree with the defence submission that I should have difficulty accepting Ms. Moody’s evidence that she disliked guns but allowed Mr. Edwards to keep it in her presence and did not go to the police sooner. I accept her evidence that she did not report his gun possession to the police sooner as she wanted to be a good girlfriend to him. She testified that he told her why he carried a gun and she wanted to be supportive. Her failure to go the police sooner does not detract from her credibility.

[82] The defence argues that Ms. Moody had animus towards Mr. Edwards and therefore was motivated to fabricate the allegations against him. While I accept that she may have been angry with Mr. Edwards and that may have been a factor compelling her to go the police, that motivation does not detract from the reliable description that she was able to provide of the gun and satchel that she observed in Mr. Edwards’s possession in her apartment.

[83] When I consider the direct evidence of Ms. Moody’s observations of Mr. Edwards possessing a loaded firearm that matches the description of the gun found in his car, her accurate description of the black satchel with a black logo in which he carried the gun, the circumstantial evidence that the gun was found in his satchel in his car, and rejecting as implausible his evidence that it must have been RJ who put the firearm in the satchel and then forgot it in his car, I am satisfied of Mr. Edwards’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of counts 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the indictment.

The Assault and Threatening Offences – Review of the Evidence

[84] There were several similarities in the evidence of Ms. Moody and Mr. Edwards about the events prior to and on August 28, 2022. The main divergence is the nature of the physical contact between them in Ms. Moody’s apartment.

Ms. Moody’s Evidence

The events prior to August 28, 2022

[85] Ms. Moody testified that prior to the day of the alleged assault, she last saw Mr. Edwards on Wednesday, August 24, 2022. He came to her apartment in Brampton as she wanted to talk about their relationship. He stayed the night and they both went to work the next day in Toronto. She texted him that day, but he did not respond.

[86] When Ms. Moody returned home from work that day, she noticed that he left his gold ring on her dresser. She called him that evening once or twice, but he did not answer.

[87] The following day, Friday, she called him again. He said he was out with friends and hung up on her. She described Mr. Edwards conduct as rude as he was not being nice to her and was rushing her off the phone. She was able to tell him that she had his ring before he hung up.

[88] Ms. Moody went to work on Saturday. That day, Mr. Edwards messaged her and asked if he could get his ring. She replied and suggested they arrange to meet in Toronto so that Mr. Edwards did not have to drive to Brampton. He did not respond.

[89] That evening, Ms. Moody had plans to go out with her friends. While she was getting ready to go out, Mr. Edwards called and asked if he could pick up his ring at 9 or 10:00 pm. She said no as she was going out. She also told him that she did not want to see him as it would ruin the mood.

[90] Ms. Moody’s plans changed, and she did not go out that evening.

The Events of August 28, 2022

[91] Ms. Moody lived in a studio basement apartment in a home. The entrance to her apartment was at the rear of the house, down a set of stairs. Between midnight and 1 am, she was outside, sitting on those steps, listening to music. There was a gate leading to the rear yard that she heard open. She turned and saw Mr. Edwards. She said he walked down the exterior steps screaming and swearing at her, calling her names, and asking “where the fuck is my ring?” She recalled that he said to her, “You think I am a fucking wasted yute”. She said “yute” is a Caribbean word that means like a child. She said that when he said that to her, he meant “you think I am fucking stupid”. She said she was scared as she had never seen Mr. Edwards that angry. She told him he was scaring her, and he said he didn’t care. She recalled that Mr. Edwards also called her a liar and she assumed it was because she should have been out and was not.

[92] Mr. Moody entered her apartment and she followed. She closed and locked the door behind her as she said she wanted privacy, and she was concerned the shouting would wake people up. I presume she meant the tenants who lived in the main floor of the home.

[93] When she entered her apartment, which was one room, she saw Mr. Edwards walk to her dresser. He found his ring and put it on. As he turned around, she saw him take a pair of Nike sneakers off a bookcase. She told him he could not take the shoes and to put them down. She testified that he bought them for her. He said they were not her shoes. When she tried to get the shoes from him, he pushed her onto the bed.

[94] Her evidence was that she “gestured” to grab the shoes. When asked what she meant by “gesture” she said she tried to grab the shoes from his hand. She denied that she came into any contact with his body when she “gestured” to grab the shoes.

[95] As Ms. Moody lay on her back on the bed, Mr Edwards stood over her. He grabbed her neck and squeezed it “hard”. The necklace she was wearing broke. She begged him to get off her. She then grabbed a necklace he was wearing. He said to her that if she popped his chain, he would shoot her. She explained that “pop” means to break. Ms. Moody testified that Mr. Edwards then punched her. She said he cocked his arm back and hit her in the mouth. She demonstrated by puling her left arm back by the elbow. She said the punch was intense and caused her to bleed form her upper lip. After being hit, she screamed and begged him to get off her.

[96] Ms. Moody testified that Mr. Edwards then dragged her to the floor. She said that is when she cut her foot. She said he pulled her by a bonnet she was wearing to protect her hair. The tenants who live upstairs then came into the apartment and pulled Mr. Edwards off her. They did not have a key and she did not know how they could enter the locked door. One person went outside with Mr. Edwards, and another stayed with Ms. Moody. Ms. Moody went into the washroom and saw blood near her mouth and on her foot.

[97] Ms. Moody testified that she sustained injuries including a bruised lip, bruising on her knee from being on the floor and a cut on her foot. She took photographs of the injuries the same night. The photographs were marked as exhibits. There was also a photograph of the chain that she was wearing that was broken.

[98] She testified that Mr. Edwards threatened to shoot her multiple times during this altercation. She believed him. She testified that Mr. Edwards was very angry; she had not seen him like that before.

[99] Ms. Moody denied drinking or using drugs that day.

[100] She testified that Mr. Edwards texted her shortly after he left. In that text he said that she always wanted to play a victim and he included a laughing emoji. She then blocked him on all her social media.

[101] Ms. Moody went to the police on Monday, August 29, 2022 to report this incident.

Events of July 28, 2022

[102] Ms. Moody recalled a prior incident when Mr. Edwards threatened her. They were in Holt Renfrew at the Yorkdale Mall. Mr. Edwards had shown her a pair of shoes earlier that day that she did not like. She later said she liked them when she saw a man wearing the same shoes. Mr. Edwards came close to her and said he was going to punch her in the face as she said earlier that she did not like the shoes.

[103] Ms. Moody testified that at the time she was confused and thought Mr. Edwards was joking. At the time she did not believe that he would punch her. She told the police about this incident as she later realized it was a warning to her.

Evidence of Terrel Edwards

Events Prior to August 28, 2022

[104] Mr. Edwards testified that he and Ms. Moody were having some difficulties in their relationship and Ms. Moody wanted to talk to him, so he went over to her home on Wednesday, August 24, 2022. He packed his belongings and left that evening. According to Mr. Edwards, he was trying to slowly exit from the relationship.

[105] The following day Ms. Moody called him a couple of times. He ignored her calls as he was out with another woman. He did not speak with Ms. Moody until Saturday, August 27. He said Ms. Moody was texting and calling him repeatedly about his ring.

[106] On Saturday, he saw a text from her asking if he was going to pick up his ring. He replied and said he would be over later. He said that Ms. Moody also told him that she was in Toronto and asked if he wanted to see her. He said he was busy. In addition to working at Jump, he had a shoe reselling business and there was a shoe release that day and he had to line up at a mall to get the shoes.

[107] Mr. Edwards testified that Ms. Moody called him again later that evening and asked him what time he was coming as she might have plans. He told her he would be coming by later.

Events of August 28, 2022

[108] Mr. Edwards’s evidence was that he was with two friends. He asked them to drive him to Ms. Moody’s apartment. He arrived between 12:30 am and 1:00 am. His friends stayed in the car as he walked to the rear of the house. He heard music so he assumed Ms. Moody was outside smoking. When he opened the gate, he saw her smoking a bong. He asked her where his ring was. He thought he frightened Ms. Moody as she screamed and asked why he was there. When he said he wanted his ring she told him she had plans and was not going to give it to him. The door to her apartment was open so he walked in to look for his ring. She followed him in, closed the door and locked it.

[109] When he asked her where his ring was, she said he was not going to get it until they talked. She repeatedly said that he could not leave until they talked about what was going on. He decided to search her drawer for his ring.

[110] When he opened the drawer, he saw his ring and put it on. He turned to leave and saw a pair of Nike shoes on a shelf. They were in a box. He reached for the box to take the shoes as he planned to resell the shoes. He denied giving the shoes to Ms. Moody. Ms. Moody said they were her shoes and she reached to grab them from him. He held the box over his head. He said that Ms. Moody is shorter than he is, and she was trying to climb him to grab the shoes. He described her grabbing his shirt and clawing at him. She appeared angry and irritated.

[111] As she clawed at him trying to get the shoes, he lost his balance and to avoid falling to the ground, fell onto the bed. Ms. Moody then grabbed the chain around his neck that has a pendant on it with photographs of two people who died. He told her to let go of the chain. He was getting frustrated as she yanked at it. He held the chain down and tried to pull her hands off it. He said they were wrestling as he tried to get Ms. Moody off him. According to Mr. Edwards, he tried to restrain Ms. Moody without hitting her. They were shouting at each other. He did not know when Ms. Moody injured her foot.

[112] When he got off the bed, Ms. Moody lunged at him as he reached for the door. That is when two people came into the apartment to separate them. He did not know them. They separated himself and Ms. Moody and he then left.

[113] While he was in his car, she called but he did not answer. She texted him saying they had to meet. In reply, he sent her a laughing emoji and text saying she always wanted to be the victim.

[114] About 10 minutes later, he got a call from a phone number he did not know. A woman told him that someone was going to be sent after him. He hung up, blocked that number and blocked Ms. Moody on all his social media.

[115] The following morning, he was told by a friend that Ms. Moody posted videos on Tik Tok accusing him of abusing her.

[116] He denied that he was angry when he arrived at Ms. Moody’s home. He said he had a nonchalant attitude.

[117] Mr. Edwards denied punching Ms. Moody. He said that hands were flying as they wrestled over his chain, and she could have been hit, but he denied cocking his arm back to hit her. He denied threatening to shoot her. He denied choking her.

[118] His evidence was that Ms. Moody was not calm but was screaming and swearing at him during this interaction.

July 28, 2022

[119] Mr. Edwards had no memory of shopping with Ms. Moody and threatening to punch her.

Analysis

[120] There was an altercation between Mr. Edwards and Ms. Moody in her apartment in the early morning hours of August 28, 2022. According to Ms. Moody, Mr. Edwards choked, punched, and threatened to shoot her. According to Mr. Edwards, Ms. Moody was the aggressor and the physical contact between them was limited to him trying to protect his chain and to stop Ms. Moody from attacking him. Based on Ms. Moody’s evidence, there was an assault. Based on Mr. Edwards’s evidence, there was none.

[121] Guided by the W.(D.) analysis, I must determine if I believe Mr. Edwards or, if I do not if I have a reasonable doubt. If I do not have a reasonable doubt, I must still determine, based on the evidence that I do accept, if the Crown has proven the offences of assault and uttering threats beyond a reasonable doubt.

[122] I am going to start by considering Ms. Moody’s evidence as if I do not accept her evidence, then the Crown has not discharged its burden.

[123] I can accept some, none, or all of a witnesses’ evidence. While I have found Ms. Moody’s evidence regarding Mr. Edwards’s possession of a loaded firearm to be credible and reliable, I must still assess her evidence regarding the alleged assault and threats. For several reasons, I have concerns with Ms. Moody’s evidence about what transpired in her home. As a result, I am left with a reasonable doubt about whether Mr. Edwards assaulted or threatened her as she described.

[124] Both versions of events are similar. Both Ms. Moody and Mr. Edwards testified that Ms. Moody told Mr. Edwards that she had plans for the evening of August 28, 2022. They both testified that he did not expect her to be home when he arrived. They both testified that she was outside on the steps when Mr. Edwards arrived. They both testified that he entered her apartment first and that when she entered, she closed and then locked the door. They both testified that after Mr. Edwards found his ring, he picked up a pair of Nike sneakers that he also intended to take with him. They both testified that Ms. Moody told him he could not take the shoes. They both testified about Ms. Moody reaching for the shoes. It is at that point that there is the most divergence in their evidence.

[125] During cross-examination, Ms. Moody agreed with suggestions that could negatively affect her credibility. In my view, those admissions enhanced rather than detracted from her credibility. For example, she agreed the day after the assault that she posted videos on Tik Tok making accusations about Mr. Edwards. She also agreed that she used a bong and that it was possible she was using it to smoke marijuana when Mr. Edwards arrived at her apartment. She agreed that when she loses her temper, she can get angry and yell loudly. She also agreed that she could lose control over her emotions when angry. She did not agree that she would lash out physically when angry but agreed that she might push or scratch when she is angry, but she tries to avoid that.

[126] Despite these admissions there were other aspects of Ms. Moody’s evidence that I found problematic, leaving me with a reasonable doubt.

[127] My impression was that Ms. Moody tailored her evidence to present herself in the best possible light and Mr. Edwards in the worst possible light, and to support her version of the altercation between herself and Mr. Edwards.

[128] For example, Ms. Moody testified that Mr. Edwards terrified her when he came to her apartment on August 28. She did not agree with the suggestion that had Mr. Edwards not tried to take the Nike sneakers, there would have been no altercation between them. Rather, she was adamant in her evidence that she believed that Mr. Edwards came to her apartment that night to hurt her.

[129] I have difficulty with that evidence as she also testified that Mr. Edwards did not expect her to be home as she told him she was going out. He could not come to her home with the intention of hurting her if he did not believe she would be there. In my view, she testified that she believed he came to her home to hurt her to support her version of the alleged assault with Mr. Edwards being the aggressor.

[130] Ms. Moody knew Mr. Edwards carried a gun. Although she did not see it on August 28, she believed it was in the satchel he was wearing. It is not in accordance with common sense and human experience that feeling terrified, believing Mr. Edwards was there to hurt her, and knowing he carried a gun, that Ms. Moody would have locked the door to her small apartment when she followed Mr. Edwards inside.

[131] In her state of terror, Ms. Moody’s explanation that she locked the door to give them privacy does not make sense. They could have had the privacy without locking the door. What makes sense is not that Mr. Edwards terrified Ms. Moody as she claims, but that she wanted him to stay so that they could talk, given her evidence when she was cross-examined that they were arguing about many things that week. Locking the door, in my view, is consistent with Mr. Edwards’s evidence that she told him he could not leave until they talked.

[132] It makes sense that Ms. Moody wanted to talk to Mr. Edwards. She said that he was at her apartment on Wednesday to talk about their relationship and they did not. She also said they were arguing about a number of things that week and she was irritated with him for being rude to her when they spoke on Friday. Her action in locking the door is more consistent with wanting to speak with Mr. Edwards than it is with being terrified and believing he was there to hurt her.

[133] In summary, Ms. Moody’s evidence that she was terrified as she never seen Mr. Edwards so angry is incongruous with her evidence that she locked the door to her apartment to give them privacy.

[134] My impression was that Ms. Moody also wanted to minimize the nature of her feelings towards Mr. Edwards. For example, several times she testified that she was irritated with Mr. Edwards. She never agreed with the suggestion put to her several times that she was angry with him. She testified that the reason she did not want to see Mr. Edwards on Saturday evening was not because she was angry with him, but because she was annoyed with him. She testified that she was not angry when he came to her home and started yelling and swearing at her but rather that she was confused as she told Mr. Edwards she would not be home.

[135] She did not agree with the reasonable suggestion that she was angry when Mr. Edwards called her demeaning names and yelled at her before he entered her apartment to retrieve his ring. Rather, she insisted that she thought he was being rude and that he hurt her feelings. She denied yelling at him, saying she remained cool, calm, in control of her emotions and spoke in a quiet voice when he tried to take the Nike sneakers, after she told him to put them down. She repeatedly testified that she was only irritated with Mr. Edwards.

[136] My impression was that she did not want to testify that she was angry with Mr. Edwards to support her version of the altercation and that Mr. Edwards was the aggressor.

[137] In addition to distancing herself from being angry with Mr. Edwards, she also minimized what she did when she tried to grab the shoes from Mr. Edwards. In chief, more than once, she said she “gestured” for the shoes. When asked to explain what she meant, she said she reached for them with her left arm but insisted she did not come into physical contact with Mr. Edwards. My impression was that she used the word “gesture”, which I found an odd word to describe her actions, to support her assertion that she did not come into contact with Mr. Edwards, again framing that he was the aggressor.

[138] The Crown argues that the photographs of the injuries to Ms. Moody’s lip, knee and foot corroborate her evidence that Mr. Edwards assaulted her. I do not agree.

[139] The photograph of Ms. Moody’s lip that she said was cut when Ms. Edwards punched her is not consistent with the force of the blow described by Ms. Edwards. She demonstrated how Mr. Edwards pulled his arm back and then punched. She described the punch as “very intense”.

[140] When I look at the photograph, I have difficulty seeing any marks on Ms. Moody’s lip, even when the image is enlarged or the “zoom in” function used. Had the Crown not pointed to a mark on her lip, I would not have noticed any sort of injury. Even when the Crown pointed it out, I still struggled to see anything.

[141] Given the difficulties I have seeing any injury on Ms. Moody’s lip, I do not consider that photograph to be corroborative of her version of events. While there is a faint bruise on her knee and two cuts and bruising on her foot, those injuries could have been caused by the physical altercation that Mr. Edwards described.

[142] Ms. Moody denied texting or calling Mr. Edwards repeatedly after he left. When cross-examined, she then admitted that she sent him a message after he left saying that he just came to her house and beat her up before he responded with laughing emojis. She then contradicted herself and said that when he sent her that text message, it was not in a response to any message she sent. This was an internal inconsistency in her evidence, although on a more peripheral issue.

[143] I am concerned that there were two independent witnesses who came into the apartment while Ms. Moody and Mr. Edwards were still involved in an altercation who did not testify. Ms. Moody testified that they had to pull Mr. Edwards off her and one saw blood on her lip. While I am not drawing any adverse inference, there is an absence of evidence from two witnesses whose evidence about what they observed when they arrived could have been helpful.

[144] Given my concerns with Ms. Moody’s evidence, I am left with a doubt of what occurred in her apartment between herself and Mr. Edwards. That does not mean that I accept Mr. Edwards evidence of what occurred in Ms. Moody’s home. My finding that his evidence about his friend RJ leaving a loaded firearm in his satchel in his car was fabricated leads me to disbelieve his evidence in its entirety.

[145] Although I have rejected Mr. Edwards’s evidence, I am left with a reasonable doubt about whether he assaulted Ms. Moody and threatened her as she described on August 28, 2022. I cannot say for certain what occurred in her home that night other than there was some kind of altercation between Ms. Moody and Mr. Edwards. I must therefore acquit on counts 1 and 2.

[146] I also have a doubt about the alleged threat that occurred in July 2022 while at the Yorkdale Mall. To assess the threat, the words said must be looked at in the context in which they were spoken, in light of the person to whom they were addressed, and the circumstances in which they were uttered: R. v. McCraw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 72, at pp. 72-73.

[147] Words spoken in jest or in such a manner that they could not be taken seriously could not lead a reasonable person to conclude that the words conveyed a threat. R. v. Clemente, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 758 at p. 763.

[148] Ms. Moody testified that she thought the words spoken by Mr. Edwards, that he was going to punch her, were a joke. She did not consider it a threat at the time. Thus, given the context and circumstances at the time, and Ms. Moody’s evidence, I am left with a doubt about whether the words were spoken in a manner that were meant to be intimidating or taken seriously.

[149] I therefore acquit Mr. Edwards of count 3.

[150] In summary, Mr. Edwards is found not guilty of counts 1, 2, and 3 and guilty of counts 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

SHAW J. Released: May 27, 2024