Reasons for Judgment

Court File No.: 19-18050
Date: 2025/03/12
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
His Majesty the King (Crown)
– and –
David Bukoski (Accused)

Appearances:
James Cavanagh, for the Crown
Mellington Godoy, for the Accused

Heard:
June 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28 and 29, November 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26, 2021;
January 4, 5, 6, 18, 19, 20 and 21, March 15, 16 and 17, June 13, 14, 16 and 17, 2022;
January 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, March 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, April 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28, 2023;
January 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and March 18 and 19 and May 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, 2024;
September 16, October 10 and 30, November 1, December 19 and 20, 2024

Publication Ban:
Subject to any further order by a court of competent jurisdiction, an order has been made in this proceeding directing that the identity of the complainant and any information that could disclose such identity, shall not be published in any document or broadcast in any way pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code.

Table of Contents

• Overview
• Overarching Legal Principles
• Count 1 – Criminal Harassment of S.M.
  • Elements of the Offence of Criminal Harassment
  • Crown’s Position
  • Defence’s Position
  • Background
  • W.(D.) Analysis
  • Assessment of Mr. Bukoski’s Evidence
  • The Use of Unknown Entities and Pseudonyms on the Internet
  • Crown Evidence
• Count 2: Criminal Harassment of M.F.
  • Motive
  • Opportunity and Means
  • Timing
  • After-The-Fact Conduct
  • Conclusion on Count 2
• Counts 3 to 7 – Distributing Images of S.M.
  • Introduction
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion on Counts 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
• Counts 8 to 12 – Involvement in Attempted Murder and Arson
  • Introduction
  • Elements of the Offence of Attempted Murder
  • Elements of the Offence of Arson with Disregard for Human Life
  • Elements of the Offence of Arson Causing Property Damage
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion on Counts 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12
• Count #13 – Sexual Assault
  • Introduction
  • S.M.’s Evidence
  • W.(D.) Analysis
  • Discussion
  • Credibility and Reliability
  • Assessment of S.M.’s Evidence
  • Conclusion on Count 13
• Conclusion

Overview

[1] The accused, David Bukoski, faces a 13-count indictment which includes criminal harassment of S.M. (count 1) and her mother M.F. (count 2), distributing intimate images of S.M. (counts 3 to 7), arson (disregard for human life) (count 8), arson (damage to property) (count 9), counselling to commit murder that is not committed (count 10), conspiracy to commit murder (count 11), conspiracy to commit arson (disregard for human life and damage to property) (count 12) and sexual assault of S.M. (count 13).

[2] This case is about what happened after a Canadian teenager, S.M., broke up with Mr. Bukoski, an American. Their relationship started on the internet, their breakup occurred over the internet and the aftermath of what happened to this teenager was largely perpetuated over the internet. This is a startling account of how internet technology can be used for nefarious purposes.

[3] In 2013, Mr. Bukoski and S.M. met online when S.M. was 13 years old and Mr. Bukoski was approximately 18 years old. They frequented some of the same gaming platforms and played Minecraft [1] and CS:GO [2] on the application Discord [3], and became friends. Mr. Bukoski resided in Pennsylvania and S.M. resided in Ottawa.

[4] Their friendship grew into a romantic relationship. Mr. Bukoski and S.M. met in person on three occasions, once in Brooklyn, New York at a gaming conference which she attended with her father, and twice when Mr. Bukoski visited her in Ottawa in August and September 2017.

[5] It is alleged that after they broke up and once S.M. began dating J.L. in the fall of 2017, Mr. Bukoski embarked on a campaign to harass her, J.L. and her family. The allegations include stalking, repeated phone calling, sending threatening emails, distributing her intimate images on the internet on five occasions, emailing institutions with threats to bomb their establishments (i.e., swatting [4]), threatening to bomb the Ottawa airport, sending unwanted pizza deliveries to her parents’ home, sending unrequested packages to S.M.’s home and sending a threat in J.L.’s name which resulted in J.L.’s arrest at gunpoint and detained for over five hours.

[6] It is also alleged that Mr. Bukoski committed the offences of arson and attempted murder and counselled and conspired with Gavin Casdorph (an online friend living in California and who he never met in person) to arrange for Mr. Casdorph to plant a firebomb at J.L.’s home.

[7] J.L. and his family and S.M. were in the home sleeping at the time of the explosion. The explosion damaged the residence and the vehicles, but did not result in any injuries.

[8] Finally, it is alleged that Mr. Bukoski sexually assaulted S.M. during one of his trips to Ottawa.

[9] Mr. Bukoski admits to the criminal harassment of S.M. in that he sent unwanted, harassing emails to S.M. commencing October 29, 2017. He also admits that on November 4, 2017, he posted her personal information online so that it was made public.

[10] He admits that the other events and criminal conduct took place but he denies any involvement.

[11] This trial proceeded over three years for approximately 60 days. A challenge under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was dismissed (2024 ONSC 5526).

[12] This case involves at least 21 discrete events over a 10-month period and multiple players who, at relevant periods of their lives, spent a considerable amount of time on the internet and in the gaming world. Hence, much evidence has been chronicled through internet communications, including texts and email communications.

[13] An unusual feature of this trial is the existence of communications stemming from one account with various names associated with the account (“unknown entities”): such as Neuroscientist, Gatekeeper of the Internet (“Gatekeeper”), Genius and Peter Levine.

[14] These unknown entities played an integral role in the harassment and criminal conduct that form some of the charges before the court. The identity of these unknown entities is seriously in contention.

[15] Suffice to say at this point that the facts and events in this case are unusual and extraordinary.

[16] What follows is a lengthy decision where the court must carefully draw and maintain an analytical determination of the facts based on the evidence. To do so, the court is required to view the evidence as a whole and not on a piecemeal basis. Further, as stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Kruk, 2024 SCC 7, para 73: “common-sense assumptions necessarily underlie all credibility and reliability assessments. Credibility can only be assessed against a general understanding of ‘the way things can and do happen’”.

The remainder of the judgment continues in the same structure as above, with each section and subheader clearly marked, and all content and formatting preserved as per the original, with improved readability and spacing.

Cited Cases

Legislation

• Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46

Case Law

• R. v. Kruk, 2024 SCC 7, para 73
• R. v. R.B., 2017 ONCA 74, para 9
• R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, para 37
• R. v. Cole, 2021 ONCA 759, para 163
• R. v. Uhrig, 2012 ONCA 470, para 13
• R. v. Smith, 2016 ONCA 25, para 33
• R. v. Griffin, 2009 SCC 28, para 33
• R. v. Morin, p. 361
• R. v. J.E., 2024 ONCA 801
• R. v. Johnson, 2022 ONCA 534, para 62
• R. v. Maciel, 2007 ONCA 196, para 86
• R. v. Cowan, 2021 SCC 45, para 32
• R. v. Cowan, 2021 SCC 45, para 35
• R. v. Hamilton, 2005 SCC 47, para 29
• Canada (Attorney General) v. Lalonde, 2016 ONCA 923, para 16
• R. v. Province, 2019 ONCA 638, para 120
• R. v. Burns, 2008 ONCA 6, para 2
• R. v. George, 2002 YKCA 2, para 39
• R. v. Sim, 2017 ONCA 856, para 16
• R. v. Polimac, 2010 ONCA 346
• R. v. Roks, 2011 ONCA 526, para 87
• R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56, para 72
• Cote v. The King, p. 76
• R. v. Brissard, 2017 ONCA 891, para 17
• R. v. Krushel, para 17
• R. v. Paterson
• R. v. G. (S.G.), para 64
• Lewis v. The Queen
• R. v. Figueroa, 2008 ONCA 106, para 33
• R. v. Salah, 2015 ONCA 23, para 225-227
• R. v. A.C., 2017 ONCJ 43
• R. v. Ancio, p. 249
• R. v. Goldberg, 2014 BCCA 313, para 31
• R. v. Boone, 2019 ONCA 652, para 49
• R. v. O’Connor, para 143
• R. v. R.C., 2023 ONSC 2589, para 163
• R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33, para 90
• R. v. Ewanchuk, para 49
• R. v. M. (M.L.)
• R. v. Vuradin, 2013 SCC 38
• R. v. B.D., 2011 ONCA 51, para 114
• R. v. Sanichar, 2012 ONCA 117, para 70
• R. v. H.C., 2009 ONCA 56, para 41
• R. v. Roy, 2017 ONCA 30
• R. v. D.D., 2000 SCC 43, para 65, 153
• R. v. Marshall, 2017 ONCA 1013, paras 19-21
• R. v. Watson, 2019 ONSC 1899, para 82
• R. v. Perlett, paras 110-111
• R. v. C.M.G., 2016 ABQB 368, para 60
• R. v. J.J.R.D., para 53
• R. v. B.L.A., 2015 BCPC 203

For the full text of the reasons, see the body of the judgment above. All footnotes, references, and explanatory notes are preserved as in the original.