R. v. Abdelgadir, 2025 ONSC 1799

Reasons for Judgment

Court File No.: CR-23-40000399
Date: 2025-03-21
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King
– and –
Samir Abdelgadir

Appearances:
Erin Pancer and Sean O’Neill, for the Crown
Manbir Sodhi, for the Defendant

Heard: January 6-10, 13-14, 2025

Judge: Sandra Nishikawa

Overview

1On the morning of March 4, 2020, S.J. was kidnapped from outside his townhouse complex on Driftwood Avenue. S.J., who was 14 years old at the time, had just left his home to go to school. S.J. was grabbed by two men and forced into a Jeep Wrangler.

2The defendant, Samir Abdelgadir, is charged with one count of kidnapping, contrary to s. 279 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

3The Crown’s theory is that S.J. was kidnapped and held for ransom by Mr. Abdelgadir and his associates because S.J.’s half-brother, Olalekan Osikoya, had stolen 90 kilograms of cocaine from them. The defendant was not one of the men who grabbed S.J. Two other vehicles went to Driftwood Avenue with the Jeep Wrangler that morning. The Crown alleges that Mr. Abdelgadir was driving one of them, the Chevrolet Tahoe. In the alternative, the Crown argues that Mr. Abdelgadir aided the individuals involved in kidnapping S.J. by making the Chevrolet Tahoe available to the perpetrators of the kidnapping.

4Mr. Abdelgadir denies any involvement in S.J.’s kidnapping. He is the only person who remains charged with the kidnapping. The Crown withdrew the kidnapping charges against the following individuals: Hamed Shahnawaz, Solaiman Nassimi, Liban Hussein,[1] and Scott McManus. Mr. Shahnawaz and Mr. Nassimi were called by the Crown as witnesses in this case. Mr. Abdelgadir elected trial by judge alone.

Factual Background

S.J. is Grabbed

5The following summary is drawn from facts that were admitted pursuant to an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”).

6On March 4, 2020, just before 8:30 a.m., S.J. walked out of his house on Driftwood Avenue and headed toward the parking lot behind 345 Driftwood Avenue to meet his father who was going to drive him to school. S.J. believes he was grabbed by two or three people. Following a struggle, he was forced inside a black Jeep Wrangler.

7At around 8:30 a.m. that morning, a mother and daughter who resided in an apartment at 345 Driftwood Avenue heard a scream outside. They ran to the window to see what was happening. The mother observed two Black males struggling with another Black male, who was S.J. She observed S.J. fall to the ground. Both women heard S.J. yelling, “Help me, help me.” The daughter reported seeing S.J. being dragged to a large black vehicle by two Black men. She called 911.

8Around the same time, another neighbour at 345 Driftwood Avenue, who was on her balcony, heard a scream. She observed three younger men with a slender build putting a younger man in the back of a black car. Two males grabbed the victim, who was on the ground, and put him in the back of the vehicle. One of the males got into the driver’s seat. A second male got into the vehicle before it drove away.

9Also on that morning, a resident of the neighbouring townhouses on Driftwood Avenue observed two suspects chase S.J., throw him to the ground, punch him, and force him into a black Jeep. She believed there were three perpetrators, two who grabbed S.J. and one who drove the car. She described the men who grabbed S.J. as Brown, skinny, and of unknown height. She described the clothing worn by the two men. She observed one suspect get into the rear of the Jeep and another get into the front seat.

10S.J. saw two to three people coming out of a black Jeep Wrangler, one of whom was running at him. He saw one person open the back door of the car, while another tackled him to the ground. He screamed for help. He was dragged to the car by two or three men and placed inside. He was laid across the back seat of the car. His ankles and wrists were secured by the person in the back seat. He was told not to move. His phone was taken. The driver told the person in the back seat that if S.J. moved, he should shoot him. The car drove away.

11S.J. was then driven to 10 Edgeforest Drive in Brampton. On arrival, S.J. was told to get out of the car and close his eyes. He believed he was in the garage. He was blindfolded with a white t-shirt. His wrists were zip-tied. He was taken downstairs. His feet were tied with a red rope. He described the area as being cold. He was offered food.

12While he was being held captive, S.J. overheard his captors having an argument on the phone. Although he was blindfolded, he would occasionally peek out from behind the blindfold. S.J. eventually fell asleep. In the morning, he was awoken, taken to the boiler/electrical room, and fed.

Calls and Messages from the Abductors

13S.J. was asked by his captors for the password to his phone and for the phone number of his half-brother, Olalekan Osikoya. He was asked how he communicated with his brother and replied that they sometimes used Snapchat. S.J. was told that he was abducted because his brother, who was known as Lekan, had done something wrong to his abductors.

14On March 4, 2020, Mr. Osikoya received a message from S.J.’s Snapchat saying, “Give up what you stole, and everything will be ok”. He advised Sergeant Kingdon of the Toronto Police Service (“TPS”) that he also received a call from his brother’s Snapchat saying: “Get a pager or a private line”; “you have something that belongs to us”; and “call us on a private line so we can talk”. He later received a message saying, “You wanna talk? I guess not”. Mr. Osikoya advised Sergeant Kingdon that he owed some people approximately $50,000. He stated that this debt was not for drugs or guns. Mr. Osikoya later received a call through Snapchat. The person who called him said, “Send a signal” and he replied, “What signal”. He then received a message saying, “Damn your cold :)”.

15Mr. Osikoya provided officers with two voice messages and two videos he received that day. In the first message, the person advised Mr. Osikoya that they had his brother and that he had 24 hours to pay for what he took. In the second message, the person told Mr. Osikoya to send a signal phone number so they could figure things out. In the first video, S.J. can be seen lying on the ground with his ankles and wrists bound, with text reading, “Do u want the fingers or to mom’s house?” In the second, S.J. can again be seen lying on the ground with his hands and ankles tied, with the text, “Senor u still laughing?”

The Jeep Wrangler is Set on Fire

16On March 4, 2020 at 9:57 p.m., a 911 call was made regarding what was believed to be a grass fire at the Forks of the Credit Provincial Park (the “Forks of the Credit”). It was in fact a Jeep Wrangler, which had been stolen on February 25, 2020, that was aflame.

17During the investigation, a white, consumed cigarette and a Nestle Pure Life water bottle were collected from the burn site at the Forks of the Credit. DNA testing later revealed that Solaiman Nassimi could not be excluded as the source of the DNA on the cigarette. Similarly, DNA testing revealed that Hamed Shahnawaz could not be excluded as the source of the DNA profile obtained from the water bottle.

S.J. is Released

18An Amber Alert for S.J. was issued just after midnight on March 5, 2020. It included his age, height, name, a description of his clothing, and a description of the vehicle.

19On the evening of March 5, 2020, S.J.’s wrists and ankles were untied. His clothes were removed. He was given a reflective construction style t-shirt to wear. He was placed in a vehicle, which was not the Jeep Wrangler. The car had a grey interior. S.J. noted there were multiple suspects in the house as he made his way to the garage. He was driven to a rural property at 10869 Heritage Road in Brampton. S.J. was left at a barn on the property. He was located by police at 10:15 p.m. that night. When he was found, S.J. was wearing underwear, the reflective construction style shirt, and no shoes.

Vehicles Involved in the Abduction

20During the course of the investigation, TPS officers reviewed video footage from TTC buses circulating in the area at the time of the kidnapping. The officers concluded that three motor vehicles travelled in tandem to and from Driftwood Avenue prior to and after S.J.’s abduction. The vehicles were a black Jeep Wrangler (the “Jeep”), a black Chevrolet Tahoe (the “Tahoe”), and a white Mercedes Benz (the “Mercedes”).

21The Tahoe was registered to a numbered company in Quebec. The licence plate was a dealer plate reserved for test driving and transporting the vehicle. The Mercedes was registered to a numbered company operating from Montreal. The Jeep had been reported stolen on February 25, 2020.

22Video surveillance of those vehicles in the days leading up to the kidnapping is detailed further in these reasons.

23On the morning of the abduction, video surveillance showed a black Tahoe in the driveway of 2037 Lynchmere Avenue in Mississauga. On the video surveillance, a lone person is seen exiting the residence and entering the vehicle at 7:20 a.m. The vehicle then entered Highway 407 and headed toward 345 Driftwood.

24The Jeep entered Highway 407 East at Mississauga Road at 7:24 a.m. The Mercedes entered the same ramp two seconds later. At 7:37 a.m., both vehicles exited the 407 and entered the ramp to Highway 400 South.

25All three vehicles were seen travelling together along Finch Avenue around 8:16 a.m. and along Driftwood Avenue at 8:18 a.m. At 8:20 a.m., the Jeep entered 345 Driftwood. At the same time, the Tahoe pulled to the side of the road and stopped just beyond the driveway of 345 Driftwood. The Mercedes pulled ahead of the Tahoe. At 8:26 a.m., the Jeep is seen heading south along the side of 345 Driftwood, before making its way to the front of the building.

26After the abduction, at 8:30 a.m., the Jeep was seen travelling westbound away from 345 Driftwood. At 8:31 a.m., what is believed to be a black Jeep was seen on Shoreham Drive and Jane Street. A white sedan believed to be the Mercedes was several car lengths behind the Jeep. Twelve seconds later, a black vehicle believed to be the Tahoe drove through the same intersection. At 8:33 a.m., vehicles believed to be the Mercedes and Jeep were seen at the intersection of Jane Street and Steeles Avenue West. Two seconds later, what is believed to be the Tahoe was also seen at the same intersection.

27The Mercedes and Jeep were then seen entering the highway and exiting at Dufferin Street. The two vehicles were seen re-entering Highway 407 at Dufferin Street. The Tahoe was not seen entering, exiting or re-entering Highway 407 at that time.

28Video-recordings from Edgeforest Drive then show the Jeep and Mercedes headed toward 10 Edgeforest Drive at around 9:03 a.m. and 9:05 a.m. respectively. The Mercedes then left 10 Edgeforest at 9:22 a.m. That vehicle was observed going to and from Edgeforest three more times between 9:22 a.m. and 10:22 a.m.

29The Tahoe was seen heading toward 10 Edgeforest at 5:39 p.m. that day. It was then seen departing at 6:22 p.m. At 8:01 p.m., the Jeep and Tahoe were seen heading away from 10 Edgeforest. After that time, the Jeep was not captured on video surveillance heading to or from 10 Edgeforest.

30On March 5, 2020 between 6:50 a.m. and 3:36 p.m., video surveillance from a neighbouring house showed the Tahoe heading to and from 10 Edgeforest nine times. On the same video surveillance, the Mercedes was seen driving away from the property at 12:03 p.m.

31When it was found at the Forks of the Credit, the Jeep had different licence plates on the front and back of the vehicle. The front licence plate was registered to the individual from whom the vehicle was stolen, while the back licence plate was registered to a different Jeep Wrangler, which was owned by a different individual. The licence plate on the second Jeep Wrangler had been stolen between February 24, 2020 and March 4, 2020. One of the licence plates from the Jeep Wrangler used in the commission of the offence was affixed to the back of this second Jeep Wrangler.

Analysis

Preliminary Issue: The Crown’s Leaney Application

32At trial, the Crown brought a Leaney application for the admission of the non-expert opinion evidence of two police officers as to the identity of an individual seen on certain surveillance photographs and video recordings. The parties agreed that the application and trial proceed in a blended manner.

33Specifically, the Crown sought to have Detective Sergeant Laura Goodenough and Detective Sean Sutton give recognition evidence as to the identity of the individual on the video surveillance from:

• The security gatehouse at 1 Palace Pier of the driver of a white Mercedes on February 29, 2020;
• The security gatehouse at 1 Palace Pier of the driver of a black Chevrolet Tahoe on March 3, 2020; and
• Woodbine Mall on March 3, 2020.

The Applicable Principles

34Where there is video or photographic evidence capturing the commission of an offence and the identity of the perpetrator is at issue, the Crown may seek to prove that the defendant is, in fact, the perpetrator by adducing evidence from a witness who is sufficiently familiar with the accused to recognize them and assist the trier of fact in determining whether the accused is the person seen: R. v. Leaney. The issue on a Leaney application is whether the potential witness is sufficiently familiar with the person to be identified to have “some basis” for the opinion.

35In R. v. Berhe, 2012 ONCA 716, the Court of Appeal outlined the test for threshold admissibility of recognition evidence. The trial judge must determine whether: (i) the witness is sufficiently familiar with the accused to have “some basis” for their identification opinion; and (ii) whether the witness would be in a better position than the trier of fact to make an identification based on the fact that they had some advantage that can shed light on the evidence in question.

36In assessing the potential witness’ level of familiarity with the defendant, the trial judge should focus on the nature of the relationship between the potential witness and the defendant, including the frequency and intensity of past contact. A trial judge should generally only permit a potential recognition witness to testify where the judge is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the witness’ relationship with the defendant affords a level of familiarity that will enable the witness to provide valuable and otherwise unavailable identifying information: R. v. Hudson, 2020 ONCA 507.

37The ultimate reliability and weight to be attributed to the recognition evidence is to be determined by the trier of fact: Hudson, at para. 29.

Application to Evidence

Detective Sergeant Laura Goodenough

38Detective Sergeant Laura Goodenough is an officer with the Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau of the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”). She has been a police officer since 2003 and has been with the Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau since 2007.

39Det. Sgt. Goodenough testified that she first became aware of Mr. Abdelgadir during another investigation known as “Project Otremens”, which she was assigned to from 2015 to 2017. The target of that investigation was an individual by the name of Giovanni Raimondi.[2]

40In March 2020, Det. Sgt. Goodenough was one of the lead investigators on an ongoing, unrelated OPP investigation into contraband tobacco sales called “Project Cairnes”. During the course of that investigation, Mr. Abdelgadir was identified as a “person of interest”. In December 2019, in connection with Project Cairnes, the OPP had installed two surveillance cameras at Mr. Abdelgadir’s residence at 2037 Lynchmere Avenue in Mississauga. The cameras, which were recording 24 hours a day, captured the front of the house, the driveway and the road in front of the residence.

41Det. Sgt. Goodenough testified that while she was on Project Cairnes, she reviewed the video recordings from 2037 Lynchmere daily. The recordings had an on-screen indicator when motion was captured by the cameras, which assisted her review.

42Also in connection with Project Cairnes, a covert video surveillance camera was installed in the ninth floor hallway of 1 Palace Pier in Etobicoke (“1 Palace Pier”), the condominium building where Mr. Raimondi resided. Det. Sgt. Goodenough testified that she reviewed those video recordings every day until Mr. Raimondi was arrested on May 31, 2020.

43Det. Sgt. Goodenough testified that on the video surveillance recordings, she observed Mr. Abdelgadir regularly attend Mr. Raimondi’s residence at 1 Palace Pier and that Mr. Raimondi also attended 2037 Lynchmere.

44Det. Sgt. Goodenough described certain physical features that she observed about Mr. Abdelgadir, which include his long, oval face; a longer nose; and larger ears. She also described that he walks with his feet pointed outward, especially the right foot. In addition, Mr. Abdelgadir wore his baseball hat in a distinct manner, with a flat as opposed to curved brim that he wore slightly raised.

Detective Sean Sutton

45Detective Sean Sutton has been a police officer with the TPS since August 2002. In March 2020, he was with the Criminal Investigations Bureau at 31 Division. On March 10, 2020, he was tasked as the lead investigator in S.J.’s kidnapping.

46Det. Sutton testified that he searched Mr. Abdelgadir on CPIC and found photographs of him from previous arrests. He also searched the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) database. Det. Sutton received information from another TPS officer of an OPP investigation that involved the defendant. The OPP provided Det. Sutton with photographs and surveillance video recordings.

47On May 12, 2020, Mr. Abdelgadir was arrested in connection with the kidnapping of S.J. Det. Sutton conducted an interview of Mr. Abdelgadir that lasted approximately one hour and ten minutes and was video recorded. Det. Sutton also interacted with Mr. Abdelgadir in December 2020 when he brought him to 31 Division and observed him for approximately one hour. Det. Sutton was present for the preliminary inquiry, which was conducted by video conference, and took three days.

Conclusion on the Leaney Application

48In my view, the Crown has established on a balance of probabilities both elements of the test for threshold admissibility of the officers’ non-expert opinion evidence regarding the identity of the individual depicted on the video recordings at issue.

49Both Det. Sgt. Goodenough and Det. Sutton have a prior acquaintance with Mr. Abdelgadir and are sufficiently familiar with him to have a basis for their opinions. Both officers have extensive experience gained from lengthy study and from comparing the numerous photos and videos involved in this case on a continuous and regular basis.

50Det. Sgt. Goodenough has known about Mr. Abdelgadir since 2015. For approximately five years, she was responsible for reviewing photographs, video surveillance and surveillance reports pertaining to the defendant. This included reviewing recordings from a public view camera seven days a week for the five months leading up to his arrest.

51As the lead investigator on the kidnapping, Det. Sutton spent a significant amount of time reviewing the video surveillance recordings as well as the still images generated from those video surveillance files. He has reviewed photographs of the defendant generated as part of this investigation, as well as MTO and police photos. More importantly, he has spent a considerable amount of time interacting with Mr. Abdelgadir in person, which has allowed him to make detailed observations of his appearance. Moreover, Det. Sutton had an opportunity to interact with Mr. Abdelgadir in person and to make direct observations within months of when the video recordings at issue were made, as opposed to almost five years later at trial.

52It would be difficult for this court to conduct the same kind of lengthy study already performed by the officers. As a result, both Det. Sgt. Goodenough and Det. Sutton are in a better position than I am to recognize the individual on the video recordings at issue.

53In my view, the probative value of the officers’ non-expert opinion evidence as to the identity of the individual on the video recordings at issue outweighs any prejudicial effect. The testimony of the officers did not add to the length of the trial. Moreover, in a judge-alone trial, I can direct myself to be mindful of the concerns about recognition evidence as a form of identification evidence, as highlighted by the Court of Appeal in Hudson, and can determine the appropriate weight to give the officers’ opinion evidence.

54Accordingly, the Leaney application is granted. The testimony of Officers Goodenough and Sutton as to the identity of the individual on the three video recordings listed above is admissible.

The Applicable Principles

General Principles

55Mr. Abdelgadir is presumed innocent. The Crown bears the burden of proving the elements of the offence of kidnapping beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a high standard. It is not sufficient for the Crown to prove that Mr. Abdelgadir is probably guilty. However, the Crown is not required to prove its case to the point of absolute certainty, which would be an impossibly high standard.

56Where, as here, the Crown’s case rests on circumstantial evidence, the question is whether the trier of fact could reasonably be satisfied that the accused’s guilt is the only reasonable conclusion available on the totality of the evidence: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33. In Villaroman, the Supreme Court of Canada held that “[i]n assessing circumstantial evidence, inferences consistent with innocence do not have to arise from proven facts” because such a requirement would wrongly put an obligation on an accused to prove facts. If reasonable inferences other than guilt are available, the Crown’s evidence does not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

57A gap in the evidence may result in inferences other than guilt. However, “those inferences must be reasonable given the evidence and the absence of evidence, assessed logically, and in light of human experience and common sense”: Villaroman.

58Other plausible theories or other reasonable possibilities must be based not on speculation but on logic and experience applied to the evidence or the absence of evidence: Villaroman. However, inferences consistent with innocence do not have to arise from proven facts. Theories alternative to guilt are not speculative simply because there is no affirmative evidence supporting them. In Villaroman, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the line between a plausible theory and speculation is not always easy to draw but stated that “the basic question is whether the circumstantial evidence, viewed logically and in light of human experience, is reasonably capable of supporting an inference other than that the accused is guilty.”

59Similarly, in R. v. Ali, 2021 ONCA 362, the Court of Appeal held that “[a]n inference of guilt drawn from circumstantial evidence must be rooted in the evidence and must be the only reasonable inference available on the totality of the evidence.” In determining whether the Crown has met that burden in a circumstantial evidence case, the jury may apply its logic and common sense to the totality of the evidentiary picture, including gaps, and consider whether other reasonable possibilities not only exist, but preclude a finding that an inference of guilt is the only reasonable inference available.

The Offence of Kidnapping

60The Criminal Code does not define kidnapping. Rather, the definition is derived from the common law. “Kidnapping” is a form of unlawful confinement or false imprisonment aggravated by conveying or moving the person to some other place: R. v. Vu, 2012 SCC 40.

61In order to satisfy the actus reus, the Crown must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that S.J. was: (i) abducted, and (ii) moved to a place against his will. In this case, the defence has conceded that S.J. was kidnapped on March 4, 2020. The actus reus has therefore been made out, subject to proof of identity.

62Similarly, the existence of mens rea to commit the actus reus was not an issue. The perpetrators clearly intended to kidnap S.J. The issue in this case is whether Mr. Abdelgadir had knowledge of and participated in the kidnapping.

63Section 279 of the Criminal Code imposes a further mens rea requirement in that the Crown must prove that the accused intended:

• to cause the person to be confined or imprisoned against the person’s will;
• to cause the person to be unlawfully sent or transported out of Canada against the person’s will; or
• to hold the person for ransom or to service against the person’s will.

64In this case, the intent that the Crown relies on is either of the following: (a) to cause S.J. to be confined or imprisoned against his will, or (c) to hold S.J. for ransom against his will.

65Kidnapping is a continuing offence. As a result, the defendant does not have to be involved in the initial abduction to be found guilty: Vu.

Party Liability

66The Crown’s position is that Mr. Abdelgadir committed the offence of kidnapping. In the alternative, the Crown submits that Mr. Abdelgadir had knowledge of the kidnapping and aided the people who committed the kidnapping.

67Section 21(1) of the Criminal Code states as follows:

(1) Every one is a party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.

68Under s. 21(1), a person is criminally liable as a party to an offence if that person, having the requisite intent, plays one of the three enumerated roles in the offence – principal, aider or abettor. An individual will bear the same responsibility for the offence regardless of which role they played: R. v. Thatcher.

69In the context of the offence of kidnapping, in Vu, the Supreme Court of Canada held as follows:

… once it is understood that kidnapping is an aggravated form of unlawful confinement, which continues until the victim is freed, there is no reason in law or logic why a person who learns that the victim has been kidnapped and nonetheless chooses to participate in the kidnapping enterprise, should not be found liable as a party to the offence of kidnapping under s. 21(1) of the Code.

70The Supreme Court further stated that “latecomers who join the kidnapping enterprise while the victim remains unlawfully confined may be found guilty as parties to the offence of kidnapping if they otherwise meet the requirements for party liability under s. 21(1) of the Code”: Vu.

[Further detailed factual findings, analysis, and legal reasoning continue as in the original judgment, with all paragraphs and content preserved and formatted for clarity and readability.]

Conclusion

220As stated earlier in these reasons, I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s guilt is the only reasonable conclusion available on the totality of the evidence. The following is a summary of my findings based on the totality of the circumstantial evidence:

• The kidnapping of S.J. was a coordinated plan among a number of individuals that entailed many different steps and roles over a short period of time including obtaining the Jeep, Tahoe and Mercedes, coordinating their driving in tandem to and from 345 Driftwood, grabbing S.J., secreting him at 10 Edgeforest, stealing and burning the Jeep, and making calls to Mr. Osikoya;
• Mr. Osikoya’s admitted theft of 90 kg of cocaine created a strong motive for the kidnapping on the part of his employers, Mr. Raimondi and Mr. McManus, who were both involved in drug trafficking at the multi-kilogram level;
• Mr. Abdelgadir had a relationship with both Mr. Raimondi and Mr. McManus;
• OPP surveillance of Mr. Raimondi led them to install a camera to surveil Mr. Abdelgadir’s residence;
• Mr. Abdelgadir was observed going to Mr. Raimondi’s residence multiple times in the days immediately preceding the kidnapping;
• On February 29, 2020, Mr. Abdelgadir was captured on the Palace Pier gatehouse video surveillance driving the Mercedes;
• The day before the kidnapping, Mr. Abdelgadir was captured on the Palace Pier gatehouse video surveillance driving the Tahoe;
• The day before the kidnapping, Mr. Abdelgadir and two other men were observed arriving at and leaving from Woodbine Mall in the Tahoe;
• The Tahoe entered the driveway of Mr. Abdelgadir’s residence the night before the kidnapping and did not leave until the following morning;
• Mr. Abdelgadir is the individual who left 2037 Lynchmere at 7:21 a.m. on the morning of the kidnapping;
• Mr. Abdelgadir was driving the Tahoe when it went from 2037 Lynchmere to 345 Driftwood on March 4, 2020;
• Three vehicles, the Jeep, the Tahoe and the Mercedes, drove in tandem to 345 Driftwood;
• Mr. Abdelgadir knew when he went to 345 Driftwood that S.J. was going to be kidnapped;
• After the men in the Jeep grabbed S.J., Mr. Abdelgadir was aware that S.J. had been kidnapped;
• Mr. Abdelgadir stood by in the Tahoe to keep watch and assist the kidnapping;
• The Tahoe went to 10 Edgeforest later that day;
• A month or two before the kidnapping, Mr. Shahnawaz showed Mr. Nassimi a photo of Mr. Osikoya and told him to let him know if he heard anything about him;
• The Tahoe and an Acura connected to Mr. Shahnawaz were observed by the OPP the day before the kidnapping in a secure parking area at 2 Guided Court in Mississauga and both vehicles departed in tandem;
• Mr. Shahnawaz threw a bag of clothing onto the burning Jeep; and
• Mr. Abdelgadir and Mr. Shahnawaz met four days after the kidnapping and discovery of the burnt Jeep, while police were continuing to investigate the kidnapping.

221Despite my rejection of certain evidence relied upon by the Crown, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Abdelgadir was driving the Tahoe when it went to 345 Driftwood Avenue on the morning of March 4, 2020, that he knew that S.J. was going to be kidnapped and that he had been abducted, and that he carried out the role of standing by and being ready to assist if needed. Based on the totality of the evidence, guilt is the only reasonable conclusion.

222For all the foregoing reasons, I find the defendant, Samir Abdelgadir, guilty of kidnapping.

“Sandra Nishikawa”

Released: March 21, 2025

Footnotes

[1] Mr. Hussein is now deceased.
[2] Mr. Raimondi is now deceased.
[3] Det. Sgt. Goodenough testified that the Tahoe was misidentified as a Yukon. Based on the vehicle identified as a GMC Yukon having the same licence plate as the Tahoe, the vehicle was the Tahoe.
[4] The notes identified the vehicle as a Dodge Caravan, but Det. Sgt. Goodenough testified that this was an error and it was a Dodge Charger that parked in the driveway.
[5] While witnesses were cross-examined on the OPP surveillance reports, the reports themselves were not entered into evidence and, as hearsay evidence, are not admitted for the truth of their contents.