His Majesty the King v. Kai’Shiyah Murray, 2026 ONSC 137

CITATION: R. v. Murray, 2026 ONSC 137

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-50000691-0000

DATE: 20260219

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

KAI’SHIYAH MURRAY

Defendant

A. Miller, for the Crown

R. Fedorowicz, counsel for the Defendant

HEARD: November 24, 25, 28, 2025

molloy j.:

A. INTRODUCTION

1A group of young women who had been friends in high school descended into a vicious cycle of petty, nasty bickering through text messages and on social media. This descended further into a rampage of physical threats, name-calling, and armed confrontations. All of it was senseless and silly. However, it ended badly on July 28, 2022, with one of them sustaining multiple stab wounds and another facing criminal charges.

2Kai’Shiya Murray is charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. She was 20 years old at the time of the stabbing. The person she stabbed is her former close friend, Lashae Wynter, who was 19 years old.

3Ms. Murray elected to be tried by me without a jury. She testified in her own defence, admitting that she stabbed Ms. Wynter, but maintaining she acted in self-defence. Self-defence was the central issue at trial.

4At the conclusion of the evidence and argument, I found the Crown had failed to disprove any of the elements required for self-defence and acquitted Ms. Murray on the charges against her. My reasons for that decision are set out below.

B. APPLICABLE LAW

5Self-defence, if its requirements are met, is an absolute defence to a criminal charge. The onus is not on the accused to prove that she acted in self-defence. Rather, the burden is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of the requirements for self-defence is not met.

6The requirements for self-defence are set out in s. 34 of the Criminal Code as follows:

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;

(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.¹

7Section 34(1) provides three essential elements for self-defence to apply. In R. v. Khill,² Doherty J.A. characterized these three elements as: (a) the trigger; (b) the motive; and (c) the response. The first element (the trigger) requires that the accused must believe, on reasonable grounds, that force is being used or threatened against her. This element has both a subjective and objective component. It involves what the accused believed in her own mind, but also requires that belief to be reasonable in the circumstances. The second element (the motive) is purely subjective. It requires that the accused was acting for a defensive purpose and not for some other motive.

8The third element (the response) requires that the act committed is “reasonable in the circumstances.” The meaning of this element must be considered in the context of the factors in s. 34(2) which the court is required to consider in determining if the act was reasonable. These factors include the “relevant circumstances” of the accused and the other parties involved. This language imports an objective element into the analysis of whether the accused’s response was reasonable. As stated by Doherty J.A. in Khill:

Section 34(2) directs that, in determining the reasonableness of the accused's act, the court must consider "the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act". This language signals that the reasonableness inquiry in s. 34(1)(c), like the reasonableness inquiry in s. 34(1)(a), blends objective and subjective considerations.

The "relevant circumstances of the accused" in s. 34(2) can include mistaken beliefs held by the accused. If the court has determined, under s. 34(1)(a), the accused believed wrongly, but on reasonable grounds, force was being used or threatened against him, that finding is relevant to, and often an important consideration in, the court's assessment under s. 34(1)(c) of the reasonableness of "the act in the circumstances".

Other mistaken beliefs by an accused that are causally related to the "act" that gives rise to the charge will also be relevant to the assessment of the reasonableness of "the act in the circumstances". Those beliefs may be reasonable or unreasonable. To the extent that the court determines that a mistaken belief causally related to the "act" is reasonable, that finding will offer support for the defence claim that the "act" was reasonable. However, if the court assesses a mistake as honest but unreasonable, that finding may tell against the defence assertion that the accused's "act" was "reasonable in the circumstances". For example, if the jury concluded that when Mr. Khill decided to arm himself and go outside to investigate the noises he mistakenly believed he and his wife were in danger, the jury's assessment of the reasonableness of that mistaken belief would factor into their assessment of the reasonableness of the shooting under s. 34(1) (c).

The blending of objective and subjective considerations to determine the reasonableness of the accused's act is made all the more apparent by reference to the specific factors identified in s. 34(2) as relevant to the reasonableness inquiry. Some of those factors explicitly incorporate characteristics and experiences of the accused: see s. 34(2) (e), (f), (f.1). In addition to the specific factors identified in s. 34(2), the section also indicates that the trier of fact must consider all factors relevant to the circumstances of the accused, the other parties and the act. Clearly, s. 34(2) invites the kind of contextualization of the reasonableness inquiry developed under the previous self-defence provisions and described above in relation to s. 34(1)(a) (see paras. 43 to 52, above).³

9In determining the reasonableness of an accused’s act under the self-defence provisions, a standard of perfection is not required. The court must be mindful that “people in stressful and dangerous situations do not have time for subtle reflection.”⁴ Many cases on this issue refer to the accused, in the immediacy of the moment, not being required to “weigh to a nicety” what action is required to defend against a perceived attack. In R. v. Mohamed, the Court of Appeal for Ontario described that concept as follows:

Invariably a jury would have access to considerably more information about the assault than either the appellant or Mr. Peiris had at the time each had to respond to the confrontation. For example, the jury had the benefit of viewing the scene from four different camera angles and could view the recordings repeatedly, stopping or slowing them as desired. In addition, the jury is allowed time for sober reflection to interpret the events. As Professor Paciocco notes at p. 36:

The law’s readiness to justify “mistaken self-defence” recognizes that those in peril, or even in situations of perceived peril, do not have time for full reflection and that errors in interpretation and judgment will be made.

In a similar vein, Martin J.A. commented in R. v. Baxter (1975), that

in deciding whether the force used by the accused was more than was necessary in self-defence under both s. 34(1) and (2), the jury must bear in mind that a person defending himself against an attack, reasonably apprehended, cannot be expected to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of necessary defensive action.

Martin J.A.’s point about not “weigh[ing] to a nicety” was quoted by both the majority and the dissent in R. v. Kong, 2005 ABCA 255. The reasons of the dissent were adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Kong, 2006 SCC 40.⁵ [Citations omitted.]

10In the trial before me, all three elements of self-defence were at issue. However, the main focus was on the third factor, the reasonableness of Ms. Murray’s response in stabbing Ms. Wynter. Before applying these legal principles to the specific facts of this case, it is necessary to review the evidence about the nature and source of the conflict between these participants and how it escalated into three confrontations, the last of which resulted in Ms. Wynter being stabbed.

C. THE FACTUAL CONTEXT

(i) History of Squabbles

11Ms. Murray and Ms. Wynter had been close friends in high school. In 2018, when Ms. Wynter was in Grade 10, her family moved from Toronto to Barrie. Her friendship with Ms. Murray and other high school friends in Toronto, continued through social media and Ms. Wynter’s visits to Toronto, where she often had sleepovers at the Murray family’s apartment. They had a mutual friend named Shinya Salmon.

12In July 2020, the group had a falling out. They had rented an Airbnb for a birthday party for Ms. Salmon and got into a dispute later about whether: (a) everybody left in an Uber without Ms. Murray; or (b) Ms. Murray decided to go to the mall without the rest of them. Ms. Murray and Ms. Wynter were not speaking for some period of time after that.

13The group had another squabble later in 2020 when Ms. Murray called Ms. Wynter, ostensibly to offer sympathy for something that had happened to her. When Ms. Wynter asked who had told her about it, Ms. Murray refused to reveal the source. Each had a somewhat different version about what happened, and it does not matter who was right or who was wrong. There was a further period of non-communication after that.

14Then in March 2021 there was another squabble about a Snapchat video. Again, the content of the video, the comments around it, and the kind of emojis posted with those comments do not matter. It was yet another petty spat over social media and text messages, as well as some group chats.

15Things boiled over again in late July 2022 over a video that somebody posted on TikTok and the various comments made in response to it online. It is this dispute that led to in-person interactions on July 27 and July 28, 2022.

(ii) The “Fight” That Didn’t Happen on July 27: Ms. Wynter’s version

16Ms. Wynter testified that in the aftermath of the comments on the TikTok video, she called Ms. Murray and asked her why she would not just leave her alone. She said that Ms. Murray’s issue was more with Ms. Salmon, so she did not know why she (Ms. Murray) was coming after her. She reported being angry and overwhelmed and said that they had agreed to have a physical fight to settle their differences. According to Ms. Wynter, Ms. Murray told her that she was going to “stab [her] and piss on [her] grave.” However, she also maintained that the discussion was about a physical fight, and it was going to be between Ms. Murray and Ms. Salmon and that she (Ms. Wynter) was going to just stand back and let them fight it out.

17At that time, Ms. Wynter was staying at Ms. Salmon’s apartment with her. Ms. Wynter testified in chief that she and Ms. Salmon drove over to Ms. Murray’s home for the purpose of having the fight, with Ms. Salmon as the driver. They told Ms. Murray they were coming. However, she said when they got there, even though they could see her through a window, Ms. Murray refused to come out and fight. According to Ms. Wynter, Ms. Murray said she would not fight Ms. Salmon, but that she would get her cousin to fight her the next day and that they would come to Ms. Salmon’s home for that purpose.

18In cross-examination, Ms. Wynter first said that she only spoke to Ms. Murray on the phone and that she did not text her with any threatening messages. When shown threatening messages sent from her phone, Ms. Wynter said Ms. Salmon sent those. When reminded that Ms. Salmon was driving at the time, she said that they stopped on the way and that was when Ms. Salmon sent the messages. Later, she admitted that she sent some of the messages. She denied sending a message that said “u r pussy.” She said she does not use that term and that it was Ms. Salmon who sent that message. Having previously denied sending threatening messages and stating that the messages were sent by Ms. Salmon using her phone, she later admitted sending a message that said, “We are going to beat ur ass 1 by 1.”

19Ms. Wynter first said that they only went to the parking lot of the townhouse complex where Ms. Murray lived. When confronted with the inaccuracy of that position, she claimed that her memory was now refreshed and that they had gone to the side door, but that she had not gone inside. When shown a photograph of herself inside the hallway of the building, she acknowledged sending that photo to Ms. Murray to prove that they were there. She also acknowledged having told Ms. Murray that she could hear her dog barking.

20Eventually they left without ever seeing Ms. Murray.

(iii) The “Fight” That Didn’t Happen on July 27: Ms. Salmon’s version

21Ms. Salmon was called as a Crown witness. She confirmed driving Ms. Wynter to Ms. Murray’s home for the purpose of fighting her. She said that Ms. Wynter was talking to Ms. Murray on the phone during the drive. She did not recall what time they arrived, but said it was nighttime. According to Ms. Salmon it was Ms. Murray who initiated the idea of a fight and that she then started playing “mind games”, saying “Yes” she would fight, and then “No”.

22In cross-examination, Ms. Salmon said at first that she did not remember sending any text messages to Ms. Murray that night, and did not recall calling her a “pussy”. She then said she did remember saying that, explaining it related to Ms. Murray first initiating threats and then refusing to come outside when they got there. She agreed that they left without seeing Ms. Murray.

(iv) The “Fight” That Didn’t Happen on July 27: Ms. Murray’s version

23Ms. Murray testified in her own defence. She said that initially when the idea of fighting was raised in various texts and telephone discussions on July 27, she did not take it seriously. Then, at 5:27 p.m. she received a message from Ms. Wynter saying, “if I were u I would either go to morgyns [one of the group of friends on these chats] or let morgyn come to u Cu sur not dropping my gas to come to each of u to beat ur ass.” Ms. Murray testified that she had no desire to have a fight and that she therefore did not respond to this text.

24She said that the next thing that happened was another string of texts from Ms. Wynter starting at 11:35 p.m., essentially telling her that she was at Ms. Murray’s home and that she should come outside for a fight. To prove she was there, Ms. Wynter sent a selfie of the top of her head inside the hallway leading to Ms. Murray’s family’s unit. Ms. Murray sent several text messages saying that she was not at home, and testified that this was true, explaining that she had stayed at her grandmother’s home that night. It is clear from the content and tone of Ms. Wynter’s texts in response that she did not believe Ms. Murray’s statements that she was not in her home and kept telling her to come out. After multiple texts of that nature from Ms. Wynter, Ms. Murray said, “But if you guys want to fight so bad we have tomorrow”. Ms. Wynter then texted that if Ms. Murray was “scared” she should just say that she needed her friends. Ms. Murray replied, “Well You’re definitely not jumping me so” followed by an emoji of a woman shrugging her shoulders with her two hands raised and held out at shoulder level.

25Ms. Murray then texted, “Who’s beating who? You or Shinya? Cause it seem like you both want it” to which Ms. Wynter replied, “Both beating u 1 at a time.” At the end of the exchange of messages, Ms. Murray texted “I really could care less about you guys but like I said tomorrow I’m free so I guess I can catch the smoke then.” Ms. Wynter responded, “I’m coming.” Ms. Murray closed the conversation with “Down the stairs by the field.”

The “Fight” That Did Happen on the Afternoon of July 28

26There was a fight between these two groups on the afternoon of July 28. It took place in a field down the stairs from the apartment where Ms. Wynter and Ms. Salmon were living, as suggested by Ms. Murray in her text from the night before. Ms. Murray did not come alone; she had two of her cousins (Kashae and Felicia) with her along with a friend (Denae). They called Ms. Wynter to come down to the field, which she did. With her were Ms. Salmon, Ms. Salmon’s cousin (Jade) and another friend (Lexi).

27There was an all-out brawl between the two groups. I am not able to make findings of fact about who started the actual fighting. I do not trust the testimony of any of them. However, in the course of the fray, both Ms. Wynter and Ms. Salmon were pepper sprayed in the face, and when Ms. Wynter and Ms. Murray were fighting while prone and rolling around on the ground, Ms. Murray bit Ms. Wynter in the face, near her eye.

28Ms. Wynter and her group retreated to Ms. Salmon’s apartment. From there, they screamed threats at Ms. Murray’s group, including that they were going to kill them.

D. THE EVENTS UNDERLYING THESE CHARGES

29The night after the skirmish in the park, Ms. Wynter gathered a group and headed over to Ms. Murray’s for the purpose of having a fight. Her boyfriend, Marlon, was driving in his mother’s car. Also in the car were Shania, Lexi, and Jade. The group stopped first outside the home of a woman named “Denae.” She was one of the women with Ms. Murray during the altercation in the field earlier that day and had filmed part of the fight on her phone. Ms. Wynter sent texts to Denae taunting her to come outside, to which Denae did not respond. Additional calls were made from different phones. Ms. Wynter initially testified that she could not remember exactly what she said and denied that she threatened Denae. However, when confronted with her cellphone records she admitted sending the following texts to Denae (at 9:07 p.m.):

Wyaaaa

Shouldn’t have shown ur face I swear

Ur pussy Wya

Lemme give u sum to record⁶

30I note the use of the word “pussy,” which Ms. Wynter testified earlier was not a word she would ever use. Having failed to lure Denae out of her house, the group then drove to the townhouse complex where Ms. Murray lived with her family, arriving not long after 10:30 p.m. They left the car in the parking lot and headed for the front entrance of the complex.

31The events that followed can conveniently be considered in three stages: (i) the conduct of the Wynter group inside the townhouse complex; (ii) the conduct of the Wynter group in the backyard of Ms. Murray’s townhouse; and, (iii) the confrontation in the parking lot culminating in the stabbing. I will deal with the evidence about these three stages and then explain why I have concluded that Ms. Murray acted in self-defence when she stabbed Ms. Wynter.

(i) The Wynter Group Conduct Inside the Townhouse Complex

32Ms. Wynter testified that upon arriving in the parking lot, she and the other three women in the group headed for the side entrance and entered when someone opened the door for them.

33Ms. Wynter testified that her boyfriend Marlon stayed in the car and was not with them when they entered the building. That is not true. Surveillance cameras show that Marlon was with the group of women when they entered the building. They entered through the front door, not because somebody “let” them in, but by grabbing the door before it closed behind a resident who entered with a fob. Indeed, it was Marlon who entered first, grabbing the front door, just before it closed.

34Ms. Wynter was asked if any of them had weapons. She testified that she did not have a weapon and that she did not see any of her companions with a weapon. This is also untrue. Following the stabbing, Marlon’s car was seized, searched, and photographed. Ms. Wynter denied any knowledge of the can of pepper spray and pair of scissors found in the back seat. She suggested that the baseball bat in the backseat could belong to his sister who played baseball. She denied seeing anyone carrying a baseball bat that night. I do not believe her testimony. The video surveillance footage clearly shows that Lexi was carrying the baseball bat into the townhouse complex, swinging it by her side as she walked. It would have been impossible for Ms. Wynter to miss seeing the baseball bat throughout the period of time when the group walked together to the building, rampaged about inside the building, vandalized the backyard, and then returned to the car. She knew a member of the group was carrying a baseball bat. When confronted in cross-examination with the video of Lexi carrying the bat by her side as she entered the townhouse hallway, Ms. Wynter still maintained that she could not tell what the object was, and that it could have been keys. That is plainly not the case. It is a baseball bat. Ms. Wynter lied about that.

35I also find as a fact that Ms. Wynter herself was armed with a knife, notwithstanding her denial of being armed. When she was taken to hospital after being stabbed, a pocketknife was found in the pocket of her pants. When Ms. Wynter was shown a photograph of the knife and was told it came from her pants pocket, she testified that: it was Jade’s knife; Jade slipped it into Ms. Wynter’s pocket while they were still in the car; Ms. Wynter never asked what it was and never checked to see what it was; and Jade never told her what it was. This evidence is not believable. At another point, Ms. Wynter testified that she thought the item Jade put in her pocket was keys. This is also not believable. I have seen the photographs of the pants (lightweight) and the knife (substantial, with a curved blade that is pointy at one end and with a metal loop and the handle edge, which also has a bit of a point on it). This could not be mistaken for keys, nor would it sit comfortably in the pocket. The blade has a sheath that removes very easily. I find as a fact that Ms. Wynter knew she had a knife in her pocket.

36In her testimony in chief, Ms. Wynter acknowledged that once inside the communal hallway, her group went to the door of Ms. Murray’s apartment. She denied knocking on the apartment door in the hallway. She said she did knock on the door in the backyard later, but not the door in the hallway. She said she did not remember anyone else knocking on the front door either. She further testified that she heard a dog barking from inside the home and a woman’s voice telling them to leave or she would call the police, to which Ms. Wynter responded “Good. Call the police.” She thought this was Ms. Murray’s grandmother, who she knew lived in the unit.

37On cross-examination, Ms. Wynter was shown video taken on a phone held up to the fish-eye lens from inside the apartment facing the hallway. Both she and Ms. Salmon can be seen in the hallway. Upon seeing this video, Ms. Wynter conceded that people were “pounding” on the door. She said that she “knocked,” and Ms. Salmon “banged” and “kicked” the door. She also conceded on cross-examination that one of the neighbours came out of his unit and told them to stop what they were doing.

38The Crown also called Ms. Salmon as a witness. She testified that they had “piggy-backed” on someone else who was going into the building, which is more accurate than Ms. Wynter’s description. However, like Ms. Wynter, Ms. Salmon testified that nobody in their group was carrying any kind of weapon. This is demonstrably false. Ms. Salmon testified that she and Ms. Wynter were both knocking on Ms. Murray’s door, but described this as “normal” knocking and denied banging or stomping on the door. This is also untrue. She said that she heard voices inside the unit, but had no communication with them. She denied that anyone told them to leave. This is inconsistent with the testimony of Ms. Wynter, Ms. Murray and the audio tapes. They were told to leave, both by people inside the Murray apartment and the concerned neighbour who came out into the hall to object to their conduct as they were beating on the door to Ms. Murray’s apartment. It is also clear from the objective evidence that Ms. Salmon was pounding on the door and kicking it, not knocking on it in a “normal” manner as she described. None of her evidence is credible.

39Both before and during this fracas in the hallway, Ms. Wynter was calling Ms. Murray on the phone and telling her to come out and fight. She said she used Jade’s cellphone for this purpose because Ms. Murray had blocked Ms. Wynter’s number on her phone. She did not know how many times she called Ms. Wynter and said Jade also placed some of the calls.

40It is clear from the objective evidence (the video and audio recordings and cellphone records) that this group was loud, violent, and threatening, and that Ms. Wynter was right in the thick of things. Her testimony minimizing her own conduct is not credible.

41Ms. Murray testified in her own defence. She said that after the fight on the afternoon of July 28, Felicia, Kashae, and Morgyn went back with her to her home. They were hanging out and playing cards when they got a call from Denae who said that Ms. Wynter and Ms. Salmon were outside her house banging on her door. After that, Ms. Murray received a call on her phone from a number she did not recognize. When she answered it, she learned that the caller was Ms. Wynter, who told her they were coming and they were going to kill her and her cousins. Ms. Wynter’s stepmother (“Tricia”) said they should call the police. Ms. Murray hung up on Ms. Wynter and then called the police. The 911 call connected at 10:40 p.m. and ran for 7 minutes and 48 seconds. During the call, the Wynter group arrived in the hallway and started banging on the door. Morgyn took a video of them from inside the unit’s front door, and Ms. Murray can be heard in the background talking to the 911 operator. She told the police that these people had been harassing her for two days and that she thought they were going to kill her. Ms. Murray testified that she believed that to be true and was taking the threats seriously by this point. During the call, the Wynter group arrived and started banging on the door. The 911 operator first ensured the door was locked and then told Ms. Murray not to engage with them. However, Ms. Murray did engage with the group verbally, yelling at them through the door and calling them “bitches.”

42Initially when asked by the 911 operator, Ms. Murray said she did not see any weapons. However, towards the end of the call, she asked the operator how long it would take the police to get there and the operator told her it was difficult to know because the police were currently responding to shootings and stabbings. Ms. Murray then responded that if they did not get there soon, there would be a stabbing.

43Ms. Murray acknowledged in her testimony that she had no basis for believing that there would be a stabbing when she made that comment to the 911 operator. By that time, she had not seen a knife. However, she said that she thought the 911 operator was brushing her off and was in a panic and afraid the police would not come. Having listened to the call, I can understand why Ms. Murray might have believed that. I also note that she was clearly in a panic while on the call and seemed genuinely fearful.

(ii) The Wynter Group Conduct in the Backyard

44Shortly after this 911 call, the Wynter group left the hallway and walked around the building, entering the backyard of Ms. Murray’s home, apparently through a gate that had been left open. They thereupon proceeded to vandalize the contents of the back yard and the rear wall of the home.

45Ms. Murray testified that when the group arrived in the backyard, she watched them through the window of an upstairs bedroom. She said she saw Ms. Wynter with a knife in her hand and saw her slashing the screen in the backdoor with it. She also saw someone with a baseball bat. She further testified that she told her stepmother, who was calling 911 for a second time, to tell the police that they had weapons. There is some corroboration for Ms. Murray’s testimony on these points. The 911 calls were filed in evidence at trial. The stepmother’s call was at 10:48 p.m. and lasted for 2 minutes and 35 seconds. She reported that a group of girls were kicking and banging at her door and threatening her daughter’s life. She said they had weapons. When the operator asked if she had seen a gun or a knife, she replied that she had not, but her daughter saw that one of them had a knife. Ms. Wynter did have a knife in her pocket, which was found there when she was taken to hospital. The video surveillance from the townhouse unit entrance shows one of the women with a baseball bat, and a bat was found in Marlon’s car. Ms. Wynter denied cutting the screen and denied knowing the knife was in her pocket. However, she lied under oath about these events in numerous ways. She is neither a truthful nor a reliable witness. I accept the evidence of Ms. Murray as truthful on this point. She saw weapons, including a knife and a baseball bat.

46Ms. Wynter testified that in the backyard they continued yelling at Ms. Murray to come outside and she also talked to her on the phone. Initially, she testified that the night before, she had seen a shadow of a person in an upstairs window whom she believed to be Ms. Murray, but not on the 28th (the night of the stabbing). In cross-examination, she was taken to her testimony at the preliminary hearing where she said that on the night of the stabbing when she and the others were in the backyard, she could see Ms. Murray watching them from her upstairs bedroom. Ms. Wynter accepted that her answer at the preliminary hearing was true. This provides further corroboration for Ms. Murray’s testimony about watching the group in the backyard from her window.

47According to Ms. Wynter, her group damaged some of the property in the backyard, but she did not. She said Jade kicked over the BBQ grill. Photographs subsequently taken by forensic police officers show the damage to the grill. Ms. Wynter also said there were lights in the ground along the walkway and “somebody” kicked them over and stepped on them, but it was not her. The photographs of the scene show several solar lanterns that had been kicked out of the ground and smashed. Ms. Wynter denied cutting the screen in the backdoor. She also denied seeing anyone else cutting the screen, but the photographs show it was cut. I accept Ms. Murray’s evidence that the screen was not damaged before this incident and I conclude that someone in Ms. Wynter’s group cut it. I cannot be sure that it was Ms. Wynter, not because I believe her denial, but because it is not clear to me how much of the door Ms. Murray would have been able to see from her bedroom window. Although it is likely that Ms. Wynter used her knife to cut the screen, there was also a pair of scissors in the backseat of Marlon’s car and it is therefore possible somebody else in the group used the scissors to cut the screen. Somebody in the group spray painted “You are pussy” on the brick wall of the home adjacent to the backdoor. Ms. Wynter denied doing this and said she did not see anybody else doing it. This slur is not atypical of Ms. Wynter’s writing style. However, it is possible somebody else in the group did this, perhaps Jade who stayed behind in the backyard a short while after the others had returned to the car.

48Ms. Wynter testified that after they spent about 8-10 minutes in the backyard, she concluded Ms. Murray was not going to come out, so she, Ms. Salmon, and Lexi went back to Marlon’s car in the parking lot. It was only when they got in the car that they realized Jade was not with them and they waited for her for about three minutes.

49Meanwhile, back inside the residence, Tricia (the stepmother) called Ms. Murray’s father, told him about the group threatening his daughter, and asked him to come over. By the time he arrived, the group had already left the backyard. According to Ms. Murray, he entered the house from the back door after coming through the yard and had not seen them. He decided he would leave. Ms. Murray testified that she quickly (within five or six seconds) decided to follow after him to make sure he was okay and that she grabbed a paring knife from the kitchen as she was leaving and put it in her pocket. Her cousin Kashae went with her.

(iii) The Confrontation in the Parking Lot

50Ms. Murray testified that she and her cousin Kashae were behind her father as he walked towards the parking lot. He headed down a short flight of concrete steps and she and her cousin went a bit to his right and stood in a grassy area on a slight hill next to the parking lot. She saw some heads pop up in a car in the parking lot and then saw her father exchanging apparently angry words with Ms. Wynter beside the car. She could not hear the whole discussion but heard Ms. Wynter saying something like “Look at what your daughter did” and showing him her face. Ms. Murray said she did not run when she saw Ms. Wynter because she did not think she would do anything when her father was there and because she was concerned that if she ran, the others would chase her. She testified that all of a sudden, Ms. Wynter ran at her. Ms. Wynter had her hands in her pockets. Ms. Murray said she heard her cousin call out to her, “Watch her hands, she has something.” Because she saw Ms. Wynter with a knife earlier in the backyard, she believed she must have a knife in her hand at that time as well. Therefore, she pulled the knife out of her own pocket. She said that Ms. Wynter attacked her and they were immediately in a fight. Believing Ms. Wynter to be armed, Ms. Murray stabbed her with the paring knife. She did not know how many times she stabbed Ms. Wynter, or where the wounds were located. However, she said there was never a time when Ms. Wynter was facing away from her. She denied approaching Ms. Wynter before the fight started.

51Ms. Murray testified that the whole fight lasted only a matter of seconds. She said she stopped fighting when she heard Ms. Wynter yell, “She’s stabbing me.”

52Ms. Wynter’s version of this confrontation bears some similarity to that of Ms. Murray. She testified she saw Ms. Murray’s father approaching and also saw Ms. Murray and her cousin behind him. She got out of the car as he approached and he came up to her and said, “Hey, what’s poppin’.” She said she showed him the wound on her face from where Ms. Murray bit her and said, “Look what your daughter did to my eyebrow.” In her examination-in-chief she testified that after she said those words, Ms. Murray walked up to her and they started fighting. She testified that she did not see a knife but could feel it. She looked at her left arm and saw blood on it, at which point she stepped back and said loudly, “She’s stabbing me.”

53Ms. Wynter denied having a weapon on her person at the time of the fight. As I have already determined, Ms. Wynter did have a knife on her person. It was in her pants pocket. However, Ms. Murray herself testified that she did not actually see the knife and there is no evidence that Ms. Wynter ever took it out of her pocket. Ms. Wynter also denied ever threatening Ms. Murray, which is a blatant lie, even based on her own testimony and as is confirmed in the objective evidence.

54In cross-examination, it was put to Ms. Wynter that after showing Ms. Murray’s father the bite mark on her face, she told him she wanted to have a fair fight and that it was she who went after Ms. Murray and not the other way around. She denied this. She denied ever saying anything to Ms. Murray’s father about a “fair fight” and said that after she went around him, she and Ms. Murray walked towards each other in the grassy area. She was then confronted with a statement she gave to a police officer in the hospital at 2:20 a.m., which was recorded on his body worn camera. In that statement, Ms. Wynter said that as soon as she saw Ms. Murray, she was going to rush at her, but Ms. Salmon told her to wait because the way Ms. Murray’s father was holding his hands in his pockets looked suspicious. Ms. Wynter then told the officer that she got out of the car and was standing by the side of the car when Ms. Murray’s father approached her and said “What’s the problem?” She said she then showed him the wound on her face and said, “See what your daughter did to me? It’s not fair, so I’m getting a fair one.” She said she then went around him and “just started fighting” with Ms. Murray. She reported hearing Ms. Murray’s cousin warn Ms. Murray there was something in Ms. Wynter’s hand. She told the officer that she did not have something in her hand and that if she did, “something would have been done to her.” She told the officer that she never saw the knife Ms. Murray used, but all of a sudden felt something strange and realized she had been stabbed.

55After watching the video of her statement in the hospital, Ms. Wynter took the position that she was “just coming out of all the drugs” she was on. Ms. Wynter was in a hospital bed at the time of the statement. She had what appeared to be an oxygen mask on her face. She had sustained five wounds. However, she appeared calm, cooperative, and coherent. The version of the events she gave to the police officer matches almost exactly the version of events given by Ms. Murray. Ms. Wynter’s evidence at trial was riddled with lies. I reject her evidence that she did not say anything to Ms. Murray’s father about wanting her “fair fight” and I reject her evidence that the fight only happened after Ms. Murray walked up to her. I accept as true Ms. Murray’s version of what happened. Ms. Wynter dodged around Ms. Murray’s father, went straight to Ms. Murray, and started to assault her.

(iv) Ms. Murray Acted in Self-Defence

56As discussed above, the onus is on the Crown to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of the elements required for self-defence under s. 34(1) of the Criminal Code has not been met. I find that the Crown has failed to meet that onus.

57The three required elements can conveniently be considered under the categories identified in Khill: (1) the trigger; (2) the motive; and (3) the response.

The Trigger

58The first element (the trigger) requires that Ms. Murray must subjectively perceive that Ms. Wynter represented a threat to her or had applied force against her. In addition, Ms. Murray’s perception of the danger to her must be based on reasonable grounds. This involves what happened in the parking lot immediately before the stabbing and the events leading up to it.

59I am satisfied on the evidence that mere seconds before the stabbing, Ms. Wynter dodged around Ms. Murray’s father in the parking lot, headed straight towards the grassy area, and immediately physically attacked Ms. Murray. I do not believe Ms. Wynter’s testimony that Ms. Murray advanced towards her. In stabbing Ms. Wynter, Ms. Murray was responding to the force directly applied to her by Ms. Wynter.

60In addition, even prior to this physical attack, Ms. Murray subjectively believed Ms. Wynter represented a threat to her physical safety. That afternoon, there had been an altercation with Ms. Wynter in the field beside the apartment building where she lived. In the course of that fight, Ms. Murray pepper-sprayed Ms. Wynter and bit her in the face. After Ms. Wynter retreated, she screamed from her balcony that she would get her revenge, threatening to kill Ms. Murray. That night, Ms. Murray heard from her friend Denae (one of the other women present at the afternoon altercation) that Ms. Wynter was texting her that she was outside her apartment and was threatening her. Ms. Murray told her friend that she should call the police. I am unable to determine all the facts surrounding this incident involving Denae, much of which is hearsay. However, I am satisfied that something happened because of the text messages on Ms. Wynter’s phone. Further, I am satisfied that this was information Ms. Murray received, and which reinforced her perception that Ms. Wynter intended to harm her when she later showed up at her townhouse.

61When Ms. Wynter did show up at Ms. Murray’s townhouse complex she was abusive and violent. She gained access to the interior hallways of the complex (which she had done previously with an intent to intimidate Ms. Murray) and she threatened Ms. Murray’s life. She and her companions threatened Ms. Murray with harm, indeed, told her she was going to die. After failing to get Ms. Murray out of her home from the inside hallway, the group proceeded to vandalize the backyard. They were armed. One of them had a baseball bat. Ms. Wynter had a knife. There may have been other concealed weapons as well, but I believe Ms. Murray’s evidence that she saw those two weapons. Ms. Murray was sufficiently afraid that she called the police. When that did not result in the police arriving, her stepmother followed up with another very concerned call to 911. From listening to the 911 tapes and hearing from Ms. Murray directly, I am satisfied that she was very afraid for her personal safety.

62In the parking lot, Ms. Murray heard some of the heated exchange between her father and Ms. Wynter, in particular Ms. Wynter telling him to look at what his daughter did to her face. Then Ms. Wynter charged at her. Ms. Murray heard her cousin shout out a warning that Ms. Wynter had something in her hand. And then Ms. Wynter attacked her. In that moment, Ms. Murray both knew that she was being attacked and reasonably believed that she was likely to be harmed. I find that her testimony about not seeing a knife was honest. I also believe her testimony that she believed, at that moment, that Ms. Wynter had a knife. Further, I find that belief to be reasonable in all the circumstances.

63The Crown has failed to disprove the first element required for self-defence.

2. The Motive

64The difficult issue facing the accused on this point is that instead of staying in the safety of her home and waiting for the police, she chose to arm herself with a knife and follow her father out to the parking lot. If her motive in doing so was to seek revenge against Ms. Wynter with her father as backup, this could change the characterization of what constituted the trigger for the stabbing. In the words of Doherty J.A. in Khill, “Vengeance, even if righteous, is blameworthy and cannot be camouflaged as self-defence.”⁷

65Ms. Murray testified at trial that her father arrived at the townhouse shortly after Ms. Wynter and her group had left. This is corroborated by the testimony of Ms. Wynter who knew him, and who did not see him enter the backyard, which is likely because she was already back in the car by then waiting for Jade. They were still in the parking lot when Ms. Murray’s father returned to the parking lot to get his car. They must have crossed by only a few minutes. Ms. Murray testified that she was worried that her father might run into the group who could still be in the area. That was not unreasonable.

66Ms. Murray testified that she had decided to go after him to be sure he was safe and that in the few seconds in which she made that decision, she grabbed a paring knife from the kitchen and put it in her pocket. That was neither reasonable nor sensible. However, a decision made quickly, while in a panic and out of concern for another’s well-being, does not establish a motive for vengeance. When Ms. Murray was asked in cross-examination why she did not tell her father to stay inside rather than leave when he did, she answered, “He does what he wants.” I expect that is true. There did not appear to be a close relationship between her and her father, to the point where she could tell him what he should do. She did not even know where he lived. Her father knew the relevant facts and decided to simply leave.

67When they arrived at the parking lot, Ms. Murray and her cousin stayed a distance away, observing what was happening. She did not seek to engage with Ms. Wynter; it was Ms. Wynter who came after her.

68I believe Ms. Murray’s evidence that her motivation in following her father to the parking lot and bringing the knife was her concern for her father’s safety. It was foolish. And it resulted in a near tragedy. However, I do not believe it was motivated by a desire for revenge.

69The Crown has failed to disprove the second element.

3. The Response

70The third requirement involves an assessment of the reasonableness of Ms. Murray using a knife to defend herself against a physical attack. I have found as a fact that Ms. Wynter was armed. However, the knife was sheathed and in the pocket of her pants. It is possible she had it in her hand at the time of the physical fight with Ms. Murray and then returned it to its sheath and put it back in her pocket before being taken to the hospital. However, I find that to be unlikely. Ms. Murray herself did not see the knife in Ms. Wynter’s hand at that time, although she believed she had a knife earlier. I have also found on the facts that when her cousin warned her that Ms. Wynter had something in her hand, Ms. Murray believed Ms. Wynter had a knife, even though she did not see it. Things happened very quickly and the whole altercation was over in a matter of seconds. It is likely that Ms. Wynter did not pull the knife out of her pocket before attacking Ms. Murray, but I believe Ms. Murray’s testimony that she thought Ms. Wynter had a knife.

71There can be no doubt that using a knife to defend oneself when attacked by someone with a knife would be a reasonable degree of force and consistent with self-defence. The case law is also clear that a mistake of fact as to whether an assailant is armed can also support a finding of self-defence.⁸ In addition, I must be mindful of the circumstances faced by Ms. Murray at this moment in time and assess reasonableness from that perspective rather than with the benefit of hindsight and the luxury of time to conduct a dispassionate analysis.⁹ Ms. Murray made a split-second decision in a moment of intense stress, following an extended period of threatening and violent conduct by Ms. Wynter. In this context, and given Ms. Murray’s belief that Ms. Wynter was armed with a knife, I find that the Crown has failed to establish that the degree of force Ms. Murray used was unreasonable.

72The history of the conflict between these two young women must be borne in mind, in addition to the events of that day. Ms. Murray reasonably believed that she could not win a physical fight against Ms. Wynter, and Ms. Wynter had been continually goading her into such a fight for some time. It was suggested to Ms. Murray that she could have run away. I’m not sure that was even possible given how Ms. Wynter attacked her. However, Ms. Murray testified that when she got to the parking lot and saw her father interacting with Ms. Wynter, she was afraid to simply run away because she believed the others would chase her. That was a reasonable belief given the conduct of this group that night and their stated animosity towards her.

73There was little evidence about the specific nature of the wounds. According to the Agreed Statement of Facts filed as Exhibit 1 at trial, Ms. Wynter “sustained five stab wounds to her right upper chest, left upper back, left shoulder, left flank, and left forearm.” She was also found to have a “mild left-side pneumothorax, causing a buildup of air in the space between the lung and chest wall.” This required a tube at first, and then a catheter, to remove the air. The catheter remained in place for about a week. However, there is no information as to the depth of the wounds or the degree of force used. Apart from the issue of the use of the knife at all (which I have dealt with above), there is nothing about the nature or location of the wounds that supports a finding of excessive force being used.

74In all these circumstances, I find that the use of the knife was reasonable and proportional given that Ms. Wynter was the aggressor and Ms. Murray’s reasonable belief was that she was armed with a knife.

75The Crown has therefore failed to disprove the third element required for self-defence.

E. CONCLUSION

76I conclude that Ms. Murray acted in self-defence and is entitled to an acquittal on all charges.

77Having reached that conclusion, I hasten to add that this does not mean I consider Ms. Murray to be an innocent victim here. In rare moments of truth and insight at trial and in her statement to police, Ms. Wynter referred to the events leading up to the stabbing as “stupidness” and “silliness.” Those are appropriate descriptors, and they apply to all the participants, including Ms. Murray. However, she committed no crime.

MOLLOY J.

Released: February 19, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Murray 2026 ONSC 137