ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. K.K., 2026 ONSC 1626

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-11407241-B

DATE: 2026/03/20

BETWEEN:

His Majesty The King

Crown

– and –

K.K.

Accused

Lindsay Little, Counsel for the Crown

Dominique Smith, Counsel for the Accused

HEARD: April 22 – 25, April 29 – 30, May 1 – 3, May 8 – 10, May 13 – 17, June 24, 25, 27, July 9, 10, Sept 15 – 19, Oct 7, 10, Dec 8 – 11, Jan 12 – 14, 16, and 30, 2026

Restriction on Publication

Subject to any further Order by a court of competent jurisdiction, an Order has been made in this proceeding under subsection 486.4(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, directing that the identity of the victims or witnesses and any information that could disclose such identity shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. Any breach of this Order may result in criminal charges.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Roger J.

1The accused is charged with criminal harassment, sexual assault, voyeurism, and publication of an intimate image without consent.

2The events occurred in Ottawa, primarily in 2023. They include online harassment of the complainant and her then boyfriend, B. P.

3The online harassment campaign was extensive. It involved numerous sexually explicit and pornographic videos and inappropriate and sexualized emails and messages, distributed and posted widely, targeting the complainant, B. P., and some of their family and friends.

Background Facts

4It is not disputed that the complainant was the victim of a malicious harassment campaign. Other victims included B. P. and members of their respective family and circle of friends who were also maligned or affected by the harassment.

5The harassment campaign started early in March 2023, and subject to two limited exceptions, ended on August 1, 2023.

6The harassment was significant, vicious, and widespread. The many harassing videos and messages were hurtful, designed to demean and unfairly tarnish reputations. Most contained pornographic materials, and most were misogynistic. They initially targeted the complainant and B. P. However, they quickly mushroomed to also target some of their family members and friends, and some messages were sent to their countless work colleagues.

7Stepping back, the complainant and the accused started to date around July 2019. They quickly became a couple. In January 2020, they learned that the complainant was pregnant. They decided together that she would have an abortion. Although their relationship experienced “ups and downs”, the complainant also described the accused as her “best friend”. She terminated their relationship in July 2022, indicating that, after May 2022, it just did not work. There was no bad blood, but she could not get over his early cheating with his previous girlfriend, she said.

8The complainant and her family are Hindu, of South Asian descent, originally from an island that I will describe as their country of origin. The accused and his family are Christian, originally from an African country.

9During their relationship, the complainant met the accused’s family, including his father and mother. She said that she got along very well with his mother. On the other hand, the complainant felt that she could not introduce the accused to her parents until she was more certain of their relationship.

10The complainant described her family as very conservative. She explained that because of “cultural and religious differences”, she never introduced the accused to her parents. In fact, she never disclosed to her parents that she was in a relationship with the accused until their relationship was over, and then only to her mother, and only because she was confronted following an August 2022 incident at her residence.

11During this incident, the complainant’s parents unexpectedly arrived at her residence. They knocked and waited outside. The complainant refused to acknowledge that she was present at home because the accused was with her and she did not want to introduce him to her parents. His parked car was visible, and her parents waited a long time, possibly one to two hours, and maybe longer, she admitted. She indicated that the accused was upset that she did not stand up for him. Eventually, he left her residence while her parents were still outside. She talked to the accused after and testified that he was “not happy” and that he told her that “her father tried to block him”.

12When asked whether she told her parents that the person who left and drove away from her driveway was someone she had dated (for over two-and-a-half years), her answer was not clear. It included that she suggested that he was just a friend. Her mother did not believe her, and the complainant told her mother. She did not tell her father.

13The complainant has two sisters; she is the middle child. Her younger sister testified. She indicated that she never met the accused. She said that she did not know that her sister was dating him until March 2023, when the harassment started. She added that the complainant never spoke to her about the accused and that she and, to her knowledge, her older sister and parents were not aware of the complainant’s relationship with the accused nor of her abortion until after the harassment started. She indicated, forcefully, that in her community an abortion is considered “shameful”.

14Even after they had separated, at least until January 2023, the complainant still considered the accused as “her best friend”. They had no romantic involvement after July 2022, but she still cared for him, she said. However, she also said that the accused was obsessed with her. She said that he was not managing the breakup because he kept asking her to resume their relationship and enquiring whether she was dating.

15In September 2022, the complainant agreed to loan the accused $1,500. On March 1, 2023, she asked the accused to pay her back. Not hearing from him, on March 12, 2023, she called his mother. The accused was angry about this. The complainant said that she did not expect his reaction considering her positive relationship with his mother. In a text message from March 12, 2023, the accused told the complainant, “You crossed the line. Matter of fact, I will go visit your mom because you crossed that line”. He added, “You did me dirtier than anyone else has in the world. You clearly only cared about yourself and by opening up to ppl and getting their perspectives, I’ve realized how bad it truly was. Easier to move on when I completely hate you. FYI. I’ve finally made it with trading. You could’ve been a part of this and never worry about money but you did me dirty after 3 years. I just want to know why…”

16The first harassing account was created on March 8, 2023, and the harassment started on March 10, 2023, when the first harassing video was uploaded on a pornographic website.

17At trial, the complainant testified that she believes that it was her and the accused who were displayed having sex in the sexually explicit portion of the video of March 10, 2023. That video, like many of the others, showed photos of the complainant and of B. P. These photos were not sexual; however, they identify the complainant and B. P., showing their faces. The video, like many of the others, also contained hateful messages. I will always leave out the parties’ names, which were prominently displayed in most of the hateful videos and messages, and leave in the typos, of which there are many. The first message on this video reads: “B. P. NEW WIFE [Complainant’s name] Getting Pounded By Muscular Ex Boyfriend The P’s chose the Best Bride For their sweet boy B”. This message was followed by a short sexually explicit video. It showed a penis penetrating a vagina from behind. As in all the videos, the skin colour of the participants match the parties - the female was brown, and the male was black - but very little of the participants was displayed and their faces were not shown. The male’s left hand was visible in the area of his penis and the female’s left hand was resting on her left thigh. The female’s hand was manicured, and she wore a blue sweater. Next on the video was a second message: “Part 2 will be released in two weeks Support the P’s family by viewing upcoming Episodes Follow her on Facebook [Complainant’s name]”.

18On March 12, 2023, B. P.’s friends received additional messages, and on March 13, 2023, the accused reimbursed the outstanding $1,500 loan to the complainant. Another harassing account was created on March 15, 2023, posting “[Complainant’s name]’s pussy getting destroy by her black daddy.”

19The Ottawa Police were contacted, and on March 16, 2023, a detective left a voicemail on the accused’s telephone requesting a call back.

20Harassing videos and messages continued to be communicated, including a March 20, 2023, sexually explicit video which the complainant believes is of her and the accused having sex.

21That video contains two photos of B. P and one photo of the complainant, showing their faces. It also contains hurtful messages and a short sexually explicit video, allegedly of the complainant and the accused having sex. The first message reads: “[Complainant’s name] get her pussy destroyed my her black daddy in Ottawa.” This message is followed by a brief sexually explicit video. The faces and most of the participants’ bodies are not displayed. Very little is displayed, but the participants’ sexual parts. Again, the skin colour of the participants matches the parties. They face one another, and the camera is obviously between them, pointing down, focused on the participants’ penis and vagina while they are engaged in vaginal intercourse. Next is another message: “B. P. do you recognize this pussy?? Yes of course it’s for Your Girlfriend [Complainant’s name].”

22Next is a photo of the complainant with another message: “B. P. watch how nigga fucked yr gfe [Complainant’s name]. This was the night where she got pregnant. Ask her how many shots she had that night and how fun she had and yes ask her where did this happened. I am sure she will remember the whole thing bcoz she had a couple of orgasms that night. Now each time you will be with her you will remember this big dick inside of her and you will realize how small your dick is.” This is followed in the video by an unflattering photo of a small penis (not of B. P.), which is followed by a message: “bcoz we all know that fat guy got small dicks. We know that your ex gfe leaf you bcoz you couldn’t performed in bed. That’s why you like going to Vegas, NYC and Montreal, those are the only places you can get laid cuz. We know you got yourself some hookers there.” The next image on this video is a photo of B. P. at a time when he was heavier, which is followed by a final message: “the question that you have to ask yourself is why she with you, we all know it’s not your looks..is she with you because of your money?? By now you should know how expensive that bitch is.”

23The videos of March 10 and March 20, 2023, are alleged by the Crown to display the complainant in circumstances that could constitute voyeurism, publication of an intimate image without consent, and sex assault. It is not contested that all other explicit photos and videos are pornographic images of models or actors, and that none of the other sexually explicit images and videos are of the complainant, the accused, B. P., or of any of their family members and friends.

24On March 26, 2023, another not-dissimilar video was posted. It contains messages, photos of the complainant and of B. P, and pornographic images. I will not describe all its content, nor all the videos, images and messages that were posted. By way of example, the March 26 video describes B. P. as “the new faggot” who “likes To see his Gfe [Complainant’s name] to get fuck by his ex-black Daddy… Did she tell you how much she enjoyed my Black Mamba? Did she tell you how I got her pregnant? Did she tell you about the abortion?” It then showed pornographic and altered photos and more hurtful messages: “Now each time you want to fuck her, you will think about my big dick … You will think about my dick inside her … New stuff on her will be out soon …”

25On March 26, 2023, a detective with the Ottawa Police followed up and sent an email to the accused informing him that they have grounds for his arrest. The accused was requested to contact the detective to arrange his surrender. On March 27, 2023, the accused replied that he would consult a lawyer and call him back.

26The harassment continued and intensified. Another video was uploaded to a pornographic site on March 28, 2023. It contained photos of the complainant and of B. P. and hateful messages, including: “[Complainant’s name] got an abortion while she was 6 weeks pregnant. Her Current Bf B. P. allowed her to keep seeing her Black Daddy Bcoz he could not fuck her like him … did she tell you how much of my loads she took? … we will make you the biggest cuckold of Ottawa.” Also, a similar message was posted. On that date, B. P. deleted his Instagram account and, subsequently, no photos of him were posted.

27On March 31, 2023, the accused texted the complainant, indicating that he was not involved and that he was willing to help. He asked the complainant if it’s “her face”. Later that day, they spoke, by phone, and the complainant recorded their conversation. The accused denied any involvement. He had received information and knew the name of B. P. The accused asked the complainant if she had sex with B. P. or with anyone else. He enquired about what was displayed on the video, including whether it was her face.

28Starting on April 3, 2023, family members of B. P. were targeted with similar hateful videos and messages. For example, a video on April 3 was addressed to B. P.’s parents. Both were named. It mentioned the abortion and threatened B. P. The video included the following messages: “… We know [Complainant’s name] for more than 4 years … She hide our relationship all this time from her parents & friends, she had an abortion for our child & now she cleaned her Instagram to look good for her in laws … We know … where do you live … We know that the police won’t be able to protect you … It’s time to let go otherwise will smash your boy & after that he will not drive his black American car but will make sure he drives a wheelchair for the rest of his life… Don’t fuck with the Black Community! … We own this fucking town, this is not India … we will find you and make sure that you pay. GOD BLESS YOU ALL.”

29On April 16, 2023, the accused was requested to turn himself in on April 19, 2023. The accused turned himself in on that date and was charged.

30The harassment continued and mushroomed. Hurtful videos and messages targeted B. P.’s friends, his friends’ spouses and even many of their work colleagues. Some messages pretended that family and friends were prostitutes and pimps, fake pornographic images were sent pretending to market their prostitution services, and contact information to schedule prostitution services with various family members and friends were sent and posted on pornographic websites. Messages were posted on Instagram and on pornographic websites, and many were sent by email to countless recipients, even using Mailtrack, an email tracking extension which allows users to verify if recipients have opened their emails. Some targeted the complainant’s sisters, starting on April 22, 2023; however, her parents were never targeted.

31The harassment relentlessly continued. It included an email on July 28, 2023, to the complainant’s employer, copied to countless recipients, alleging falsely that she had improperly used confidential information.

32The harassment campaign went on until August 1, 2023. That day, harassing emails were sent to numerous recipients. By way of example: “Hi B. P., See how I fucked your girlfriend in her basement last year when we had already broken up, she invited me to her place when she returned from her birthday vacation from the dominican republic ... I am sure you will recognize that grey couch. You know what they said, when you go black you cannot go back. She loved that big dick of mine so much … Don Massimo.” A fake abortion document was also posted on that date.

33Subject to two exceptions, the harassment stopped on August 1, 2023.

34The two exceptions are that, in October 2023, a video relating to one of the complainant’s sisters was posted, and, during this trial, on April 29, 2025, an earlier video threatening B. P. and his family was briefly reactivated shortly before B. P. was scheduled to testify.

35On August 15, 2023, the house where the accused resided was searched and electronic devices were seized.

36When all the evidence is considered, this was a massive and sophisticated harassment campaign. It involved significant research, not only to identify targets, but also to identify related people and, as well, to locate photos and information about the selected targets. Numerous video montages were created. The level of sophistication is evidenced not only by the volume and scope of the harassment, but also by the fact that, occasionally, some of the targeted individuals had difficulty explaining how some of their photos had been located. Work colleagues of some of the targeted individuals were identified and countless email addresses were found or correctly guessed.

37Evidence of sophistication, when the evidence is viewed through the lens of the Crown’s theory of the case, also includes the use of various electronic accounts, of which none could be traced back to the accused. Several different IP addresses were used, yet, except for one, no evidence identifies the owner of these addresses or the location of these addresses. The only exception is one IP address, only briefly associated with the harassment, which was identified by the Crown as the IP address of a “very good friend” of the complainant, J. G., and of his wife, P. P., both living in Ottawa and both originally from the complainant’s country of origin. I will come back to this, but J. G. and P. P. were never the target of any harassment.

38Additional evidence of sophistication, again when the evidence is viewed through the lens of the Crown’s theory of the case, includes that the accused hacked the Wi-Fi of J. G. and P. P to frame them for his criminal conduct. It also includes that some electronic information was, or was made to look as if it was, from the complainant’s country of origin and from that time zone. No evidence resolves those issues. Also, all electronic devices found at the residence of the accused were seized and no evidence was presented by the Crown linking any of these devices to any of the harassment.

39The Crown’s case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence.

Issue

40The central issue to be decided is identity: whether the accused is the person who made and transmitted the many harassing and sexually explicit videos, emails, and other harassing electronic communications.

General Principles

41Persons accused of a criminal offence are presumed innocent and the Crown always bears the burden of proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

42This means that the Crown bears the burden of proving identity. Doing so requires the Crown to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused is the person who made and transmitted the many harassing videos and other inappropriate electronic communications. A finding of not guilty is required if the evidence only manages to prove that the accused probably or likely made or sent the harassing communications.

43Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense that logically arises from the evidence or from the absence of evidence. A reasonable doubt is not far-fetched or frivolous; it does not involve proof to an absolute certainty or proof beyond any doubt.

44The assessment of the credibility and reliability of the witness’s evidence is important. Credibility relates to a witness’s veracity, whereas reliability concerns the accuracy of the witness’s testimony. When considering the testimony of a witness, a judge can accept all, some, or none of a witness’s testimony depending on the judge’s assessment of the credibility and reliability of that witness.

45If the evidence presented in a criminal trial does not convince the judge beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offences charged, the accused must be acquitted of that or those offences.

46The evidence presented by the Crown in this trial is circumstantial. The Crown did not present any direct evidence proving that the accused committed the offences charged.

47Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact.

48The difference between “direct evidence” and “circumstantial evidence”, can be explained by what judges tell the jurors in criminal jury trials. To illustrate the difference between the two types of evidence, we inform the jury that direct evidence includes evidence from a witness who testifies that he or she saw that it was raining outside. On the other hand, we explain that circumstantial evidence includes evidence from a witness who testifies that he or she saw someone enter the courthouse lobby wearing a raincoat and carrying an umbrella, both dripping wet. We instruct the jury that the latter is circumstantial evidence and that if they believe that witness, they could conclude that it was raining outside, even though the evidence from that witness is indirect or circumstantial.

49Circumstantial evidence must be viewed as a whole because it is the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence that must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, “not each individual item which is merely a link in the chain of proof”: R. v. Aslami, 2021 ONCA 249, 155 O.R. (3d) 401, at para. 49., citing R. v. Smith, 2016 ONCA 25, 333 C.C.C. (3d) 534, at para. 81. “Each strand may not be able to bear the weight of the case on its own, but when woven together those stands can form a powerful rope capable of hoisting a weight that can crush any pretense to reasonable doubt”: R. v. Cole, 2021 ONCA 759, 158 O.R. (3d) 680, at para. 163.

50Where the Crown’s case depends on circumstantial evidence, to meet its burden of proving the guilt of an accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the Crown must prove that the accused’s guilt is the only reasonable conclusion available on the totality of the evidence: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at para. 55. Stated differently, “to justify a conviction, the circumstantial evidence, assessed in light of human experience, should be such that it excludes any other reasonable alternative”: Villaroman, at para. 41.

51However, the circumstantial evidence does not have to totally exclude other conceivable inferences, and a reasonable doubt cannot arise from speculation or conjuncture, it must not be imaginary or frivolous, and the burden on the Crown to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt “does not extend to ‘negativing every conjecture’”: Villaroman, at paras. 50 and 56.

Analysis

52The accused did not testify or present evidence. As indicated above, the Crown’s case is circumstantial; no direct evidence of guilt was presented by the Crown.

53To meet its burden, the Crown must prove that the accused’s guilt is the only reasonable conclusion available when all the evidence is considered. Individual items of evidence must not be examined in isolation, but in relation to other items and to the evidence as a whole.

54The Crown argues that the accused had means, motive, and opportunity. I agree that he did.

55For example, several electronic items were seized from the accused, many of which could have perpetrated the harassment. As well, the evidence of the complainant indicates that the accused was knowledgeable about electronics and computers and was able to use a VPN and to create and post videos.

56Also, evidence was presented that the accused was obsessed with the complainant and that he wanted to resume their relationship. He inquired whether she was dating anyone and asked her whether she had sex with B. P. or with anyone else. He was angry at the complainant for not introducing him to her parents and friends, and for not standing up for him during the incident of August 22, 2022. He might have been frustrated when she contacted him seeking the reimbursement of her loan, and he was angry that she contacted his mother about this. He texted the complainant shortly after the harassment started that she had crossed a line, that she did him “dirtier than anyone” and that it is “easier to move on when I completely hate you.”

57The Crown argues that the accused could have surreptitiously recorded some of their sexual activities, shown in the videos of March 10 and 20, 2023. The Crown alleges that the accused used his telephone during sex, pretending that he was day-trading, and argues also that he left his open laptop nearby to film their sexual activities. The accused undoubtedly had access to the complainant’s social media accounts and knew the personal information disclosed in some of the messages. The Crown argues that the accused had exclusive knowledge about some of the published information, including the information relating to the abortion.

58When errors are observed in some of the messages, the Crown argues that the accused purposefully erred to obscure his identity. Similarly, when evidence is discovered that the IP address of the complainant’s friend was briefly associated with one of the accounts engaging in the harassment, the Crown argues that this is part of the accused’s strategy of obscuring his identity; that the accused hacked J. G.’s Wi-Fi for that purpose. The same is argued by the Crown when accounts are linked to the complainant’s country of origin, to that time zone, or to Great Britain; computers can easily mask time zone and location.

59The Crown argues that the timeline supports their inferences. Indeed, the complainant had recently started a relationship with B. P. and the accused wished to pursue their relationship. Moreover, B. P. was out of the country at a friend’s bachelor party, and the first video shows that the harasser mistakenly assumed that it was B. P.’s bachelor party, which links with jealousy as a motive. The complainant asked for her money back shortly after it all started, which links with a financial motive. Similarly, the harassment ended in August after the accused had been arrested and not long before his electronic devices were seized.

60The Crown also argues that the accused’s after-the-fact conduct supports the inference that he made and distributed the harassing materials. For example, when the accused spoke to the complainant on March 31, 2023, he described B. P. as “the fat guy?”. During that conversation he could not pronounce B. P.’s name, which the complainant testified he faked, and he enquired whether the complainant had sex with B. P., confirming his jealousy. Additionally, shortly after, on April 19, 2023, when he was interviewed by the police, he probably responded that he had no idea who B. P. was, though that part of his police statement is difficult to hear. The Crown also argues that when the accused asked the complainant, during their conversation of March 31, 2023, whether it was her face, he did this to obscure his identity and said this because he knew that her face was not shown. Similarly, the Crown argues that when he asked the complainant in what location or where the videos was shot, asking “what’s the environment in the video?”, he asked this in a further effort to obfuscate because, again, he knew that the video did not reveal this information. Also, the Crown argues the same when the accused asked the interviewing police officer at the conclusion of his police interview, whether the police had looked “into like the IP address of whoever or whatever is posted wherever …”, that he asked this because he knew that his precautionary measures would shield his IP address.

61I agree with the Crown that the timeline, possible motives, means, opportunity, and some evidence point to the accused, including that some of the information contained in the messages was possibly only known by the accused and that one of the witnesses remembered that the accused had accessed his social media. However, the latter relies on the reliability of the memory of that witness, which is difficult to assess. And some evidence of sophistication is present, as highlighted above, including the wide-ranging extent of the harassment. For example, one of the witnesses could not explain how a photo of her was obtained by the harasser, nor was it clear how some of the email addresses were identified. This unknown degree of sophistication complicates my assessment of the evidence.

62Furthermore, some of the published information was not only known by the accused and some of the published information is inaccurate. Also, some of the published information was available online. With regards to the abortion, there are some inconsistencies relating to the timing of the abortion.

63Moreover, many of the Crown’s arguments assume that the accused is the harasser. For example, if messages contained inaccurate information, the Crown’s response was that this was planted on purpose by the accused to obfuscate. Similarly, innocuous statements by the accused are alleged to be incriminating, such as his question regarding whether the face of the complainant was visible in the video or his inquiry into whether the police had investigated the IP address. Interestingly, the accused’s inquiry about the IP address, singular, conflicts with the evidence that many IP addresses were involved. Moreover, in the circumstances, this was a logical question to ask. With regards to his statement about the “fat guy”, the accused had received a screenshot of a video which revealed the name of B. P. He could have researched his social media and seen older photos of B. P.

64When I assess the evidence, I find that some of the Crown’s arguments do not sufficiently weigh or consider the credibility and reliability of the evidence they rest upon. Other arguments of the Crown appear circular or to assume that the accused is the harasser. Also, much of the Crown’s theory is overly focused on individual items of evidence which support the Crown’s case without considering how these items fit with others and with the whole of the evidence. Considering the whole of the evidence, the Crown has not met its onus of proving that the accused’s guilt is the only reasonable conclusion. Here are my reasons for finding the accused not guilty on all counts.

65Starting with credibility and reliability, many of the Crown’s arguments rely heavily on the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s evidence. For example, the Crown’s assertions that only the accused knew certain of the information published in the messages or their assertions that some of the personal information contained in the published messages is either accurate or not accurate also rely heavily on the credibility and reliability of the complainant. This is important because, depending on how such evidence is assessed, it points either towards or away from the accused.

66Although there is no doubt that the complainant was a victim of a vicious harassment campaign, it was also apparent during her testimony that the complainant weighed her answers before answering some questions and frequently favoured answers that supported an inference that the accused is the harasser, even if such answers did not make sense or were contradicted by other evidence. This limits the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s evidence.

67For example, the complainant’s evidence about whether she recognized herself and the accused in the video of March 10, 2023, is internally and externally inconsistent.

68In her May 15, 2023, police statement, the complainant said to the interviewing officer, “it looks like me, I can’t say with certainty … I couldn’t say 100 percent …”, in reference to the March 10, 2023, video. Contradicting this, in April 2025, during her examination-in-chief, she was “confident” that it is her. In addition, her current recall that it is her and the accused in the video of March 10, 2023, is contradicted by the video.

69Looking at the video of March 10, 2023, it could not have been taken by the accused using his phone; this would have been physically impossible given the angle of the video and the fact that the male’s left hand is visible. The complainant testified that an open laptop with a webcam was occasionally resting on a nearby side table, suggesting that it could have recorded that video. However, the video of March 10, 2023, appears to have been filmed by a third party because its focus moves slightly during the video. In the left corner of the image an object is visible and then not visible. When questioned about this, the complainant admitted that the video moves but said that the accused might have moved something with his feet. However, this is not how it appears on the video; nothing seems to get bumped, the male shown on the video does not appear to bump or move anything when the focus changes, and, at times, the complainant seemed to agree that the male did not appear to move. Moreover, the woman in the explicit video appears to be angling back, looking at the camera, as if posing, and the blue sweater that the depicted woman is wearing appears to have different sleaves from the sweater of the complainant.

70Moreover, the complainant’s stated belief that it is her who is depicted in the explicit portion of the video of March 10, 2023, is contradicted by the evidence of her friend, J. G., to whom she sent this video shortly after she first saw it. J. G. testified that he understood that it was a porn video, and not one of the complainant. This evidence of J. G. makes sense, and I prefer it to the evidence of B. P. about this.

71With regards to the video of March 20, 2023, the complainant was not certain that the explicit portion shows her and the accused. She said that it “could be”, that it “looks like” her vagina and his penis. Further, for the accused to have taken this video, he would have had to hold his phone or a camera between them, pointing down at their genitals, and this would have been visible to the complainant, as the male and female in the explicit portion of the video are close and facing each other. The complainant testified that the accused possibly surreptitiously filmed them when he frequently held and scrolled on his phone during sex to look at and place financial trades, as part of his day-trading activities. However, this evidence does not explain the location and the angle at which he would have had to hold his phone between them to film what is depicted in the explicit portion of this video. In that location and from that angle it would not have appeared like he was using his phone, during sex, for day-trading purposes.

72Consequently, the evidence does not prove that the explicit portions of these two videos depict the complainant and the accused.

73Also, the complainant’s evidence about those to whom she told some of the information that was published in some of the messages is occasionally not credible or reliable. The complainant would have little reason to remember to whom she said, for example, that, in her opinion, her father drank too much, her mother worked too much, or that she had a difficult relationship with members of her family. On point, the complainant could not remember if she told some of her friends that her father drank too much or that she had difficulties with her family. It is therefore not clear whom she told some of the published information, as she could have told others, and some of this could have been more widely known. Indeed, she admitted that she told J. G. some of this and she likely does not remember all that she told him as she was close to J. G. and “confided” in him, she said.

74In addition, the complainant’s efforts to minimize what she told others about her family were not credible. For example, she refused to agree that some in their community would have known that her father was a firefighter in their country of origin. The complainant was also not credible when she minimized the number of people who called her by an abbreviated form of her name which was occasionally used in the messages, insisting that the accused was one of the few who used that nickname. Her testimony about this does not make sense considering how the nickname is an obvious abbreviation of her name, and how this was contradicted by two witnesses. S. K., a friend of B. P., testified that the complainant was probably called by that nickname, and C. R., with whom the accused had been unfaithful, testified that the complainant introduced herself to her using that nickname, which she said was normal considering the complainant’s name. This also illustrates how the complainant favoured answers that pointed to the accused’s guilt even when such answers defied common sense.

75With regards to her abortion, the complainant’s memory of whom she told was not reliable and credible. She testified that she told three people, but initially she only remembered telling two. As well, I find it difficult to believe that she did not tell J. G. when, at the time, J. G. was a “very good friend” in whom she “confided”. By comparison, she was not as close to the three people she told; one was the woman with whom the accused had been unfaithful, a stranger to her. By contrast, she talked to J. G. about personal subject matters, confided in him, she said, and sent him a link to the video of March 10, 2023. She testified that she trusted J. G. and that she told him when things were difficult between her and the accused. She testified that she and J. G. talked about whether the accused was a good pick for her. Also, and I will come back to this, J. G. was not a credible witness.

76The complainant tried too hard to depict the accused as the harasser. She always had an answer, even for small differences in the evidence, always trying to point to the accused. She described C. R., the ex-girlfriend of the accused with whom he was unfaithful, as someone she bonded with. She said they were talking like friends. However, C. R. testified against having a close relationship and stated that they were not friends.

77The complainant was also not credible when she testified that she locked all her personal information in her car prior to allowing J. G. access to her home while she went to her country of origin for one month in September 2022. She testified that she did this because she did not want J. G. to have access to her personal information. This minimizes what others aside from the accused might have known about her but does not make sense considering her evidence that J. G. was a very good friend in whom she confided.

78I emphasize that the complainant is a victim, and that it is understandable why she answered many questions as she did. Nevertheless, her answers impacted my assessment of the evidence.

79As a result, I find it difficult to accept the complainant’s evidence that only the accused knew certain things that were published in some of the harassing messages.

80Moreover, J. G. and P. P. were not credible witnesses. This is particularly important because, in the context of the very particular factual matrix of this case, their IP address was briefly associated with one of the harassing accounts. In fact, theirs is the only IP address associated with the harassment that has been identified by the Crown. The puzzling factual matrix in which this evidence fits includes that the complainant described J. G. as a good friend yet J. G. minimized their relationship during his testimony, did not tell his wife about the harassment, thereafter, cut contact with the complainant, and testified giving the impression that he did not care much about the complainant. It also includes concerns about “cultural”, “religious”, and “ethnic” differences, the complainant not disclosing her relationship with the accused to her parents, and the fact that J. G., P. P. and the complainant’s parents were not targeted despite potential issues that the accused expressed relating to them and, by comparison, how the harassment campaign broadly targeted others.

81The complainant testified to a very close relationship with J. G., describing him as a very close friend. She said that she “confided” in him. She said that they discussed whether the accused was a good pick for her. She testified that J. G. told her that the accused was not a good pick for her or her family. She said that J. G. was concerned about how her parents would feel about her dating the accused. She said that J. G. pointed out that they had a different religion, culture, and ethnicity. She said that J. G. pointed out that the accused was not from their country of origin, that he had a different cultural background, being from a different country, and that his parents were divorced. They discussed that she and the accused had different values, that he had cheated on her, and she said that this made her think that she should not be dating outside her own culture. She testified that she discussed this with J. G. because she was looking for advice.

82The complainant testified that P. P., the wife of J. G., did not like that she was messaging her husband. She said that P. P. did not like that she was friends with her husband and that P. P. was not comfortable with her talking to J. G. She said that J. G. told her that his wife was not comfortable with their friendship. The complainant gave conflicting evidence about whether her friendship with J. G. caused friction between J. G. and P. P., attempting to minimize the friction this may have caused, which also detracted from the complainant’s credibility.

83Contradicting the above, throughout his testimony J. G. minimized his friendship and knowledge of the complainant. He said that the complainant was “a friend”, but that they were not very good friends, and that theirs was “just a regular friendship”. He did not know much about the complainant or about the accused. He said that he knew that she was dating the accused but knew nothing of their relationship. He said that the complainant did not share specifics of her relationship with the accused. He said that he did not have any expertise to comment on whether they were a good match and said that he considered himself to be black. These were curious answers considering the complainant’s evidence about what J. G. told her about her relationship with the accused. J. G. is of South Asian descent and the complainant testified that J. G. expressed concerns about the complainant’s and the accused’s different culture and ethnicity. She testified that J. G. also expressed concerns that the accused was from a different country and that he was not a good pick for her and for her family.

84In fact, the complainant never introduced the accused to her parents. She did not even reveal that she was dating him until after the harassment started. She described her family as “very conservative” and explained that, because of “cultural and religious differences”, she never disclosed to her parents that she was in a relationship with the accused. She also rarely brought the accused to her friends’ gatherings.

85J. G. also minimized his computer knowledge, which I found not credible given his education, employment as an HR consultant, and admitted VPN use, including to access a Crypto account. It is also not clear why J. G. removed the complainant from his social media platforms, and why he never told his wife, P. P., that the complainant was the victim of harassment. J. G. learned of the harassment directly from the complainant as it was occurring, in March 2023. The complainant even sent him the links to some of the harassing videos, and he and the complainant talked about it. P. P. knew the complainant, yet J. G. kept it a secret from his wife that the complainant was the victim of such vicious harassment. P. P. only learned that the complainant had been harassed when they were called to the Ottawa Police station to discuss their IP address being identified in association with one of the harassing accounts. This apparently caused an issue between P. P. and J. G., which J. G. denied. J. G.’s evidence about why he suddenly left for his country of origin for a prolonged period starting in April 2025, immediately after his trial preparation meeting, was also curious and difficult to accept.

86P. P. was also not a credible witness. Her suggestions that the accused would be accepted by their community were not credible considering the evidence of the complainant about J. G.’s stated concerns about the accused and the actions of the complainant in not disclosing her relationship with the accused. P. P.’s evidence that the accused would fit in their community is also contradicted by a friend of the complainant, also originally from their country of origin, D. S.

87D. S. testified that friends of the complainant knew that the complainant was not disclosing the existence of the accused to her parents. D. S. also testified that everybody else was bringing their partners to their gatherings, but the complainant was not. D. S. was not even sure whether the complainant told others that she had a partner while she was in a relationship with the accused. D. S. said that most of their friends have partners of their country of origin, Indian, or white background. She said that the complainant was the only one who had a black boyfriend.

88Such evidence about cultural and ethnicity concerns contradicts the evidence of J. G. and of his wife P. P. that there were no such concerns. This evidence is further compounded by the above-described actions of the complainant, including her actions during the August 2022 incident. During that incident, the complainant refused to acknowledge that she was present when her parents unexpectedly attended her residence and waited outside for over one hour because she did not want to reveal her past relationship nor the existence of the accused. Thereafter, the complainant only reluctantly disclosed her past relationship with the accused to her mother, but not to her father. This is evidence that the complainant felt that her relationship with the accused would be an issue with her “conservative family” and friends also originally from her country of origin. Her pregnancy and abortion likely did not assist, considering the evidence of her sister that an abortion is considered “shameful” in their community. This evidence reveals a cultural and ethnic malaise surrounding the complainant’s relationship with the accused. Given how the complainant testified candidly about these concerns, it is not clear why J. G. and P. P. were not forthright about this.

89Moreover, when questioned about a harassing message that contained inaccurate information, the complainant admitted that most of that message was inaccurate except for the fact of her pregnancy with a black boyfriend and her abortion. She said that the harassment “is about ruining her reputation because she dated someone who is black and got pregnant”. This is further evidence that her relationship with the accused was frowned upon by the complainant’s community and it contradicts the evidence of J. G. and P. P. that her relationship with the accused was not an issue. More importantly, this could point away from the accused and point instead to someone from her country-of-origin community, including J. G. and P. P.

90If you accept the complainant’s evidence about this, the accused did not like J. G. and did not appreciate their friendship. In addition, he was not happy that the complainant never introduced him to her parents. Yet, none of the harassment videos and messages ever targeted J. G. or the complainant’s parents.

91The above failure to target J. G. could be explained if you accept that the accused hacked the Wi-Fi of J. G. and P. P. to obfuscate his role and implicate them. In that case, it makes sense that J. G. was not targeted. However, if the accused went to the trouble of hacking their Wi-Fi to implicate them, then why only use their Wi-Fi to such a limited extent? It was only discovered in October 2023 when the Meta Platform records were obtained and the many IP addresses verified.

92If the goal was to frame J. G. and P. P., why not use their Wi-Fi to post videos and messages; there is no evidence that any video or message was posted while their Wi-Fi was connected to one of the harassing accounts. Similarly, if the accused hacked their Wi-Fi to frame them, then why not create an account showing their names, as was done for a Mr. L, who clearly had nothing to do with this? Also, if the accused wanted to frame J. G., why not write the messages as if they came from J. G.? One can never understand the criminal mind, but if the intent of the videos and messages was to ruin the reputation of the complainant because “she dated someone who is black and got pregnant”, and if the accused hacked J. G.’s and P. P’s Wi-Fi to frame them, then why were most messages written as if they came from the accused, a black person, some almost as if they were signed by him?

93Moreover, the brazenness of the accused is curious. The complainant testified that the accused would not have wanted the police to arrest him, and the Crown’s theory is that he hacked the Wi-Fi of J. G. and P. P. to frame them. Nonetheless, the posts continued and intensified after his arrest, with most messages written as if they had been written by the accused. If one considers the alternate theory that someone else is the harasser, by continuing the harassment in such a brazen and repeated manner, does it not make more sense that the harasser tried to frame the accused?

94In addition, the cybersecurity expert called by the Crown could not provide an opinion on how long the harassing account was accessed on March 19, 2023, using the Wi-Fi of J. G. and P. P. That expert could not rule out the possibility that someone using their Wi-Fi failed to activate their VPN. He explained how easily someone could forget to use their VPN or get disconnected from their VPN. He agreed that if someone slipped up and was not properly using a VPN on March 19, 2023, to access the harassing account, then the IP address of J. G. and P. P would be identified as it was.

95The Crown could not rule this out as they have no evidence from J. G.’s and P. P.’s router. On the other hand, the electronic devices of the accused were seized, and no evidence was presented that any of his devices were used to conduct harassment. Moreover, although computers can mask locations and time zones, no evidence was presented about this and the cybersecurity expert called by the Crown did not have enough information to opine whether such a message was sent by someone actually in the complainant’s country-of-origin time zone or by someone who was making it seem like they were in the time zone of her country of origin.

96Considering all the evidence, for the reasons explained above, the Crown has not proven that the accused’s guilt is the only reasonable conclusion available on the totality of the evidence.

Conclusion

97The accused is therefore not guilty on all counts.

Date: March 20, 2026

Mr. Justice Pierre E. Roger

CITATION: R. v. K.K., 2026 ONSC 1626