CITATION: R. v. Ahmed, 2026 ONSC 1695

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-10000531

DATE: 20260325

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

EBRAHIM AHMED

Defendant

Christopher Ponesse, for the Crown

Jeremy Naresh, for the Defendant

HEARD: February 2-4, 6, 9, 2026

C. Weiler J.

REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT

OVERVIEW

1Mid-day on January 16, 2023, Albert Daniels-Sey drove with his cousin, Daniel Ofori, into a parking garage under a condo building in downtown Toronto. A black pickup truck pulled out in front of them, blocking their path to the exit. Two men wearing blue gloves (the “blue-gloved assailants”) jumped out of the truck and ran to Mr. Daniels-Sey’s car. They opened the doors, pulled Mr. Daniels-Sey out and struck him repeatedly in the head and face with guns, while asking, “Where’s the money?” Shockingly, Mr. Ofori joined the attack on his cousin.

2Mr. Daniels-Sey resisted. He ran to another part of the garage and sought help from the occupants of a nearby white SUV, but soon realized they were in on the plan to get him. Two more men joined in the attack and loaded Mr. Daniels-Sey into the trunk area of the white SUV. The white SUV drove towards the exit. The garage door wouldn’t open. A queue of cars waiting to leave formed. Mr. Ofori, the occupants of the white SUV and the pickup truck driver became spooked. They left on foot through a stairwell. Mr. Daniels-Sey ran to safety.

3Ebrahim Ahmed stands charged with the following offences relating to this incident: aggravated assault, use of an imitation firearm, kidnapping and forcible confinement. The Crown alleges that Mr. Ahmed was a party to the offences on Mr. Daniels-Sey by, among other things, renting and driving the black pickup truck used by three of the assailants in the attack, blocking Mr. Daniels-Sey’s car in the garage, attempting to drive two of the assailants out of the garage, and returning the truck to the rental agency, where it was exchanged for a silver Mercedes sedan in which Mr. Ahmed was arrested several hours after the attack. Mr. Ahmed testified and denied being present for or being involved in the offences on Mr. Daniels-Sey.

4The events in the garage at 150 Dan Leckie Way were captured on surveillance videos from multiple camera angles. The defence fairly admitted that the offences with which Mr. Ahmed was charged had been committed. The videos showed that the perpetrators of the offences included Mr. Ofori, the blue-gloved assailants and two other males.

5The issues at trial were: did the Crown prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ahmed drove the black pickup truck used during the offences on January 16, 2023? And if so, was Mr. Ahmed a party to the offences against Mr. Daniels-Sey?

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE LED AT TRIAL

The Crown’s Case

6The Crown called four police officers, and two civilian witnesses –Mr. Daniels-Sey, the complainant, and Krupak Sundaram, who worked at the car rental company from which the black pickup truck and silver Mercedes were rented.

The attack on Mr. Daniels-Sey

7Mr. Daniels-Sey testified that on January 16, 2023, he drove to 150 Dan Leckie Way, to pick up his cousin, Mr. Ofori, who was renting an AirBnB in the building. Mr. Daniels-Sey drove a silver 2008 Honda Civic. Mr. Ofori hopped in the front passenger seat and asked to go to a convenience store to buy a charger for his iPhone. After two failed attempts to locate a charger, Mr. Ofori suggested they go back to the parking garage to get something from his car. Mr. Daniels-Sey drove back into the visitor parking area in the garage under 150 Dan Leckie Way.

8Mr. Daniels-Sey did a three-point-turn to position the Civic facing back to the garage exit. As he drove forward, a large black pickup truck pulled out, blocking the Civic’s path. The blue-gloved assailants (two men wearing black puffer jackets, white sneakers and blue surgical gloves) jumped out of the pickup truck and ran toward Mr. Daniels-Sey’s Civic. Mr. Daniels-Sey locked the car doors, but Mr. Ofori unlocked them.

9One of the blue-gloved assailants opened Mr. Daniels-Sey’s door and pulled him out of the car. He hit Mr. Daniels-Sey in the face with the back end of a firearm. The other blue-gloved assailant came around the car and also hit Mr. Daniels-Sey in the head or face with a firearm. They repeatedly asked, “Where’s the money? Where’s the money?” Mr. Ofori came around the front of the car. He joined in the attack and the calls of “Where’s the money?”

10Mr. Daniels-Sey managed to free himself. He ran for help towards an occupied white Honda CRV SUV (the “white SUV”) in the visitor parking area. Too late, he realized that the driver was wearing a mask and was part of the attack. The blue-gloved assailants caught up to Mr. Daniels-Sey and grabbed him. He slipped out of his sweater and ran shirtless towards the automatic garage door. The door did not open. Mr. Daniels-Sey was fiddling with the garage door control box when the blue-gloved assailants and Mr. Ofori caught up to him again. While striking Mr. Daniels-Sey by the garage door, one of the blue-gloved assailants dropped the firearm. Unbeknownst to the assailants, Mr. Daniels-Sey had pressed an emergency button that locked the garage door, preventing it from opening at all. He then ran back towards the visitor parking area.

11Mr. Ofori and the blue-gloved assailants cornered Mr. Daniels-Sey near the white SUV. He was tired, bleeding and could not see from one eye. They assaulted him again and with the assistance of two others (a male in a light blue tracksuit and balaclava who emerged from the black pickup truck and a male in all black who emerged from the white SUV), they shoved Mr. Daniels-Sey into the trunk of the SUV. Two assailants sat in the back seat and pointed guns at Mr. Daniels-Sey who was behind them in the trunk. Between the assailants on the back seat was a small pitbull. The driver was a slender man in a blue tracksuit. In the passenger seat was an Asian woman whom Mr. Daniels-Sey believed was wearing a red jacket and was associated with Mr. Ofori.

12The white SUV drove from the visitor parking area to the garage door. The black pickup truck began to follow the white SUV as if to leave. The garage door would not open. The driver of the white SUV began freaking out. He shouted, “Oh my God, we’re done. We’re done!” Eventually, the driver left the white SUV and the occupants followed. Mr. Daniels-Sey climbed out of the white SUV. One of the blue-gloved assailants tried to direct him towards the stairwell door where Mr. Ofori and the other assailants had exited. Mr. Daniels-Sey ignored his command and ran to the resident parking area of the garage and then to safety. A resident directed Mr. Daniels-Sey to the lobby of the building and followed him to the neighbouring Tim Hortons, where the resident called 9-1-1 for Mr. Daniels-Sey.

13As a result of the attack, Mr. Daniels-Sey suffered several injuries: a concussion; wounds to his forehead, eyelid, scalp, and lower lip, each of which required stitches; a swollen eye from which he could not see for weeks; and three broken teeth. He was treated for his injuries at the hospital before giving a statement to the police.

14Of the five assailants, Mr. Daniels-Sey knew only his cousin, Mr. Ofori, but he recognized the Asian woman in the white SUV as being connected to Mr. Ofori. He did not recognize or identify anyone else. Mr. Daniels-Sey gave no evidence about the driver of the black pickup truck.

The video surveillance evidence

15Much of the Crown’s case consisted of surveillance videos. The videos were from the following locations connected to the offences:

• Platinum Car & Truck Rental – the car rental company on Ellesmere Road from which the black pickup truck and silver Mercedes were rented. Videos showed that two males were present for both the rental of the truck on January 13, 2023, and its return on January 16, 2023, when it was exchanged for the silver Mercedes. Mr. Ahmed admitted he was present on January 13, 2023, when his friend rented the truck. He denied being present on January 16, 2023, when a masked male returned with Mr. Ahmed’s friend to exchange the truck for the silver Mercedes.

• Unit 701 - 101 Peter Street –a unit in a high-rise condo tower at the intersection of Peter and Adelaide Streets, in which Mr. Ahmed and four individuals resembling those who participated in the offences on Mr. Daniels-Sey were seen entering and leaving on the morning of January 16, 2023, just hours before the offences.

• Inside and outside the parking garage at 150 Dan Leckie Way –the high-rise condo tower at the intersection of Fort York Boulevard and Dan Leckie Way, where the offences against Mr. Daniels-Sey occurred.

• Tim Hortons adjacent to 150 Dan Leckie Way – where Mr. Ofori and an Asian woman with a red bag are seen together in the hour before the offences, and where Mr. Daniels-Sey went to treat his injuries and call for help after the offences.

Mr. Sundaram’s evidence

16Mr. Sundaram testified about the rental of a black Dodge Ram pickup truck with license plate BP94575 shown on the surveillance videos from 150 Dan Leckie Way (the “black pickup truck”). On January 13, 2023, two males came to Platinum Car & Truck Rental to rent the black pickup truck. He did not know their names. One wore a checkered scarf and the other wore a black, fur-trimmed parka. (Mr. Ahmed admitted that he was the male in the parka.) The male in the parka did most of the talking. He rented the black pickup truck in the name of the male with the checkered scarf, his friend Farhan Chowdhury. Mr. Sundaram indicated the male with the parka spoke to the manager by phone at the counter to discuss the return of a sedan or applying cash from an existing rental contract to the new contract. The male in the parka handed over cash for the rental contract in Mr. Chowdhury’s name. Mr. Chowdhury signed the rental contract. Mr. Sundaram was not sure who the male in the parka was.

17On January 16, 2023, a male in a surgical mask, hoodie and blue puffer jacket came to return the black pickup truck. He wanted to exchange the truck, saying “it had mechanical issues” or it was “too big to drive” and asked for a “more compact car.” Platinum’s policy required that the renter on the contract be present for any return or exchange of a vehicle for another vehicle. Mr. Sundaram admitted in cross-examination that he assumed that since the masked male arrived in the truck, he must have been the male in the fur-trimmed parka from three days earlier. He fairly admitted that he did not know if the same male was, in fact, present on January 16, 2023. When Mr. Chowdhury arrived, Mr. Sundaram completed the paperwork for the exchange of the black pickup truck for a silver Mercedes sedan with license plate CTKC127 (the “silver Mercedes”). Mr. Chowdhury and the masked male left together in the silver Mercedes.

18Mr. Sundaram was cross-examined about whether the black pickup truck was indeed the vehicle that went out with Mr. Chowdhury on January 13, 2023. He was questioned about how the rental company confirmed that the correct vehicle that matched a contract was given to a client. He testified that there was a vehicle slip for each rental, on which the vehicle’s license plate was recorded as well as any damages noted from a “walk-around” of the vehicle. The vehicle slip was then pinned to the rental contract. No vehicle slip for the black pickup truck was provided to the police. Mr. Sundaram said that on rare occasions, possibly in 10% of cases, there might be a mistake or a mismatch between the vehicle and the rental contract. In re-examination he, clarified that a mistake between the vehicle slip and the rental contract did not occur on January 13 or 16, 2023 with respect to the black pickup truck.

Police Witnesses

19The Crown called four officers who were involved in the investigation into the offences and arrests on January 16, 2023.

20Detective Constable (“D.C.”) Ayesha So assisted with arrests conducted at unit 701-101 Peter Street on January 16, 2023, including the arrest of Mr. Ofori, who exited the unit with another individual walking a small dog.

21D.C. Steevens Audige was directed to arrest the occupant of a silver Mercedes with license plate CTKC127. At approximately 9:06 p.m. on January 16, 2023, D.C. Audige located the silver Mercedes in a parking lot behind an apartment building. Mr. Ahmed was in the reclined driver’s seat. Mr. Ahmed did not respond to commands to open the door, requiring the window to be broken. D.C. Audige handcuffed, searched and cautioned Mr. Ahmed and transported him to 14 Division, where Mr. Ahmed was paraded. He noted that since 2023, Mr. Ahmed had lost approximately 50 lbs, cut his hair and had no facial hair.

22D.C. John Roberto participated in the arrest of Mr. Ahmed. He testified that Mr. Ahmed was approximately 250 lbs on January 16, 2023, and observed that he had lost a significant amount of weight and looked to be approximately 190 lbs at the time of trial. Mr. Ahmed was wearing a grey hoodie, grey sweatpants, a black t-shirt and black running shoes when he was arrested.

23Officer Seung-Ryul Kim photographed unit 701 - 101 Peter Street, including items found in the apartment, such as an empty dog crate, a brown MCM backpack and a beige pair of Nike sneakers with pink laces. A search of the apartment located drugs, including fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine and opioids.

The Defence Evidence

24Mr. Ahmed testified in his defence. He is 27 years old and grew up in Toronto. He completed paralegal college.

25On January 16, 2023, he was living with his parents and two older brothers. That morning, he had been up all-night smoking with his friend Chloe. He wanted to buy some opioids and called a drug dealer. Mr. Ahmed had become addicted to opioids after being prescribed them for chronic lower back pain following a car accident in 2020. Mr. Ahmed’s dealer told him to come to unit 701 - 101 Peter Street. He went to the unit and knocked. No one answered. He knocked again but hearing nothing from inside the unit, he left. He met his dealer while waiting in the lobby and returned to unit 701 with the dealer.

26Mr. Ahmed identified the shorter, slighter male on video surveillance outside unit 701-101 Peter Street as his dealer (the “Little Guy”). Once inside, Mr. Ahmed paid the Little Guy $120 for 12 5 mg pills and consumed six of them. The Little Guy had to “go do something” downstairs. There were three or four others in the unit. Mr. Ahmed did not want to stay with people he did not know, so he went with the Little Guy down to the lobby. A few minutes later, he came back up with the Little Guy, stayed for another 30 minutes and then went home. He got home around 9:50 or 10:00 a.m. and went to bed.

27Mr. Ahmed’s mom tried to wake him up around 1:00 p.m. to do some laundry. He was tired and high, and went back to bed. He woke up around 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. to his mom yelling in anger because he had not done the laundry. They argued and his mom told him to pack up his stuff and leave. He left at 6:30 p.m. but had nowhere to go. He called Mr. Chowdhury because he knew Mr. Chowdhury had a “car, like he had a rental” and told Mr. Chowdhury that he needed a place to crash. Mr. Chowdhury suggested they meet in Regent Park and then gave Mr. Ahmed the silver Mercedes. Mr. Ahmed knew a safe place behind a building at Yonge and Eglinton where he had slept in the past. He put gas in the silver Mercedes, drove behind the apartment building and parked. He fell asleep. He was awakened and arrested an hour later.

28Mr. Ahmed said he knew that Mr. Chowdhury had a “car” because he had gone with Mr. Chowdhury to Platinum Car & Truck Rental on January 13, 2023. He testified that he went with Mr. Chowdhury because Mr. Chowdhury typically rented from Enterprise, and he had no history with Platinum. Mr. Ahmed also owed some money to Platinum’s manager for damaging a vehicle he had rented in the past. When they arrived at Platinum, Mr. Ahmed walked in and spoke to the desk agent about his balance owing and then spoke with the manager by phone. They agreed Mr. Ahmed would pay $750 cash for the damage. Mr. Chowdhury paid for his rental of the black pickup truck with his own credit card.

29Mr. Ahmed denied renting the black pickup truck on January 13, 2023, being at 150 Dan Leckie Way on January 16, 2023, participating in the offences there or knowing any of the individuals involved, including Mr. Ofori. Mr. Ahmed also denied being the masked individual who returned the black pickup truck and exchanged it for the silver Mercedes on January 16, 2023.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Principles

30The Crown bears the burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Ahmed comes before the court with the presumption of innocence; he has a clean slate. The presumption of innocence is only discharged if the Crown proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown must prove the essential elements of each of the offences charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Ahmed does not have to prove anything. I must assess the evidence as a whole and decide whether, based on all of the evidence, or lack thereof, the Crown has proven Mr. Ahmed’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: R. v. Lifchus, 1997 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320 at para. 36.

31A reasonable doubt is based on “reason and common sense”. It is neither “imaginary” nor “frivolous”. It does not involve proof to an absolute certainty: Lifchus, at para. 36.

32This is a circumstantial case. There is no witness who can identify Mr. Ahmed as the driver of the black pickup truck, nor is there surveillance video permitting such an identification. As the Supreme Court of Canada instructs in R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at paras. 30, 35-38, where the Crown relies on circumstantial evidence to prove an essential issue like identity, the trier of fact must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown’s position on the issue is the only reasonable conclusion or inference that can logically be drawn based on the evidence or the absence of evidence. If there are reasonable inferences other than guilt, the Crown’s evidence does not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Inferences consistent with innocence do not have to arise from proven facts, they may arise from the absence of evidence. I am also mindful of the following principles from Villaroman:

a. The trier of fact must not jump to conclusions and must not unconsciously “fill in the blanks” or “bridge gaps” in the evidence to support the inference that the Crown invites it to draw: para. 26.

b. When assessing circumstantial evidence, the trier of fact should consider other plausible theories and “other reasonable possibilities” which are inconsistent with guilt: para. 37.

c. The Crown must negative reasonable possibilities inconsistent with guilt, but need not “negative every possible conjecture, no matter how irrational or fanciful, which might be consistent with the innocence of the accused.” “Other plausible theories” or “other reasonable possibilities” must be based on logic and experience applied to the evidence or the absence of evidence, not on speculation: para. 37.

d. All the evidence must be considered in determining what inferences may reasonably be drawn. This does not mean each piece of circumstantial evidence is examined in isolation and separately from the rest. Rather, each piece of circumstantial evidence is a “building block” of proof, and “not the final product”. All the evidence must be considered together, including its cumulative effect: R. v. Hudson, 2021 ONCA 772, 158 O.R. (3d) 589 at para. 70.

33In this case, Mr. Ahmed testified in his defence. Given that Mr. Ahmed testified, I must follow the Supreme Court of Canada’s approach in R. v. W.(D.), 1991 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 at 759 in assessing whether or not the Crown has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt:

i) If I believe Mr. Ahmed’s testimony that he did not commit the alleged offences, I must find him not guilty;

ii) Even if I do not believe Mr. Ahmed’s testimony, if it leaves me with a reasonable doubt about his guilt, I must find him not guilty; and

iii) Even if Mr. Ahmed’s testimony does not leave me with any reasonable doubt about his guilt, I may only find him guilty if, based on the evidence that I do accept, I am satisfied that all the elements of the offences have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ahmed drove the black pickup truck?

Do I believe Mr. Ahmed’s testimony or does it raise a reasonable doubt?

34I do not accept Mr. Ahmed’s evidence that he was at home sleeping at the time of the offences against Mr. Daniels-Sey. Nor do I find that his evidence raises a reasonable doubt. I say this for the following reasons.

35First, both on its own and in the context of the case as a whole, I find Mr. Ahmed’s evidence implausible. Accepting his evidence requires accepting that he was the exceptionally unlucky victim of three coincidences:

• On January 13, 2023, he was at Platinum Car & Truck Rental with Mr. Chowdhury to help in the rental of the black pickup truck that happened to be used in the January 16, 2023 attack on Mr. Daniels-Sey.

• On the morning of January 16, 2023, Mr. Ahmed happened to attend unit 701 - 101 Peter Street, and spend time there. Four individuals seen entering and leaving unit 701 that same morning resemble four individuals depicted on surveillance video from the garage at 150 Dan Leckie Way before, during and after the attack on Mr. Daniels-Sey. These individuals included Mr. Ofori, the Asian woman with the red bag, and the two blue-gloved assailants.

• On the evening of January 16, 2023, Mr. Ahmed was arrested after being found sleeping in the same silver Mercedes that happened to have been exchanged for the returned black pickup truck used in the offences against Mr. Daniels-Sey.

36Each one of these coincidences is on its own, unlikely. Taken together, however, they defy belief.

37Second, Mr. Ahmed’s evidence was internally inconsistent. Together, the following inconsistencies showed that Mr. Ahmed’s evidence shifted, undermining his credibility:

• In-chief, he first described calling his drug dealer, saying, “I called up a friend”. He corrected himself and said, “not really a friend”, “a dealer that I knew”. In cross-examination, he said, “I wouldn’t call him a buddy” and “I wouldn’t call him a friend”. He agreed he was an acquaintance, “if you call meeting somebody maybe like four times in your whole life an acquaintance, sure by your definition.”

• In-chief, he said that his mother kicked him out of the house because she was mad at him for not doing the laundry. In cross-examination, he elaborated that it was not just the laundry, it was “a whole bunch of stuff… small arguments, like not doing the dishes, not doing the laundry” that built up.

• In-chief, he described his memory as “hazy” on morning of January 16, 2023, after he initially knocked on door of unit 701 at 7:10 a.m. After all, he had been up smoking all night. In cross-examination, however, he refused to acknowledge that his memory of that morning was “fuzzy” and described having a “vivid memory”, with “no fuzziness at all.”

• In cross-examination, he was asked, “So on January 13th then, you’ll agree with me, sir, that that’s you renting the, that’s you at the store getting the pickup truck?” He answered, “Yeah”. Then he caught himself and said, “Wait, wait, wait. I was at the store helping my friend get the pickup truck.”

• In-chief, he said that he reached out to Mr. Chowdhury when he was looking for a place to stay after being kicked out of the house “because I knew he had a car, like he had a rental.” Later, in-chief he clarified that when he said Mr. Chowdhury had a “car”, he was referring to the pickup truck. However, in cross-examination, he said he called up Mr. Chowdhury and said, “hey, can I sleep in the car?” Mr. Ahmed’s repeated use of the word “car” in this context is telling given that on his evidence, he could not have been aware that Mr. Chowdhury had returned the pickup truck and exchanged it for the silver Mercedes.

38Third, Mr. Ahmed’s evidence conflicted with objective observations from the surveillance videos from Platinum Car & Truck Rental. Video from January 13, 2023 showed that Mr. Chowdhury, the nominal the renter of the truck provided a license and signed the rental contract, but otherwise hung back from the counter and to the side while Mr. Ahmed dealt with and spoke to Mr. Sundaram. In contrast to the video, Mr. Ahmed denied the extent of his apparent involvement in the rental of the black pickup truck, beyond putting in a good word for Mr. Chowdhury. Similarly, video from January 16, 2023, showed that Mr. Chowdhury once again hung back from the counter and only engaged to provide his license and sign the rental contract for the silver Mercedes. In contrast to the video, Mr. Ahmed denied that the masked male seen on the video on January 16, 2023, appeared to be “running the show” despite video that showed the masked male doing most of the talking to Mr. Sundaram and others at the rental counter.

39Fourth, Mr. Ahmed became combative and circular when asked to compare his physical appearance on videos in which he admitted his presence to that of a male who bore some resemblance to him in videos in which he denied his presence. I approach observations of demeanour with caution and appreciate that demeanour is of limited assistance in assessing credibility: R. v. G.M.C., 2022 ONCA 2, 159 O.R. (3d) 561, at paras. 68-70. Nevertheless, I note that Mr. Ahmed resorted to going on the attack when pressed in this area. For example, when asked whether he agreed that the masked male who returned the black pickup truck on January 16, 2023 looked like him, Mr. Ahmed said, “There’s similarities, but it’s not me.” When asked what the similarities were, he said, “I think just skin colour”. Later, when asked to opine on whether the masked male was involved in the transaction exchanging the black pickup truck for the silver Mercedes on January 16, 2023, Mr. Ahmed said, “if skin colour means that the person looks very similar to me, then I don’t know what to say there. It’s just skin colour, that’s basically what you’re saying. In my opinion, I feel like it’s pretty racist.”

40Further, Mr. Ahmed agreed that the male who parked the black pickup truck and left the garage under 150 Dan Leckie Way had a build similar to his. However, he denied that he and that person shared the “same gait, same manner of walking”. The Crown had earlier pointed out that the man on the video walked with “toes out to the side”. When asked to explain how the male’s manner of walking was different from his own Mr. Ahmed said, “I wasn’t really analyzing who was coming back and forth…like I wasn’t zoomed in like paying attention”. When asked then what was the basis for disagreeing that the manner of walking was similar, he said, “How can I give you an answer for something that I don’t know?” Later he said, “Well, I can’t agree or disagree because I don’t know the answer to the question.”

41Two other points are worth noting here. First, defence counsel conceded that he violated the rule in Browne v. Dunn (1893), 1893 65 (FOREP), 6 R. 67 (H.L.) when Mr. Ahmed testified that he went to Platinum Car & Truck Rental on January 13, 2023, to pay off damage he had caused to another vehicle on an earlier rental, and explained that was why he paid $750 cash to Mr. Sundaram. These aspects of Mr. Ahmed’s evidence contradicted Mr. Sundaram’s account that the man in the fur-trimmed parka (admitted to be Mr. Ahmed) paid cash for a rental contract in Mr. Chowdhury’s name. Rather than cross-examining Mr. Sundaram based on Mr. Ahmed’s anticipated evidence, defence counsel appeared to imply acceptance of Mr. Sundaram’s account when he asked Mr. Sundaram whether occasionally someone might pay for a rental but not take ownership of the vehicle. Although, pursuant to R. v. Quansah, 2015 ONCA 237, 125 O.R. (3d) 81, at paras. 117-121, this conceded Browne v. Dunn error is a factor that I could take into account in considering Mr. Ahmed’s credibility regarding his role in the rental of the black pickup truck, for the reasons I have outlined above for rejecting his evidence, I need not do so in this case.

42Second, when Mr. Ahmed gave evidence that he was not at 150 Dan Leckie Way on the day of the offences and was actually at home sleeping, that amounted to an alibi. An alibi is evidence that an accused was “elsewhere” and could not have committed the offences alleged. An alibi does not have to be proven by an accused. Even if disbelieved, an alibi, in conjunction with all the other evidence, merely needs to raise a reasonable doubt. However, where an accused does not give timely notice of an alibi defence, the trier of fact may draw an adverse inference when weighing the alibi evidence: R. v. Wright, 2009 ONCA 623, 98 O.R. (3d) 665 (C.A.) at paras. 17-20. The law permits an adverse inference to be drawn where an alibi is previously undisclosed because an alibi can be easily fabricated at trial, depriving the Crown of time and opportunity to investigate its veracity.

43In this case, the first mention of Mr. Ahmed’s alibi came from his lips on the last day of trial. Defence counsel fairly conceded in closing submissions that I would be entitled to draw an adverse inference from Mr. Ahmed’s failure to provide notice of his alibi. Given my reasons for rejecting Mr. Ahmed’s evidence, I do not need to draw this inference. However, had it been necessary, I would have given Mr. Ahmed’s alibi very little weight.

Based on the evidence that I accept, has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ahmed was the driver of the black pickup truck?

44Based on the circumstantial evidence and my factual findings as detailed below, I find that the Crown has satisfied its onus of proving that the only reasonable inference is that Mr. Ahmed drove the black pickup truck during the offences against Mr. Daniels-Sey on January 16, 2023. The following evidence connects Mr. Ahmed to the black pickup truck and four of the individuals who were involved.

45The license plate on the black pickup truck used in the offences was BP94575 as shown on surveillance video from 150 Dan Leckie Way. The rental contract for the black pickup truck rented in Mr. Chowdhury’s name on January 13, 2023 lists the license plate as BP94575. That black pickup truck was returned on January 16, 2023, within hours of the offences, and exchanged for a silver Mercedes. Despite the absence of the vehicle slip in evidence, I accept Mr. Sundaram’s evidence that Mr. Chowdhury took possession of the black pickup truck on January 13, 2023, and that there was no mix-up about which vehicle he left with that day. Mr. Sundaram had no interest in the proceedings and appeared to be doing his best to recall his interactions with the individuals he dealt with on January 13 and 16, 2023. He had an independent recollection of those interactions apart from the surveillance videos he was shown. He fairly acknowledged when he was making an assumption as opposed to testifying from personal knowledge. His evidence was supported by what was shown on the surveillance video from Platinum Car & Truck Rental, including that the black pickup truck had been returned to Platinum’s garage on January 16, 2023.

46I find that Mr. Ahmed was involved in the rental of the black pickup truck used in the offences. Although he admitted being present for the rental, he denied any involvement beyond going with Mr. Chowdhury to the rental agency and putting in a good word for him with the manager. However, surveillance video showed Mr. Ahmed engaged with the staff from the moment he and Mr. Chowdhury entered the premises. Mr. Chowdhury was off to the side and disengaged, at times looking out the window. Mr. Ahmed remained closest to the counter. He had a conversation on speakerphone with someone at the rental agency after which Mr. Sundaram, pulled out a set of keys with paperwork attached and Mr. Ahmed began counting cash. Mr. Chowdhury stepped forward to the counter solely to hand over his driver’s licence, sign the rental contract and provide a credit card. Otherwise, the video supported Mr. Sundaram’s recollection that the male in the fur-trimmed parka (Mr. Ahmed) did the talking on that day. Although there was no audio, Mr. Ahmed’s lips were the ones moving during the majority of the dealings with the agent at the counter, not Mr. Chowdhury’s.

47I need not determine whether Mr. Ahmed, in fact, paid for the rental of the black pickup truck. Surveillance video showed that he provided cash to Mr. Sundaram. The video also showed Mr. Chowdhury providing a credit card, filling out paperwork and inputting a pin into a keypad. It is not possible to tell from the video whether Mr. Chowdhury’s card was charged for the purpose of payment, or as a security deposit for the rental. Given that two forms of payment were provided, it is not possible to say with certainty whether Mr. Ahmed’s cash or Mr. Chowdhury’s credit card ultimately paid for the pickup truck rental.

48I find that Mr. Ahmed was present at unit 701-101 Peter Street on January 16, 2023 at the same time as three of the four other individuals who were present during or participated in the offences against Mr. Daniels-Sey hours later. Mr. Ahmed admitted that he entered unit 701 at 7:48 a.m. to buy drugs from the Little Guy, a male wearing dark pants and white sneakers. Video showed Mr. Ahmed was inside unit 701 from 7:48 a.m. to 8:19 a.m. and again from 8:24 a.m. to 9:02 a.m. While at unit 701, three of the following four individuals involved in the attack on Mr. Daniels-Sey were present:

• Asian woman in all black with the red bag: At 7:44 a.m., a woman of this description entered unit 701 with a male resembling Mr. Ofori. From surveillance video from 150 Dan Leckie Way, Mr. Daniels-Sey recognized an Asian woman with a red bag present during the attack as being associated with Mr. Ofori.

• Daniel Ofori, Mr. Daniels-Sey’s cousin: Mr. Daniels-Sey identified Mr. Ofori as one of the main participants in the attack on him in the videos from the garage at 150 Dan Leckie Way. Mr. Ofori is seen wearing distinctive beige running shoes with pink laces, a brown MCM-branded backpack and a tie-dyed sweatshirt. These items are seen on a male resembling Mr. Ofori who entered and left unit 701-101 Peter Street on January 16, 2023. I find that Mr. Ofori and the Asian woman with the red bag left unit 701-101 Peter Street at approximately 10:11 a.m. Both Ofori and the woman are seen on videos from the Tim Hortons adjacent to 150 Dan Leckie Way from 11:46 a.m. to 11:55 a.m., just half an hour before the offences. In Tim Hortons, Mr. Ofori paced around while talking on the phone and the woman followed him. At approximately 12:02 p.m., video from outside 146 Fort York Blvd shows the Asian woman with the red bag getting into a white SUV before it entered the parking garage under 150 Dan Leckie Way.

• The two blue-gloved assailants: These individuals jumped out of the black pickup truck, ran at Mr. Daniels-Sey’s Civic and hit him with firearms. They also entered and exited unit 701-101 Peter Street, one overlapping with Mr. Ahmed.

  • The first blue-gloved assailant seen exiting the truck in the video from 150 Dan Leckie Way resembled and was dressed similarly to the Little Guy, whom Mr. Ahmed identified as his drug dealer. He wore white sneakers, dark jeans, a short black puffer over a black hoodie, and blue surgical gloves. At 7:44 a.m., the Little Guy entered unit 701 with Mr. Ahmed; at 8:19 a.m., he left with Mr. Ahmed; and at 8:24 a.m., he returned with Mr. Ahmed. The Little Guy remained at the unit after Mr. Ahmed left. At 11:43 a.m., the Little Guy left the unit wearing blue surgical gloves with a second male described below.

  • The second blue-gloved assailant seen exiting the truck in the video from 150 Dan Leckie Way wore white high-top sneakers, a long, black, ankle-length puffer coat over a black hoodie, skinny black pants and blue surgical gloves. At 11:43 a.m., a male resembling him in identical clothing left unit 701 with the Little Guy. They returned at 11:48 a.m. and left again at 11:51 a.m. At 11:51 a.m., he donned the blue surgical gloves. This second male is shown on video at 150 Dan Leckie Way striking Mr. Daniels-Sey with a firearm. At one point while chasing Mr. Daniels-Sey in the garage, his white high-top sneaker fell off. He retrieved it during the chase.

49Mr. Ahmed was arrested at 9:06 p.m. on January 16, 2023 in a silver Mercedes with the license plate CTKC127. A silver Mercedes with license plate CTKC127 was rented at approximately 5:30 p.m. on January 16, 2023, in exchange for the early return of the black pickup truck only four days into the seven-day contract. Mr. Sundaram recalled that the reason provided for the exchange was that there was a mechanical issue with the truck or that the truck was “too big” and a more compact car was desired. Videos of the garage at 150 Dan Leckie Way show the driver of the black pickup truck having obvious difficulty maneuvering the truck in the parking garage.

50Mr. Sundaram testified that initially the masked male who returned the black pickup truck was not permitted to complete the exchange of the truck for the silver Mercedes without the renter on the contract – Mr. Chowdhury – present. At 5:19 p.m., the masked male returned with Mr. Chowdhury. The masked male stood at the counter and appeared to have a discussion with the attendant. Once again Mr. Chowdhury stood back from the counter, and appeared uninvolved except to provide his license and sign the contract. Video showed both the masked male and Mr. Chowdhury in the rental company garage at 5:34 p.m., walking past the returned black pickup truck with license plate BP94575.

Resemblance evidence

51The Crown invited me to compare images known to be Mr. Ahmed with images of the male who parked and exited the truck after the offences, and the male who returned for the truck approximately half an hour later, as well as images of Mr. Ahmed in Platinum Car & Truck Rental on January 13, 2023 and that of the masked male at Platinum on January 16, 2023. The Crown’s theory is that these images all depict Mr. Ahmed. The defence cautioned me against making such comparisons based on video evidence that was indeterminate or not of sufficient quality to make adequate comparisons. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Nikolovski, 1996 158 (SCC), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197 at paras. 22-23, 28 allows me, as the trier of fact, to review video footage for the purpose of identifying the accused. However, the video must be of sufficient clarity and quality for a positive identification to be made. If the video quality or clarity is too poor to perceive distinguishing features, the video’s value as incriminating evidence should be assessed with caution: R. v. M.B., 2017 ONCA 653, 356 C.C.C. (3d) 234, at paras. 32, 43.

52From the video surveillance evidence in this case, it is not possible to identify Mr. Ahmed as one of the individuals in the parking lot at 150 Dan Leckie Way on January 16, 2023. The clarity of this video is simply too grainy for definitive identification. Although the video from Platinum Car & Truck Rental is of sufficient quality and clarity, it is not possible to use that video to definitively identify Mr. Ahmed as the masked male on January 16, 2023, because the male’s head and the majority of his facial features are covered. Nevertheless, resemblances between videos admitted to be Mr. Ahmed and the videos from January 16, 2023, may be considered as part of the circumstantial evidence implicating Mr. Ahmed. Resemblance evidence asks whether there are features of an accused’s appearance that bear similarity to those of a participant in the offences. Although resemblance, without more, does not typically amount to identification, “the combined force of evidence of a resemblance and other inculpatory evidence may assist in completion of the prosecution’s proof”: R. v. Anderson, 2025 ONCA 408, 177 O.R. (3d) 241, at paras. 150,160-162, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, 41925 (March 12, 2026).

Comparison of videos of Mr. Ahmed from 701-101 Peter Street and the driver of the black pickup truck at 150 Dan Leckie Way

53From surveillance videos of 150 Dan Leckie Way, it is not possible to definitively identify as Mr. Ahmed the male who got out of the black pickup truck and left through the staircase with the other assailants. However, there are several similarities between the appearance of the male who got out of the black pickup truck (Exhibits 6(h), 11(m), 11(n), 11(o), 11(r), 11(u)) and Mr. Ahmed’s appearance on video from 701-101 Peter Street (Exhibits 9(c), 9(e), 9(g) and 9(h)):

• Both individuals have a similar heavy-set build, as Mr. Ahmed acknowledged in cross-examination;

• Both individuals have a similar gait – they walked with their toes noticeably pointed outward;

• Both individuals wore grey sweatpants made of a thin material that draped and flowed as they walked;

• Both individuals wore black running shoes with metal tags in front of the laces; and

• Both individuals wore a dark-coloured hoodie, that appeared to be a charcoal colour.

54There is also video showing a male arriving by taxi a half an hour after the offences, walking over to the truck and driving it out of the parking garage at 150 Dan Leckie Way. He too bore a resemblance to both Mr. Ahmed and the individual who parked the truck and left. He was of similar height, had a similar heavy-set build, wore grey sweatpants that draped and flowed, walked with his toes turned out and wore black running shoes with metal tags in front of the laces.

Comparison of videos from Platinum Car & Truck Rental on January 13 and January 16, 2023

55The video surveillance evidence from Platinum Car & Truck Rental is of sufficient quality and clarity that it is possible to compare video from January 13, 2023, when Mr. Ahmed admitted he was there, to the video from January 16, 2023, when the masked male returned to exchange the black pickup truck for the silver Mercedes. Mr. Ahmed denies that he was the masked male. Given that the masked male wore a surgical mask that covered his face up to the bottom of his eyes, and a hood that covered the top and sides of his head, it is not possible to positively identify Mr. Ahmed as the masked male from the video alone. However, I note the following similarities between Mr. Ahmed’s appearance on January 13, 2023 and that of the masked male on January 16, 2023:

• They both have similar light brown skin, which Mr. Ahmed acknowledged in his evidence;

• They are the same height. Surveillance video comparing Mr. Ahmed at the counter on January 13, 2023 and the masked male standing at the same spot at the counter on January 16, 2023, shows that the top of their heads reach the top of a camera mounted on the wall;

• They have a similar heavy-set build. The parka worn by Mr. Ahmed and the puffer worn by the masked male are different thicknesses but the body-type underneath is heavy-set;

• They have similar dark brown eyes, that are larger and round in shape; and

• They have similar black, bushy eyebrows.

56In addition to the resemblance evidence, Mr. Sundaram testified that he would not allow the masked male to return the black pickup truck in exchange for the silver Mercedes because the masked male was not named on the rental contract. Accordingly, about 50 minutes after the masked male tried to return the black pickup truck, Mr. Chowdhury returned to the rental agency with the masked male, who as described above, bore a strong resemblance to Mr. Ahmed. Similar to the original rental of the black pickup truck, the video surveillance evidence showed the masked male doing most of the talking about the exchange of the black pickup truck for the silver Mercedes.

Conclusion

57When I consider all of the circumstantial evidence together, I am satisfied that the only reasonable inferences I can draw in the circumstances are the following:

• The vehicle that was rented in Mr. Chowdhury’s name from Platinum Car & Truck Rental on January 13, 2023 was the black pickup truck with license plate BP94575;

• Mr. Ahmed drove that black pickup truck during the offences against Mr. Daniels-Sey in the parking garage of 150 Dan Leckie Way, which started at approximately 12:27 p.m. on January 16, 2023;

• Mr. Ahmed returned to 150 Dan Leckie Way for the black pickup truck at approximately 12:53 p.m. less than a half an hour later; and

• Mr. Ahmed was the masked male who, at approximately 4:30 p.m. on January 16, 2023, returned the black pickup truck to Platinum Car & Truck Rental and, with Mr. Chowdhury, exchanged it for the silver Mercedes, in which Mr. Ahmed was later found sleeping at the time of his arrest.

Has the Crown proven that, as the driver of the black pickup truck, Mr. Ahmed participated in each of the offences against Mr. Daniels-Sey?

58The Crown submitted that Mr. Ahmed was liable as a party to the offences on Mr. Daniels-Sey as an aider under s. 21(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 or as someone who formed a common intention with the other assailants to carry out a common unlawful purpose under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

Aiding

59To establish that Mr. Ahmed was a party to the offences as an aider under s. 21(1)(b), the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he: i) did or omitted to do something that assisted the perpetrators in committing the offences (the actus reus); and ii) that he provided assistance “for the purpose” of aiding the perpetrators in committing the offences, meaning that he intended to assist the perpetrators in committing the offences, and knew the perpetrators intended to commit the offences (the mens rea): R. v. Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 411, at paras. 15-18.

Common unlawful purpose

60To establish Mr. Ahmed’s liability as a party under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he “share[d] a common intent to commit an unlawful act with one or more other people, and one of those other people committed an offence that [Mr. Ahmed] knew or ought to have known was a probable consequence of the plan”: R. v. Araya, 2015 SCC 11, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 581, at para. 32. The Court of Appeal’s recent decision in R. v. Mohamed, 2025 ONCA 611 at paras. 42-44, explains that the Crown must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt to prove an accused is a party under s. 21(2):

(1) the agreement: a common intention between at least two people to carry out a common unlawful purpose – namely, a criminal offence;

(2) the incidental offence: one of the individuals who was part of the original agreement (not the accused) committed a different offence while carrying out the original agreement; and

(3) knowledge: subjective or objective foresight of the probability or likelihood “of the incidental offence being a consequence of carrying out the original common unlawful purpose”, unless the underlying offence requires proof of subjective foresight.

Was Mr. Ahmed a party to the aggravated assault on Mr. Daniels-Sey?

61It was conceded that an aggravated assault on Mr. Daniels-Sey occurred on January 16, 2023, contrary to section 268 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Daniels-Sey testified that the blue-gloved assailants struck him about the head and face with firearms without his consent. Surveillance video clearly depicts at least one of the blue-gloved assailants doing so several times. Mr. Daniels-Sey was wounded and maimed in the attack in the following ways: there were gashes on his face and head that required multiple stitches; his right eye was swollen shut and he could not see from it for weeks; he had a concussion; and he lost three teeth.

62I find that Mr. Ahmed aided the perpetrators of the aggravated assault on Mr. Daniels-Sey and therefore, is liable as a party under s. 21(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. In driving the black pickup truck, Mr. Ahmed did the following to assist them:

• He transported the firearm-wielding blue-gloved assailants, and a third assailant wearing a light blue tracksuit and balaclava, into the parking garage of 150 Dan Leckie Way;

• He brought the assailants to the white SUV in the parking lot, and maneuvered the black pickup truck while one assailant got out of the truck and into white SUV for thirty seconds, and then returned to the pickup truck (Exhibit 11(g));

• He concealed the assailants in the black pickup truck as they lay in wait for Mr. Daniels-Sey to enter the parking garage, so that they could ambush him;

• He boxed in Mr. Daniels-Sey’s Civic by pulling the black pickup truck in front of it and blocking its path to the garage exit, after which the blue-gloved assailants jumped out of the truck and ran towards Mr. Daniels-Sey;

• He remained in the black pickup truck until after the assailants had subdued Mr. Daniels-Sey in the back of the white SUV; and

• He attempted to drive Mr. Ofori and the assailant in the blue tracksuit out of the garage in the black pickup truck, but the garage door would not open.

These facts show that Mr. Ahmed intended to assist Mr. Ofori, and the other assailants in the black pickup truck and the white SUV, in an assault that he knew they intended to commit, in circumstances when it was objectively foreseeable that bodily harm would come to Mr. Daniels-Sey: R. v. Kaplan, 2019 BCCA 356 at paras. 41-42. Given the sheer number of participants in the assault, at least five individuals and two vehicles, it is evident that the assailants expected Mr. Daniels-Sey to resist, that they would need muscle to overpower him and he would likely sustain bodily harm in the process.

63Since I find Mr. Ahmed was a party to the aggravated assault under s. 21(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, I need not determine whether he was also a party under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

Was Mr. Ahmed a party to the use of an imitation firearm in assaulting Mr. Daniels-Sey?

64It was conceded that imitation firearms were used in the offences against Mr. Daniels-Sey, contrary to s. 85(2)(a) of the Criminal Code. At least one firearm held by one of the blue-gloved assailants is clearly visible in surveillance videos from the parking garage at 150 Dan Leckie Way (Exhibits 6(c) and 6(g)). Mr. Daniels-Sey testified that both blue-gloved assailants had firearms and both hit him with the butt end of their firearms. Mr. Daniels-Sey also described how once he was in the back of the white SUV, there were two individuals with firearms pointed at him. No firearm was ever recovered.

65The aggravated assault on Mr. Daniels-Sey is an underlying indictable offence for the purposes of using an imitation firearm to commit an indictable offence under s. 85(2)(a) of the Criminal Code. For Mr. Ahmed to be liable as a party under s. 21(1)(b) for the use of the imitation firearms, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he assisted the blue-gloved assailants for the purpose of committing an aggravated assault (the underlying indictable offence), knew that they intended to commit the underlying offence and knew that an imitation firearm would be used to carry it out: R. v. Kennedy, 2016 ONCA 879, 345 C.C.C. (3d) 530, at paras. 17-18, 24.

66I find that Mr. Ahmed knew the blue-gloved assailants would use imitation firearms in assaulting Mr. Daniels-Sey. Mr. Ahmed drove them to 150 Dan Leckie Way, harboured them in the black pickup truck before the attack in the parking garage for at least 15 minutes, and then waited with them in the garage to ambush Mr. Daniels-Sey. These circumstances and the level of planning and coordination required to ensure that the black pickup truck was properly positioned to block Mr. Daniels-Sey’s car from the exit, and for the ambush to succeed, indicate that all participants were aware imitation firearms would be used. See R. v. Patterson, 2018 ONCA 774 at paras. 14-16.

67Given that I find Mr. Ahmed liable as a party to the offence under s. 21(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, I need not consider whether he is also liable under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

Was Mr. Ahmed a party to the kidnapping of Mr. Daniels-Sey?

68It was conceded that when Mr. Daniels-Sey was forced into the trunk area of the white SUV against his will, confined there and transported across the visitor parking area to the garage door, he was kidnapped, contrary to s. 279(1) of the Criminal Code. Had the garage door been operating properly, the assailants would have driven off with him in the trunk of the white SUV. It was only Mr. Daniels-Sey’s quick thinking in disabling the garage door while he was being chased by the assailants that thwarted their ability to take him out of the building.

69Unlike the other offences, kidnapping is a continuing offence which begins when the victim is forcibly confined and taken away and continues for the duration of the victim’s confinement until the victim is freed. To prove an accused is a party to a kidnapping, the Crown need not prove that the accused took part in the initial act of kidnapping the victim. Rather, the Crown may prove that the accused was a party who joined in the kidnapping “enterprise” while the confinement of the victim was still underway, provided the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the participant intentionally aided the kidnappers in the continuing offence, and knew or was willfully blind to the fact that the victim had been kidnapped: R. v. Vu, 2012 SCC 40, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 411, at paras. 59-63, 71-72.

70The Crown fairly conceded that in this case, the kidnapping of Mr. Daniels-Sey appeared spontaneous – meaning that it was not part of the original plan to ambush and attack him. The presence of a dog in the white SUV and a dog crate that had to be removed from the trunk area to create room for Mr. Daniels-Sey, supports this concession. The question is whether once Mr. Daniels-Sey was confined in the white SUV, did Mr. Ahmed do anything to assist the kidnappers in the commission of the ongoing offence, knowing that they intended to continue Mr. Daniels-Sey’s confinement and transport him?

71I find that the answer to this question is, “Yes.” Surveillance video from 150 Dan Leckie Way shows that Mr. Daniels-Sey was forced into the trunk area of the white SUV at around 12:29:07 p.m. (Exhibit 6(e)). The movements of the black pickup truck on video moments later show that although Mr. Ahmed did not participate Mr. Daniels-Sey’s initial confinement, he knowingly assisted the other assailants in the ongoing kidnapping “enterprise” by doing the following:

• After Mr. Daniels-Sey was secured in the white SUV, the black pickup truck waited while Mr. Ofori hopped in at around 12:29:20 p.m. (Exhibit 6(c)), giving Mr. Ofori the opportunity to tell Mr. Ahmed what was transpiring with Mr. Daniels-Sey;

• Consistent with the plan to transport Mr. Daniels-Sey out of the parking garage, after the white SUV drove to the exit door, Mr. Ahmed maneuvered the black pickup truck behind it at 12:29:45 p.m., preventing another vehicle from pulling in directly behind it;

• At 12:30:06 p.m., the assailant in the blue tracksuit got back into the black pickup truck, to be transported out of the garage with Mr. Ofori by Mr. Ahmed; and

• At 12:32:15 p.m., when Mr. Ofori appeared to communicate to the occupants of the white SUV to give up transporting Mr. Daniels-Sey out of the garage, Mr. Ahmed maneuvered the black pickup truck back into the visitor parking area and parked it, leaving the garage with Mr. Ofori and the other assailants.

Based on these actions, I find Mr. Ahmed was a party to the continuing offence of kidnapping Mr. Daniels-Sey under s. 21(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, by providing assistance with the kidnapping “enterprise” from 12:29:20 p.m. until Mr. Daniels-Sey was freed and fled. Given that I find Mr. Ahmed liable as a party to the offence under s. 21(1)(b), I need not consider whether he is also liable under s. 21(2).

Was Mr. Ahmed a party to the forcible confinement of Mr. Daniels-Sey?

72Forcible confinement under s. 279(2) of the Criminal Code involves the coercive restraint of a person contrary to their wishes for any significant period of time, preventing the victim from moving about according to their own inclination and desire: R. v. Pritchard, 2008 SCC 59, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 195, at para. 24.

73Given the Crown’s concession that the kidnapping of Mr. Daniels-Sey was spontaneous, and my finding that Mr. Ahmed assisted the kidnapping enterprise as a party only after Mr. Daniels-Sey was confined in the back of the white SUV, I find that Mr. Ahmed was not a party to Mr. Daniels-Sey’s forcible confinement under s. 21(1)(b) or s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Ahmed did not assist the assailants in confining Mr. Daniels-Sey. Further, although there was an agreement on a common unlawful purpose, and forcible confinement was an incidental offence committed by the assailants who were part of the original agreement, I cannot say that Mr. Ahmed had subjective or objective foresight of the likelihood that a consequence of the original agreement to ambush and attack Mr. Daniels-Sey would be his forcible confinement.

74Accordingly, I find Mr. Ahmed not guilty of forcible confinement.

C. Weiler J.