CITATION: R. v. Bruce, 2026 ONSC 2307

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-30000598-0000

DATE: 20260312

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

LAWRENCE WAYNE BRUCE

Defendant

Jon McGrath and Matthew Shumka, for the Crown

Gabriel Gross-Stein, for the Defendant

HEARD: December 1, 8, 9 and 17, 2025

Contents

I. OVERVIEW... 2

II. THE EVIDENCE.. 3

A. The Agreed Facts. 3

B. The Testimony of Mr. Bruce. 5

C. The Testimony of Octavia Brown. 16

D. The Video Evidence. 16

III. PROOF OF INTENTION TO KILL.. 18

A. The Mens Rea for Murder 18

B. Credibility Findings Regarding the Testimony of the Accused. 20

C. Proof of Intention to Kill 23

D. Conclusion Regarding Intent to Kill 28

IV. PROVOCATION.. 29

A. The Law of Provocation. 29

Circumstantial Evidence to Establish Provocation. 30

The Characteristics to be Ascribed to the Ordinary Person. 31

B. Findings Regarding the Constituent Elements of the Defence. 34

V. CONCLUSION AND VERDICT. 38

1Dequan Demos was an aspiring rapper from Toronto who promoted his music through social media. Some of his songs contained insulting remarks about young men from the Malvern area who had been killed in acts of street violence. Mr. Demos identified himself with the Orton Park area, which had an ongoing rivalry with Malvern.

2The defendant, Lawrence Bruce, had never met Mr. Demos but he had seen his raps. Mr. Bruce had been close friends with at least two of the deceased young men referenced in the songs and found the lyrics deeply offensive.

3On the afternoon of September 5, 2023, Mr. Demos stopped at a gas station near Orton Park. While he was refuelling, Mr. Bruce arrived at the same station. Recognizing Mr. Demos from his online videos, Mr. Bruce confronted him about the disrespectful comments directed at his deceased friends. When Mr. Demos asked Mr. Bruce where he was from, Mr. Bruce responded by displaying four fingers, signifying both his connection to one of the deceased individuals and an affiliation with Malvern. The two men then engaged in a heated exchange. During this interaction, Mr. Demos placed his hand near his waistband in a manner suggesting he was carrying a gun. Mr. Bruce testified that Mr. Demos threatened to shoot him.

4After refuelling, Mr. Demos returned to his vehicle and drove away. Mr. Bruce followed him. Mr. Demos increased his speed in an attempt to evade Mr. Bruce, but Mr. Bruce continued to follow. After approximately 900 metres, Mr. Bruce drove ahead of Mr. Demos, steered his vehicle into Mr. Demos’s lane, and came to a stop, forcing Mr. Demos to stop as well. Mr. Demos then reversed his vehicle and attempted to drive west. Mr. Bruce reversed his own vehicle and blocked him. Mr. Demos then accelerated northbound in an apparent effort to escape. As Mr. Demos’s vehicle passed the front passenger side of Mr. Bruce’s car, Mr. Bruce fired a single shot from a 9 mm handgun, striking Mr. Demos in the temple and causing his death. Mr. Bruce then fled the scene.

5The Crown seeks a conviction for second degree murder. Mr. Bruce admits that he is guilty of manslaughter but denies that he intended to kill Mr. Demos. He testified that his purpose in firing the shot was only to intimidate Mr. Demos. He stated that he did not see Mr. Demos’s vehicle accelerating toward him and did not realize that Mr. Demos was in his line of fire. Mr. Bruce described the fact that the shot struck Mr. Demos in the head as “the worst coincidence.”

6The first issue at trial is whether the Crown has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Bruce intended to kill Mr. Demos. If the Crown meets this burden, the defence argues that Mr. Bruce acted under provocation and should therefore be found guilty only of manslaughter.

II. THE EVIDENCE

7Mr. Bruce’s testimony is relevant to both the issue of intent and the defence of provocation. Although these issues overlap, he is entitled to a separate W.(D.) analysis for each: see R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. Accordingly, I will first outline the evidence I have considered in assessing intent and then make the necessary credibility findings on that issue. After completing that analysis, I will review the evidence relating to provocation and, where required, set out any additional or different credibility findings that pertain solely to that defence.

A. The Agreed Facts

8Most of the events related to the shooting were captured on video and were the subject of an agreed statement of facts.

9The shooting took place at approximately 4:47 p.m. Shortly beforehand, both Mr. Demos and Mr. Bruce arrived separately at the Shell gas station located at 1201 Markham Road. Mr. Demos, who was driving a black Toyota sedan, arrived first and got out to pump gas. His girlfriend, Octavia Brown, was seated in the front passenger seat. Mr. Bruce arrived about two minutes later in a white Range Rover SUV. Upon his arrival, the two men exchanged words. Mr. Bruce remained seated in the driver’s seat of his vehicle and spoke to Mr. Demos through his open driver’s window. Mr. Demos was standing near the rear of his own vehicle while continuing to pump gas.

10Mr. Demos then returned to his vehicle, reversed away from the gas pump, and drove toward the northern exit of the gas station. He turned south onto Markham Road. At the same time, Mr. Bruce drove forward, turned within the station, and proceeded to the southern exit. He also turned south onto Markham Road.

11Mr. Demos drove south on Markham Road, then turned west onto Brimorton Drive, and then north onto Dolly Varden Boulevard. Mr. Bruce followed him through each turn.

12While both vehicles were travelling north on Dolly Varden Boulevard, Mr. Bruce accelerated, passed Mr. Demos’s vehicle, and came to a stop. This caused Mr. Demos to stop as well. Mr. Demos then began reversing his vehicle, and Mr. Bruce reversed in response. Mr. Demos then attempted to drive past Mr. Bruce on the passenger side of Mr. Bruce’s vehicle.

13As Mr. Demos attempted to pass, Mr. Bruce fired a gun through the area of his open front passenger window. The bullet struck Mr. Demos in the left temple. After being shot, Mr. Demos’s vehicle continued forward, mounted a curb, and came to rest against a tree. He died from his injuries.

14At the time the shot was fired, Mr. Bruce was seated in the driver’s seat of his vehicle. The bullet travelled through the open driver’s window of Mr. Demos’s car, struck him in the left temple, exited through his right cheek, and continued through the closed front passenger window.

15Ms. Octavia Brown was seated in the front passenger seat of Mr. Demos’s vehicle when the shot was fired. After Mr. Demos was shot, the Toyota continued forward past Mr. Bruce’s stationary car. While the vehicle was still moving, Ms. Brown opened the front passenger door and jumped onto the roadway. Mr. Bruce accelerated past both Ms. Brown and Mr. Demos’s vehicle and escaped from the scene.

16Ms. Brown testified that Mr. Demos was driving her home when they stopped for gas. Ordinarily, the route to her home would have required him to travel north on Markham Road and then west on Highway 401. Instead, when leaving the gas station, he turned south on Markham Road, then west on Brimorton Drive, and finally north on Dolly Varden Boulevard, where the shooting occurred.

17A total of 1 minute and 49 seconds elapsed between the time Mr. Demos left the gas station and the moment he was shot.¹ The distance travelled during that period was 891 metres.

B. The Testimony of Mr. Bruce

18The accused began his testimony by describing his upbringing, family circumstances, and early involvement in criminal activity. He stated that his mother suffered from significant mental health issues and, in his words, “pushed many of her issues” onto him. He experienced behavioural difficulties at school and was diagnosed with anxiety and ADHD. By age 12, he was using marijuana heavily, and by age 14, he had begun selling crack cocaine. He testified that he had been shot at on “multiple occasions” and was stabbed in the chest at age 16. At age 19, he was convicted of possessing a loaded handgun and trafficking in a Schedule I substance, for which he served more than one year in custody. He was released approximately six months before the present offence. At the time of the offence, he was subject to a firearms prohibition under s. 109 and a probation order requiring that he not possess any weapons.

19Mr. Bruce testified that he lost several friends to violence during his youth. One of his closest friends, Kareem Deerr (known as “Reemy”) was stabbed to death at the Scarborough Town Centre when he was 15 years old. Reemy’s favourite number, which he wore on all his sport jerseys, was “44.” Mr. Bruce and others adopted this number as a way of honouring him, often “throwing up” four fingers to symbolize their connection to Reemy. Mr. Bruce acknowledged that some people associated the number “44” with Malvern, but he maintained that he used the gesture solely to remember his friend. The Crown did not dispute the sincerity of Mr. Bruce’s attachment to Reemy. In cross‑examination, the Crown elicited evidence that Mr. Bruce kept a small shrine to Reemy in his bedroom, including a sweatshirt bearing Reemy’s picture with a halo above his head.

20Mr. Bruce also had a close friend, Shane Guthrie, who was killed in a drug house in Timmins, Ontario, in November 2021. Mr. Guthrie’s nickname was “28,” a reference to his birthday. Mr. Bruce stated that they had been close since childhood and that Mr. Guthrie’s death had a significant impact on him.

21Mr. Bruce used several social media platforms, including Snapchat and YouTube. Through these platforms, he had viewed multiple rap videos posted by Dequon Demos, who performed under the name “Dopeboy DQ.” In these videos, Mr. Demos depicted himself as a gangster who carried firearms, disrespected others, and spoke of participating in shootouts. Mr. Demos and others appearing with him would raise their fingers in a “5‑4” gesture to signify their association with the Orton Park area of Scarborough.²

22Mr. Bruce testified that “Dopeboy DQ” repeatedly made highly disrespectful references in his lyrics to both Reemy and Shane. By way of example, he identified one lyric directed at Shane (“28”):

Q. Okay. And, and then you mentioned that — the line, "Smoking on Glee and we mixing with 28", and that's the last line here?

A. Yes…

Q. So just explain to us what — how you understood that.

A. Well, smoking on somebody is usually when their — they've passed away — they've died, and smoking is just disrespectful. It's just something rude to say about a dead person. And, "Mixing with 2-8" is, essentially — smoking is — smoking on somebody's ashes. And when you're mixing them, you're mixing two dead people's ashes together.

Q. Okay. So, so just so we understand, like, the idea of smoking on somebody, it's like you're, like, smoking their ashes. And that's — what — like, how disrespectful is that?

A. It's one of the most disrespectful things you could say.³

23The defence tendered five of Mr. Demos’s videos, each containing similar references to the friends of Mr. Bruce who had died. The Crown did not dispute Mr. Bruce’s evidence that the references to “44” and “28” related to his deceased friends or that the lyrics were intended to be insulting. Ms. Brown acknowledged that her boyfriend’s music included numerous “diss” tracks containing disparaging comments about young men from the “44” neighbourhood who had been killed.

24Two days before the shooting, Mr. Bruce received a video from an individual he knew only as “100 OTD.” The video was a screen recording of a Dopeboy DQ clip that Mr. Demos had sent directly to 100 OTD, a member of the Malvern community who shared Mr. Bruce’s anger over the insulting remarks. Mr. Bruce confirmed that he received the video but told 100 OTD to relax and “leave it alone.” ⁴

25On September 5, Mr. Bruce was in the area of Ellesmere Road and Markham Road to have his hair braided. After the appointment, he drove to the gas station to refuel. When he arrived, he saw Mr. Demos pumping gas and immediately recognized him as “Dopeboy DQ.” Mr. Bruce testified that the following exchange then took place:

Bruce: Yo, who’s that? Dopeboy DQ?

Demos: Yo, who’s that?

Bruce: (Provides an assurance not to worry, then) Let me just holla at you.

Demos: Wah gwaan, where are you from?

Bruce: (Throws up four fingers) You know what’s gwanin.

You talk a lot of shit on the internet. What’s wrong with you?

Demos: Fuck Reemy. I have it (i.e. a gun) on me right now. I’ll smoke you.”

Bruce: All you do is talk shit, dissing people you have nothing to do with.

Demos: We’ve been smoking on Reemy. Fuck 2-8. I know who got him.

Bruce: You’re a bitch. I have my gun on me too. Watch your mouth.

Demos: Who are you talking to? I’ll slap it at you right now (meaning I will shoot you).

Bruce: Don’t be stupid. There’s cameras around. Just let my friends rest in peace.

Demos: (Walking to car) Fuck your dead homies. You’re going to get it too.⁵

26Mr. Bruce testified that when he raised four fingers, Mr. Demos smiled and reached toward his hip in a way that Mr. Bruce believed indicated he was carrying a gun. When Mr. Demos said, “I’ll slap it at you right now,” Mr. Bruce understood this to mean that he was threatening to shoot him. Mr. Bruce stated that he felt extremely angry and threatened:

Q. Okay. So you're, you're getting — like you said, you're very angry from the way he's speaking. And he's — you've described some threats he made towards you. What's your reaction to the, to the threats?

A. When I feel threatened, it causes me to become very angry. I feel that I can't show my fear. I've got to show that I'm not afraid of the person. So that's what I'm doing. I'm talking back to him. I'm letting him know that I'm not scared of him.

27After Mr. Demos returned to his vehicle and drove out of the gas station, Mr. Bruce decided to follow him. He testified that his intention was to record a video of Mr. Demos fleeing from him and then post it online to embarrass him. He explained his reasoning as follows:

Q. Okay. So what do you mean, like, "take a video"? Why are you — why you want to take a video of him?

A. I want to record him so that I can post it online and I can humiliate him and show people that the things he's saying is not true, and he's lying about everything he's saying.

Q. Okay. So just walk me, walk me through, sir, how recording him is going to achieve that purpose.

A. Well, like I said earlier, the internet plays a big role in my generation. He's an underground rapper. He's trying to come up. He's trying to start his music career. So if I can discredit everything he's saying, I'll take away that power that he has on social media and his music. His, his persona and his name is, essentially, ruined.

Q. Okay. So how is taking a video going to ruin his persona and name? Like, what's — what — how is the video going to do that?

A. I'll get to post it online... and I'll get to show people that he's driving away from me. He's not about the type of stuff he's talking about in his music.⁶

28Mr. Bruce followed Mr. Demos south on Markham Road, west on Brimorton Drive, and then north on Dolly Varden Boulevard. While driving north on Dolly Varden, he rolled down his front passenger window and moved into the southbound lane in an effort to drive alongside Mr. Demos’s vehicle and capture a video showing his face. He stated that he was “super upset” at the time and inadvertently drove past Mr. Demos’s car. He then stopped and began reversing so that he could obtain a clearer video identifying Mr. Demos. As he reversed, Mr. Demos also began reversing.

29At around this point, Mr. Bruce testified that he heard Mr. Demos say something about “255.” He assumed Mr. Demos was speaking to someone on the phone. Hearing “255” reminded him that they had stopped directly in front of 255 Dolly Varden Boulevard, which he understood to be “Dopeboy DQ’s” neighbourhood. Mr. Bruce stated that he suddenly believed he was being set up and feared that Mr. Demos had summoned associates who might emerge from the complex to attack him. Acting on that belief, he threw down his phone, retrieved his gun from beneath his leg, and immediately fired a single shot out of the passenger window. He testified that his purpose was to warn Mr. Demos not to shoot him and to deter any of Mr. Demos’s associates who he feared might be nearby.⁷

30Mr. Bruce testified that when he fired the shot, he believed that Mr. Demos was still behind him:

Q. Okay. And when — as you're doing that, where do you believe Mr. Demos and his vehicle to be?

A. I assumed he was still in the same position I had last saw him, which was a couple of feet behind my car.

Q. All right. And as — when did you realize that he's not in that position?

A. The moment I fired my gun is when I realized he, he was in front of me.

Q. Did you expect him — like, were you expecting him to advance again, to accelerate?

A. No, I was not expecting him to drive in front of me at all.

Q. Why not?

A. I just assumed he was trying to get away from me. He had done that. He was behind my car. It didn't make any sense to me that he would want to pass my car again.

Q. Okay. So go ahead from there, sir.

A. So once I fire my gun, and I realize he's in front of me, and I may have shot him, I was, I was in shock. I, I didn't shoot my gun again. I, I was scared, at that point

31Mr. Bruce denied ever intending to kill Mr. Demos. He stated that his aim was only to frighten him and to deter him from making further disrespectful remarks about his friends in his music. He described the fact that the shot struck Mr. Demos as “the worst coincidence that could have happened.” ⁸

32Mr. Bruce provided the following evidence under cross-examination:

a. The neighbourhoods of Orton Park and Malvern were at war with one another at the time of the shooting.⁹

b. The gun that he used was a Glock 9 mm semi-automatic handgun which he had obtained about six months prior to the shooting and kept on his person most of the time.

c. The gun was in his glovebox when he first entered the gas station but when Mr. Demos said, “we’ve been smoking on Reemy”, he took it out of the glovebox and put it under his leg.

d. When he drove out of the gas station and turned southbound on Markham, the front passenger’s side window of his car had been closed. He opened the window while he was driving north on Dolly Varden so that he could obtain a video of Mr. Demos.

e. Mr. Demos was driving at “a good pace” to escape from Mr. Bruce.¹⁰

f. Mr. Bruce denied that he cut off Mr. Demos to force him to stop on Dolly Varden Boulevard. He testified that it was a coincidence that both cars stopped at the same time.¹¹

g. He first heard “255” when he put his foot on the brake to stop from reversing.¹² Later in his testimony, he was uncertain when he heard “255” and believes it might have occurred when he passed Mr. Demos near 255 Dolly Varden Boulevard.¹³

h. Mr. Bruce recalled that he was the first to back up at 255 Dolly Varden and when Mr. Demos reversed, he was no longer able to see him over his shoulder.¹⁴

33Mr. Bruce acknowledged that when he heard the reference to “255,” he was positioned ahead of Mr. Demos’s vehicle and could have driven away if he feared that Mr. Demos was calling for backup:

Q. Okay. And in terms of what you're trying to do by sending that shot, you're trying to scare Mr. Demos, still?

A. Trying to scare him, intimidate him. I'm trying to let him know, at that point, that I did have my gun on me.

Q. Right.

A. Because at the time that I fire my gun is when I realize where we are. I realize he's calling for backup. I realize he's a few feet behind me and I have lost the position that I originally was in, and I'm now in danger. I'm in front of him. And at any moment, I'm thinking he can, he can shoot at, he can shoot at me.

Q. Right.

A. So I pull my — I make the decision to pull my firearm out when I realize how much danger I'm in.

Q. Okay. And at this point, you — you're the one that's been chasing him.

A. Correct.

Q. He's — you — he's backing up, right?

A. Correct.

Q. You can drive off.

A. Yes.

Q. You don't. You get your gun ready, instead.

A. Yes.¹⁵

34He also acknowledged that he reversed his vehicle toward Mr. Demos at a time when he claimed to be afraid that Mr. Demos was about to shoot him:

Q. I've gone through to 13:04 on the player. So now I've just seen Mr. Demos backing up and you're backing up too, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Now when you're closing the distance here, are you — at this point, you're scared that he's going to shoot you, still?

A. Yes.¹⁶

35And although his car was ahead of Mr. Demos’s car, he felt “boxed in” when Mr. Demos reversed his car:

A. I'm trying to let him know, "Yo, don't, don't shoot at me." I'm not trying to get shot at.

Q. Yeah.

A. I'm not trying to get shot at first. I'm trying to let anybody — I'd heard him say something about 2—5—5, and at the time I assumed he was on the phone with a friend. So I'm trying to let other people know not to come outside. At that point, when my car overtakes his car and I'm now in front of him, I'm feeling that I'm being, essentially, boxed in because he's reversing and he's behind me now. I've lost control, kind of.

Q. You feel boxed in, notwithstanding the fact that you have an open roadway dead ahead of you, is what you're telling me? You felt boxed in?

A. I didn't — I didn't necessarily feel boxed in, but I thought I was being set up and I thought I was being outnumbered in the area that I was in.

Q. There was no one else on the roadway that you saw, correct?

A. Not that I saw, no.

C. The Testimony of Octavia Brown

36Ms. Brown was seated in the front passenger seat of the vehicle throughout the argument at the gas station and remained there until she jumped from the car immediately after the shot was fired. She knew that Mr. Demos was arguing with someone at the station, but she could not hear most of the exchange because the windows were closed, the doors were shut, and she was watching TikTok videos on her phone. She mainly heard Mr. Demos’s voice. She described the argument as being of “medium” intensity. The only part of the conversation she recalled was Mr. Demos asking the other man, “Where are you from?”

37Once Mr. Demos returned to the car, he and Ms. Brown did not speak. He turned on one of his own songs, and they drove out of the gas station. Ms. Brown noticed that the white Range Rover from the station was following them. She believed that Mr. Demos was also aware of this. While they were driving, he said, “Everything will be okay.”

38Ms. Brown saw the Range Rover pull up beside their vehicle, and Mr. Demos slowed down. When she looked to her left, she saw that the front passenger window of the Range Rover was open. She observed the driver raise his right hand, which was holding a gun, and fire a shot toward Mr. Demos. She immediately realized that Mr. Demos had been shot in the head and jumped from the moving vehicle.

39Octavia Brown identified Mr. Bruce in a photo lineup which was shown to her on the day after the shooting.

D. The Video Evidence

Video from the Gas Station

40The gas station video shows Mr. Demos pumping gas before the accused arrived. One camera captures all of Mr. Demos’s movements. The accused’s movements are recorded by several other cameras. At no point do the two men appear together on the same camera.

41The gas station video provides a clear image of Mr. Demos while he was speaking to the accused. Shortly after the exchange began, Mr. Demos placed his left hand near his waistband in a manner that would suggest that he was carrying a firearm. It is not clear that this gesture would have been visible to the accused, as the Toyota sedan was positioned between them, but it appears likely that Mr. Demos intended Mr. Bruce to believe he was armed. The verbal exchange between the two men lasted less than 30 seconds.¹⁷

42When Mr. Demos left the station, the driver’s window of his car was up.

43Mr. Bruce followed Mr. Demos immediately after he left the gas station. He did not put any gas into his own vehicle. His front passenger window was also closed when he drove away.

Video from the Roadway

44At Unit 77 of 255 Dolly Varden, the Range Roger was driving northbound in the southbound lane and was about one car length behind the Toyota.¹⁸

Video of the Shooting at 255 Dolly Varden Boulevard

45The shooting was captured by a westward facing camera positioned on top of 255 Dolly Varden Boulevard. I find that the video shows the following:¹⁹

a. As the two vehicles approached the driveway of 255 Dolly Varden Boulevard, the Range Rover was travelling northbound in the southbound lane, while the Toyota was in the northbound lane. At the beginning of the video clip, the Toyota was slightly ahead. As they neared the driveway, however, the Range Rover accelerated and passed the Toyota just before reaching the entrance to 255 Dolly Varden Boulevard.

b. Once the Range Rover moved ahead of the Toyota, Mr. Bruce steered it into the northbound lane and braked sharply. The Toyota was forced to stop to avoid a collision.

c. Mr. Demos then reversed the Toyota approximately 3–4 metres and began turning toward the west, possibly intending to enter an empty parking lot on the west side of Dolly Varden Boulevard. Mr. Bruce reversed the Range Rover, blocking Mr. Demos from turning west.

d. As the Range Rover was reversing, Mr. Demos began to accelerate northwards again, evidently trying to get past the Range Rover and escape the confrontation. As the Toyota began to move forward, the Range Rover stopped.

e. As the Toyota moved past the stationary Range Rover, Mr. Bruce fired the fatal shot through his open passenger window.

f. At the moment the shot was fired, the two vehicles were positioned side by side. The distance between the firearm and the deceased’s head was less than ten feet.

III. PROOF OF INTENTION TO KILL

A. The Mens Rea for Murder

46The offence of murder is established in section 229(a) of the Criminal Code:

229 Culpable homicide is murder

(a) where the person who causes the death of a human being

(i) means to cause his death, or

(ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;

47The mental element of the offence is well established:

[48] In contrast, “a conviction for murder cannot rest on anything less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt of subjective foresight” (R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636, at p. 654 (emphasis added); R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633, at p. 646). Murder is distinguished from manslaughter “only by the mental element with respect to the death” (Vaillancourt, at p. 654, quoted in Creighton, at p. 17, per Lamer C.J., concurring). The requisite intent for murder is “an intent to kill or an intent to cause bodily harm that the offender knows is likely to cause death and is reckless as to whether or not death ensues” (R. v. Walle, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 438, at para. 3).

[50] … any slippage from the high bar of subjective intent required for murder must be avoided. The accused’s actions are not to be measured against the objective standard of a reasonable person in the same circumstances. The mens rea for murder requires more than an intention to cause bodily harm that the accused knew was dangerous; an accused must have intended to cause bodily harm that they knew was likely to cause death.

R. v. Hodgson, 2024 SCC 25

48The Crown’s principal submission is that Mr. Bruce intended to kill Mr. Demos when he shot him in the head at close range with a 9 mm handgun. The Crown alternatively submits that when Mr. Bruce fired the shot, he meant to cause bodily harm to Mr. Demos that he knew was likely to cause his death and was reckless whether death ensued or not. Liability under section 229(a)(ii) is only a slight relaxation of the intent required under section 229(a)(i):

29 …The section requires that the Crown prove that the accused meant to cause the victim such bodily harm that he knew that it was likely to cause the death of the victim and was reckless whether death ensued or not as a result of causing that bodily harm. The essential element is that of intending to cause bodily harm of such a grave and serious nature that the accused knew that it was likely to result in the death of the victim. The aspect of recklessness is almost an afterthought in so far as the basic intent is concerned.

R. v. Nygaard, [1989] S.C.J. No. 110

B. Credibility Findings Regarding the Testimony of the Accused

49The essence of Mr. Bruce’s evidence is that the shooting was accidental. He says he only fired his gun to warn Mr. Demos that he was armed and to deter any of Mr. Demos’s associates who might have contemplated coming to assist him. He testified that he did not see Mr. Demos driving forward and did not anticipate that he would do so. He did not realize Mr. Demos was in the line of fire. If there is a reasonable possibility that this account is true, even if I do not accept it, then he must be acquitted of murder.

50There are immediate concerns regarding Mr. Bruce’s credibility as a witness. At the time of this offence, he had only recently been released after serving a custodial sentence for possessing a loaded handgun and for possession of Schedule I substances for the purpose of trafficking. Despite being subject to both a firearms prohibition and probation conditions, he nonetheless obtained a new firearm and carried it on his person at all times. His disregard for court‑imposed orders undermines his credibility.

51In addition, during his testimony, Mr. Bruce effectively refused to identify individuals who played significant roles in the events surrounding Mr. Demos’s death. He declined to provide any information which would identify the person who sold him the gun, the individual he knew as “100 OTD,” or the person who helped him dispose of the Range Rover after the shooting. His lack of candour lessens the reliability of his evidence. It suggests that he is less likely to feel bound by his oath and more likely to tailor his evidence to serve his own interests.

52I also note that Mr. Bruce consistently testified in a manner that cast himself in the most favourable light. For example, he claimed that in the months before the homicide, he had distanced himself from people who associated “44” with Malvern because he viewed them as a negative influence. He also testified that he “would never kill anyone”. Mr. Bruce came close to portraying himself as a person of good character, despite substantial evidence to the contrary.

53There are several aspects of Mr. Bruce’s testimony that I do not accept. I reject his evidence on the following points:

a. Mr. Bruce testified that Mr. Demos was the aggressor at the gas station and that, by the end of their interaction, he felt intimidated and afraid. This claim is inconsistent with the clear evidence. Mr. Demos did not know Mr. Bruce. He was simply stopping for gas before driving his girlfriend home when a stranger arrived, made a gesture associated with a rival neighbourhood, and initiated a hostile argument. Mr. Demos was not carrying any weapon. He left the gas station immediately, and when Mr. Bruce followed him, he increased his speed in an effort to get away. The video evidence shows that Mr. Demos did everything he could to avoid Mr. Bruce. I find that Mr. Bruce, not Mr. Demos, was the aggressor in this encounter.

b. Mr. Bruce testified that he intended to record a video of Mr. Demos as he attempted to escape to portray him as a coward, undermine his online persona, and strip him of his power. I do not accept this explanation. It is not credible that a video showing Mr. Demos driving in an ordinary manner would have the effect Mr. Bruce described. It is equally implausible that Mr. Bruce would drive at high speed, in the wrong lane of a city street, simply to obtain a video that would hold no significance to anyone who viewed it.

c. Mr. Bruce testified that he did not angle his vehicle into the northbound lane on Dolly Varden Boulevard to bring the Toyota to a stop. He described it as “a coincidence” that both vehicles came to rest at the same location. I do not accept this evidence. The agreed statement of facts indicates that Mr. Demos stopped his vehicle “as a result” of Mr. Bruce’s manoeuvre, and based on my own review of the video, that description is accurate. Mr. Demos was attempting to flee from Mr. Bruce; he did not stop for no reason. Mr. Bruce accelerated past him, then angled into the northbound lane to cut him off.

d. Mr. Bruce testified that he heard Mr. Demos say “255,” and that this caused a sudden fear prompting him to fire his gun. His evidence on this point was inconsistent as to when he supposedly heard the word spoken, and it is difficult to see how he could have heard it at all. The only moment when the driver’s side of the Toyota was aligned with the open passenger window of the Range Rover was the instant when the shot was fired. At all other times, once the vehicles had stopped on Dolly Varden Boulevard, they were separated by at least a car length. Given the engine noise from both vehicles, the distance between them, and the fact that Mr. Demos was, at most, speaking on a cell phone rather than shouting toward Mr. Bruce, I do not believe that Mr. Bruce could have heard him say “255.” Ms. Brown recalled that Mr. Demos was speaking to a friend on the phone while they were driving, but she did not recall him ever saying “255.”

e. Mr. Bruce testified that when he heard Mr. Demos say “255,” he suddenly recognized that Mr. Demos had associates standing by at that location and that he was being lured into a trap. The agreed timeline shows that Mr. Demos left the gas station at 4:45:15 and the shot was fired at 4:47:04—a total of one minute and 49 seconds. I do not accept Mr. Bruce’s claim that he believed Mr. Demos had a group of armed associates at 255 Dolly Varden Boulevard who could be assembled within a minute to ambush him as he drove by. If he did have even the slightest fear of such a possibility, he would have continued to drive by the area. Instead, he stopped his car and forced Mr. Demos to do the same.

f. Mr. Bruce testified that he lost sight of Mr. Demos when the Toyota reversed, and that this caused him to fear that Mr. Demos was about to shoot him. I do not accept this evidence. Exhibit 4, Slide 9 clearly shows that once the vehicles came to a stop on Dolly Varden Boulevard, the Toyota was directly behind and to the right of the Range Rover. Nothing would have prevented Mr. Bruce from seeing it in either his side or rear‑view mirrors. Further, the movements of the Range Rover demonstrate that Mr. Bruce did see Mr. Demos because when Mr. Demos reversed and attempted to turn west, Mr. Bruce reversed to block him. It is simply not believable that Mr. Bruce would reverse toward Mr. Demos if he genuinely believed that Mr. Demos was preparing to shoot him. If he feared being shot, he would have accelerated forward, as the roadway ahead of him was completely unobstructed.

54In my view, the video evidence clearly contradicts Mr. Bruce’s claim that the shooting was accidental. Mr. Bruce forced Mr. Demos to stop by accelerating past him on the left and then angling his vehicle into Mr. Demos’s lane. When Mr. Demos reversed in an effort to escape, Mr. Bruce also reversed, blocking his path. As soon as Mr. Demos then began to move forward, Mr. Bruce brought his own vehicle to a stop and waited until his front passenger window was aligned with the driver’s window of the Toyota. He then fired the shot.

55There was no reason for Mr. Bruce to fire a warning shot. Mr. Demos was obviously attempting to flee from him and was accelerating northbound for that purpose. There were no associates of Mr. Demos present, and there was no imminent threat to Mr. Bruce. If the shot had truly been intended as a warning, Mr. Bruce could have fired into the air through his own driver’s window or through the open passenger window. Instead, he levelled the shot directly at the driver’s side window of Mr. Demos’s oncoming vehicle and in the general direction of a densely populated townhouse complex.

56I do not accept Mr. Bruce’s evidence and find that it cannot reasonably be true.

C. Proof of Intention to Kill

57The same evidence which causes me to reject the testimony of the accused satisfies me that he did intend to kill the victim. That evidence includes the following:

a. Mr. Bruce had a very strong animus against the victim because of the disrespect which he had shown to his deceased friends and, by extension, the Malvern community.

b. Mr. Bruce confronted the deceased at the gas station and provoked an argument which was sufficiently hostile that the victim pretended that he was carrying a firearm to escape from the situation.

c. Mr. Bruce followed Mr. Demos when he left the gas station and kept pace with him to prevent him from escaping. Mr. Bruce followed him aggressively until he was able to bring his vehicle to a stop.

d. Mr. Bruce had immediate access to a loaded and racked 9 mm handgun throughout the pursuit.

e. When Mr. Demos attempted to escape from Mr. Bruce by reversing his car and moving westward, Mr. Bruce reversed his own car to block him.

f. As Mr. Demos began to move northward, Mr. Bruce stopped his own car and waited. As Mr. Demos passed by his passenger window, Mr. Bruce fired the fatal shot.

g. The shot was fired at close range from a stationary position with a powerful handgun. The target of the shot was the victim’s head.

h. Octavia Brown saw Mr. Bruce as he raised his right hand and fired the shot. She did not report seeing Mr. Bruce throw down his phone prior to firing the shot. It is clear that Ms. Brown had a good opportunity to observe these events as she was able to identify Mr. Bruce in a photo line-up the next day.

i. Mr. Bruce immediately fled the scene and discarded any evidence which could connect him to the shooting.

58Mr. Gross‑Stein submits that the following circumstances, which are independent of the accused’s testimony, are capable of raising a reasonable doubt:

a. The shooting was committed with a semi-automatic handgun which was capable of firing shots as quickly as the accused could pull the trigger. The fact that Mr. Bruce fired only shot one when he could have fired many raises a doubt as to whether he intended to kill the deceased.

b. Mr. Bruce did not fire at Mr. Demos at the first opportunity. He could have done so when their vehicles were travelling side by side as they approached 255 Dolly Varden Boulevard. The fact that he did not take this opportunity, it is argued, suggests that he did not intend to shoot Mr. Demos at that time and only did so because of something that occurred once they reached 255 Dolly Varden Boulevard.

c. Mr. Bruce was driving his own vehicle and would have known that he could be easily identified from the gas station video. It is argued that Mr. Bruce would not have intentionally killed someone in circumstances where his identity could so readily be determined.

d. The defence further submits that the shot itself was exceptionally precise, striking the deceased in the temple. Given the stressful circumstances, the accused’s emotional state, and the fact that the deceased was moving when the shot was fired, such accuracy would have been impossible to achieve deliberately. The defence argues that the bullet’s impact on such a vulnerable area must have been a matter of chance rather than intent.

59With great respect, I do not accept any of these arguments.

Only one shot

60I accept Mr. Gross‑Stein’s submission that, had Mr. Bruce fired multiple shots rather than one, there would be no possible doubt that he intended to kill the deceased. However, the fact that he fired only a single shot does not, in itself, raise a reasonable doubt. The one shot he did fire struck Mr. Demos directly in the temple.

61Mr. Bruce testified that he was unsure whether he had hit Mr. Demos. I do not accept that evidence. Ms. Brown testified that she immediately realized Mr. Demos had been shot in the head, and her reaction of instinctively throwing herself from the moving vehicle leaves no doubt about the reliability of her recollection. Although she was not asked to specify what she observed which caused her to know that her boyfriend had been shot in the head, her conduct leaves no doubt that the signs were instantly apparent.

62Mr. Bruce observed the same impact, albeit from a different vantage point. His subsequent actions of fleeing the scene, destroying his phone, and disposing of the Range Rover leave no doubt that he knew the bullet had struck Mr. Demos in the head. Firing additional shots was unnecessary and would only have delayed his escape.

Not taking the first opportunity to shoot

63Mr. Gross‑Stein submits that Mr. Bruce did not take the first available opportunity to shoot Mr. Demos when the two vehicles were travelling side by side on Dolly Varden Boulevard. He argues that this supports the possibility that Mr. Bruce did not intend to kill Mr. Demos and only fired out of panic when Mr. Demos’s vehicle was behind him near 255 Dolly Varden Boulevard. I do not accept this submission. While it may be true that Mr. Bruce could have fired at Mr. Demos as he first passed him, doing so at that point would have been extremely difficult. There is no precise evidence of the vehicles’ speed after leaving the gas station but the video shows that they were travelling quickly, and Mr. Bruce himself acknowledged that they were moving at “a good pace.” It is unsurprising, in my view, that Mr. Bruce did not attempt to shoot Mr. Demos while both vehicles were travelling at high speed, and while he himself was driving in the wrong lane of traffic. His object in passing Mr. Demos was not to shoot him, but to bring him to a stop.

64I am satisfied that the first realistic opportunity for Mr. Bruce to shoot Mr. Demos was when his own vehicle had come to a stop and Mr. Demos was beginning to accelerate past him.

Mr. Bruce knew that he could be identified

65I accept that a reasonable person in Mr. Bruce’s position would have recognized the possibility that he was captured on video when he was arguing with Mr. Demos at the gas station video and his licence plate might also have been recorded. This realization would deter many people from subsequently committing a murder. The fact that Mr. Bruce was not deterred does not, however, give rise to any reasonable doubt about his intention to kill.

66It is not obvious that Mr. Bruce would have been identifiable from the gas station video. He never left his vehicle or approached the pumps where cameras are typically located. The only reason he was identifiable on the video is that he displayed a distinctive tattoo on the back of his left hand when he raised four fingers to identify himself to Mr. Demos.

67Although it was foreseeable that his licence plate could be captured by the gas station cameras, vehicle ownership alone would not establish that he was the shooter. Mr. Bruce clearly recognized this, as his first action after the shooting was to dispose of the Range Rover.

68There is no dispute that Mr. Bruce was extremely angry at the time of the offence, and it is unsurprising that this may have impaired his judgment. The evidence nonetheless persuades me that he remained aware throughout that he might be identified as the perpetrator. He chose to commit the act regardless and then took steps to reduce the likelihood of being caught.

The shot was too precise to have been intentional

69Mr. Gross‑Stein submits that, given the circumstances, it is not realistically possible that Mr. Bruce could have intentionally inflicted such a devastating injury. He points out that Mr. Bruce was in a highly emotional state, that Mr. Demos’s movements were unpredictable at the moment the shot was fired, and that Mr. Bruce had no opportunity to aim before taking the shot. He notes that there is no evidence that Mr. Bruce had experience as a marksman or had even previously fired a handgun.

70There is little evidence to assist in assessing this submission. Mr. Bruce denied having fired the Glock 9 mm handgun prior to the shooting, and there is no other evidence of his firearms experience. He did testify, however, that he was familiar enough with handguns to know that the Glock was real and operable when he purchased it. Based on that evidence, and on the fact that Mr. Bruce has a prior conviction for possession of a handgun, I infer that he had at least some experience handling, if not firing, firearms.

71It may seem unlikely that an inexperienced shooter firing at a moving target would be successful in hitting such a vulnerable part of the body. I cannot find, however, that the precision of the shot gives rise to any doubt about Mr. Bruce’s intent. He was stationary when he fired the shot and was less than ten feet from his target. At that range, any shot to Mr. Demos’s head was likely to be fatal. Although Mr. Demos’s vehicle was in motion, it was only beginning to accelerate and was not travelling at high speed. Mr. Bruce’s shot happened to be very precise, but precision was not required in the circumstances. The fact that the bullet struck an especially vulnerable area only tends to confirm that Mr. Bruce intended to kill.

D. Conclusion Regarding Intent to Kill

72There is abundant authority to support the commonsense proposition that shooting someone at close range in a vital part of the body is capable of proving the intention to kill beyond a reasonable doubt. The issue was recently addressed by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Hassan, 2026 ONCA 66 at paragraph 32:

[32] The appellant’s reliance on cases involving shots to clearly non-vital areas, accidental discharges, or materially different circumstances does not assist. Intent is fact-specific. Here, the trial judge was entitled to infer intent to kill from a close-range shooting aimed at the mid-section of the victim’s body by an accused who, while enraged with the victim following a prior confrontation, used a handgun in precisely the manner for which it is designed: R. v. Bains (1985), 7 O.A.C. 67 (C.A.), at para. 27, leave to appeal refused, [1985] S.C.C.A. No. 158; see also R. v. Guedez-Infante, 2009 ONCA 739, at para. 3,

73Justice Cory, then a member of the Ontario Court of Appeal, expressed the point in stark terms in R. v. Bains [1985] O.J. No. 41:

All firearms are designed to kill. A handgun is a particularly insidious and lethal weapon. It is easy to carry and conceal, yet at close range, it is every bit as deadly as a .50 calibre machine gun. It follows that when, at close range, a handgun is pointed at a vital portion of the body of the victim and fired, then in the absence of any explanation the only rational inference that can be drawn is that the gun was fired with the intention of killing the victim. No other reasonable conclusion can be reached: a deadly weapon was used in the very manner for which it was designed - to cause death. It is appropriate to conclude that in these circumstances the gun was fired in order that it might fulfil its design function and kill. An element of surprise arises only if death does not occur.

74I come to the same conclusion in this case. Mr. Demos reversed his car in an attempt to escape. Mr. Bruce blocked him from doing so. As Mr. Demos began to move northward to escape, Mr. Bruce stopped his own car, waited for Mr. Demos to pass, and fired a shot directly at his head. The entirety of the evidence including particularly the video of the shooting satisfies me beyond any reasonable doubt that Mr. Bruce intentionally killed Mr. Demos.

IV. PROVOCATION

A. The Law of Provocation

The Essential Elements of the Defence

75The elements of the defence of provocation were summarized in the recent decision of R. v. Copeland, 2025 ONCA 278:

[36] Provocation has been referred to as an “allowance made for human frailty”: R. v. Campbell (1977), 17 O.R. (2d) 673 (C.A.), at p. 682; R. v. Tran, 2010 SCC 58, at para. 22. It is by its very nature, predicated on a loss of self-control arising from a wrongful act. It has four constituent elements. The first two are the objective elements and the second two are the subjective elements:

There must be a wrongful act (objective element);

The wrongful act must be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control (objective element);

The accused must have acted in response to the wrongful act (subjective element); and

The accused must have “acted on the sudden” before there was time for the accused’s passion to cool (subjective element).

[37] If there is an air of reality to provocation, then the onus rests on the Crown to disprove the partial defence. Disproving any of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt will cause the defence to fail: Tran, at para. 41.

The Definition of a Wrongful Act

76The conduct which can constitute provocation for the purposes of the defence is defined in section 232(2) of the Code:

(2) Conduct of the victim that would constitute an indictable offence under this Act that is punishable by five or more years of imprisonment and that is of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control is provocation for the purposes of this section, if the accused acted on it on the sudden and before there was time for their passion to cool.

77Mr. Bruce testified that during their brief interaction at the gas station, Mr. Demos threatened to shoot him. Under s. 264.1(1), uttering a threat to kill or cause bodily harm is a criminal offence punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment. This is the only act by the deceased that could potentially satisfy the requirements of s. 232(2). Although Mr. Demos’s song lyrics included insulting references to the accused’s deceased friends, making such remarks is not a criminal offence. Those comments may be relevant in considering the accused’s subjective account of losing self‑control, but they do not form part of the wrongful act which triggered that loss.

Circumstantial Evidence to Establish Provocation

78Evidence to support the defence of provocation is generally provided by the defendant but it can also arise from circumstantial evidence. As the trier of fact, I may reject the evidence of the accused regarding the constituent elements of provocation and find that it does not raise a reasonable doubt but nevertheless find circumstances which do raise a doubt: R. v. Angelis, 2013 ONCA 70, at para. 33.

79It is not uncommon in provocation cases for an accused person’s evidence to conflict with the requirements of the defence, and that is so here. Mr. Bruce’s evidence does not, in its main thrust, support provocation. He testified that he felt angry and threatened when Mr. Demos threatened to shoot him at the gas station, but this did not cause an immediate loss of self‑control. Instead, he decided to follow Mr. Demos and record a video to embarrass him. He did not consider using his gun until he later heard Mr. Demos say “255,” and even then, he intended only to fire a warning shot. On this version of events, the killing was an unintended result of a deliberate act, rather than an uncontrolled act driven by sudden rage.

80However, Mr. Bruce also testified that moments before the shooting he was “super upset,” believed he was being set up, and reacted with fear and anger when he drew his gun.²⁰ Although he did not expressly link the threat at the gas station to his emotional state at 255 Dolly Varden Boulevard, Mr. Gross‑Stein submits that such a connection can reasonably be inferred from the evidence as a whole.

81I am willing to conclude that the defence has an air of reality on this basis. However, the weakness of the evidence on which the defence relies has clear consequences when determining whether it is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.

The Characteristics to be Ascribed to the Ordinary Person

82Mr. Bruce described the difficult circumstances of his early life. His mother struggled with serious mental health issues, and he suffered beatings and neglect as a child. When he was 12, his mother attempted suicide. He began using marijuana heavily before his teenage years and later sold drugs, including crack cocaine. He was shot at several times, and at age 16 he was seriously injured after being stabbed at the Scarborough Town Centre. He began carrying weapons and eventually obtained a firearm to protect himself while selling drugs. He testified that he lives with a constant belief that each day may be his last.

83Mr. Gross-Stein argues that these unusual life experiences should be attributed to the “ordinary person” when assessing whether Mr. Demos’s alleged acts would cause such a person to lose self‑control. In support of this position, he relies on the decision in R. v. Land, 2019 ONCA 39:

[89] Forensic psychiatric evidence supported the view that Mr. Land’s PTSD, his experiences with child sexual abuse, his consumption of alcohol, and signs of subtle brain damage, are capable of impairing planning, deliberation, impulse control, emotional regulation, and executive functioning, increasing the likelihood of intense aggressive reactions. These conditions are also capable of creating the kinds of extreme emotion that would deprive someone of the power of self-control.

84In my view, Land is not comparable to this case. Here, there is no expert evidence linking Mr. Bruce’s early life experiences to his reaction to the alleged threat from Mr. Demos. Unlike the accused in Land, nothing in Mr. Bruce’s background gives special meaning or significance to the alleged provocation. Mr. Bruce adopted a criminal lifestyle at a young age. He was convicted of possessing a firearm at 19, and after completing his sentence for that offence, he quickly obtained another firearm which he always carried on his person. His decision to place himself in dangerous circumstances cannot be equated with the situation in Land, where the accused had been an innocent child victim of sexual abuse and the wrongful act which triggered his rage was the sexual abuse of a child. The evidence in this case closely resembles the circumstances in R. v. Mohamed, 2021 ONSC 5234, affirmed 2025 ONCA 839. In that case, I found the following:

[363] In Mr. Mohamed’s case, there is no comparable connection between the abuse that he suffered as a child and the provocative effect of being punched by Zemarai Khan Mohammed. Mr. Mohamed testified that he suffers from low self esteem which causes him to be particularly sensitive to personal slights. He feels the need to be respected and tends to overreact when he feels disrespected. His beliefs about the connection between his abusive childhood and his adult tendency to overact to slights has not been supported by any expert testimony. These are not circumstances which would lend any “special significance” to his response to being punched by Zemarai Khan Mohammed.

[364] The ordinary person is not someone who is exceptionally excitable or pugnacious. (Hill, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 313 at p. 331) If I were to ascribe the relatively common personal characteristics described by Tanade Mohamed to the reasonable person, the test would cease to have its objective value and would effectively become a subjective test based on the personal circumstances of Mr. Mohamed. (See Tran, 2010 SCC 58 at paragraphs 31-35 and Cairney, 2013 SCC 55 at para. 40)

85The same conclusion applies here. It is unnecessary to know anything about an accused’s personal background to appreciate the potentially provocative impact of a genuine threat of death. Any person, regardless of their experiences, might react with anger to such a threat, and the reasonable person standard is well suited to assess whether a claimed loss of self‑control is legitimate. That standard is not lowered for individuals who have chosen criminal lifestyles that regularly expose them to danger. To do so would, in effect, create a partial defence to murder for those who routinely engage in dangerous conduct.

Self-Induced Provocation

86This is a case of self‑induced provocation. The deceased did not know the accused and had never met him before their encounter at the gas station. Mr. Demos was simply pumping gas when the accused approached, confronted him about his song lyrics, and made a hand gesture which signalled his affiliation with a rival Scarborough group. Mr. Demos’s attempt to mimic having a handgun and his threat to shoot the accused might reasonably be viewed as a reaction to the threat first introduced by Mr. Bruce.

87The fact that the accused may have initiated the events which led the deceased to commit a wrongful act does not disentitle him to the defence of provocation. It may, however, impact on the trier of facts view of whether the defendant's response was sudden or whether an ordinary person would lose control in the same circumstances: see R. v. Cairney, 2013 SCC 55, at paragraphs 42-46.

B. Findings Regarding the Constituent Elements of the Defence

An objectively wrongful act

88The gas station video suggests that Mr. Demos was pretending to have a firearm tucked into his waistband. Mr. Bruce testified that Mr. Demos told him, “I’ll slap it on you,” meaning that he would shoot him. The Crown accepts that this conduct could amount to the offence of uttering a death threat under s. 264.1, and it cannot disprove that possibility beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown does not contend that Mr. Demos had any lawful right to threaten Mr. Bruce, nor that Mr. Bruce provoked him for the purpose of creating an excuse to commit a homicide which is prohibited by s. 232(3). Accordingly, Mr. Bruce satisfies the first requirement of the provocation defence.

An act sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control

89Evidence that the deceased threatened to kill the accused may raise an air of reality to the defence of provocation. However, the Crown may still defeat the defence by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that such a threat would not cause an ordinary person to lose self‑control. The ordinary‑person standard limits when provocation can apply, ensuring that only losses of self‑control that align with contemporary societal norms and values attract the law’s compassion: R. v. Tran, 2010 SCC 58, at para. 30.

90It is for the trier of fact to determine whether the threat posed to the accused would be sufficient to cause an ordinary person to lose self-control. A threat may reach this level, for example, if it is accompanied by conduct showing an immediate intent to carry out the threat, or where a history of violence between the parties makes the threat especially real. Most threats do not arise in such serious circumstances, and the law expects a person faced with a less serious threat to remain composed and report the matter to the police.

91Several facts are important in determining whether a reasonable person in Mr. Bruce’s situation would have lost self-control:

Mr. Bruce initiated the encounter. He approached Mr. Demos to confront him about the lyrics in his songs, and a reasonable person would undoubtedly have foreseen that this would evoke a hostile reaction.
Mr. Bruce knew that Mr. Demos identified with the Orton Park neighbourhood and that Mr. Demos would understand when he flashed four fingers that he was aligned with Malvern, a rival area.
Mr. Bruce had seen videos in which Mr. Demos presented himself as a dangerous person who was involved in street crime and had access to guns. A reasonable person in Mr. Bruce’s position would have anticipated that Mr. Demos might respond in a threatening manner and would be mentally prepared for that reaction.
Despite his words, Mr. Demos took no steps suggesting he intended to carry out the threat. He did not move toward Mr. Bruce, remained behind his vehicle during the confrontation, did not display any weapon, and left the scene quickly after Mr. Bruce confronted him.
When driving away, Mr. Demos tried to distance himself from Mr. Bruce by accelerating. Mr. Bruce’s own testimony is that Mr. Demos was running away from him.

92Mr. Gross‑Stein argues that the impact of Mr. Demos’s insulting lyrics should form part of the factual matrix in determining how an ordinary person would respond to the wrongful act of Mr. Demos. In support of this submission, he relies on the following passage from Land:

[91] The trial judge was correct to accept the Crown’s concession that Mr. Land met his evidential burden of showing that Mr. Doyon engaged in a provocative act: a wrongful act or insult. But in my view, that provocative act was not confined to Mr. Doyon’s act of threatening Mr. Land with a sword, as the trial judge maintained. The words spoken by Mr. Doyon, “I can do whatever I want with my life”, in context, meant that he claimed the right to continue his sexual relationship with the young girl. Defence counsel inadvertently misled the trial judge by claiming that this should not be considered. All of the offensive circumstances, including taunting words or words of challenge, should be considered in characterizing the wrongful act or insult: see Thibert, at para. 30; and Gill, at para. 20.

93In my view, the 2015 amendments to section 232 prevent the insulting comments from being treated as part of the wrongful act. Since those amendments, the wrongful act must be a criminal offence punishable by at least five years. The trial in Land took place in 2012, when provocation could be based on “a wrongful act or insult”: see Land, at para. 54. Parliament has since removed “insult” as a basis for the defence.

94If I am wrong in that conclusion, I nevertheless do not find that Mr. Demos’s insulting references to Mr. Bruce’s deceased friends would have contributed to an ordinary person losing self‑control. Kareem Deerr died in 2016 and Shane Guthrie in 2021, and Mr. Demos had no involvement in either death. Mr. Bruce had known about the insulting remarks for months before the homicide. A reasonable person in his position might have been offended by the lyrics, but would have understood that confronting Mr. Demos would serve no purpose and would have been resigned to the situation. Indeed, Mr. Bruce himself showed such restraint just two days before the homicide, when he told his friend 100 OTD to “let it go” after being shown a clip of Dopeboy DQ making highly insulting comments about his deceased friends.

95I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that an ordinary person would not have lost self‑control in response to the threat made by Mr. Demos. A reasonable person in Mr. Bruce’s position would have appreciated that Mr. Demos did not initiate the confrontation, that hostility was predictable once Mr. Bruce approached him, and that Mr. Demos took no steps to act on the threat but instead tried to escape from the situation. Mr. Bruce testified that he heard Mr. Demos say “255” near the end of the pursuit. I have rejected that evidence; however, even if it could reasonably be true, an ordinary person would not interpret such an ambiguous statement as an intention to carry out the earlier threat. Most importantly, if a reasonable person truly feared for his safety in the way Mr. Bruce claims, he would have taken the obvious opportunity to escape by driving away. That option was available to Mr. Bruce and he did not take it.

96I find that the Crown has therefore disproven the second element of the defence beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defence of provocation fails.

The accused acted in response to the wrongful act

97As noted above, the Crown accepts that it cannot disprove that the deceased committed a wrongful act, namely the threat to kill Mr. Bruce. However, Mr. Bruce’s own evidence does not indicate that he shot Mr. Demos in response to that threat. He testified that, after the threat at the gas station, his intention was to follow Mr. Demos to record a video of him fleeing, in order to undermine the image Mr. Demos projected on social media. According to Mr. Bruce, it was only when he later heard the word “255” that the fear arising from the earlier threat resurfaced. Even at that point, he did not describe acting out of uncontrolled emotion. Instead, he described forming a rational plan to fire a warning shot to deter Mr. Demos and his associates from attacking him. In short, Mr. Bruce’s own account indicates that the threat did not cause him to lose self‑control.

98Setting aside the rejected testimony of Mr. Bruce, the remaining facts are that Mr. Demos made a threat at the gas station and, approximately two minutes later, Mr. Bruce shot and killed him. Considering only those facts, it is open to infer that Mr. Bruce acted in response to the threat, given the close timing, the heightened emotions during the chase, and the reasonable possibility that he believed Mr. Demos had deliberately led him into rival territory. There is some evidence supporting this possibility: Mr. Demos’s original intention after getting gas was to drive north towards Ms. Brown’s home, but he instead drove south toward 255 Dolly Varden Boulevard.

99Based on the circumstantial evidence, I find that it is reasonably possible that Mr. Bruce’s decision to kill Mr. Demos was motivated, at least in part, by the threat made at the gas station. The Crown has failed to disprove this aspect of the defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused acted on the sudden in response to the wrongful act

100In my view, Mr. Bruce did not act suddenly in response to the threat made by Mr. Demos. The confrontation ended when Mr. Demos entered his car and drove away. Almost three minutes passed before the fatal shot was fired, during which Mr. Bruce pursued him for nearly a kilometre. According to his own evidence, Mr. Bruce was not acting out of uncontrolled emotion during this period but was instead carrying out his plan to record a video of Mr. Demos fleeing. Even if he had initially been angered by the threat, he had ample time to regain his composure during the chase. Moreover, the fact that Mr. Demos chose not to engage further and instead fled would have eased any fear or anger that the earlier threat had caused.

101I do not accept that Mr. Bruce heard Mr. Demos say “255,” but even if he did, that single reference to an address would not have revived any fear arising from the earlier threat. According to Mr. Bruce’s own evidence, Mr. Demos had attempted to escape from him immediately after making the threat. Mr. Bruce forced him to stop by steering in front of his vehicle, and there was no one nearby who could have assisted Mr. Demos. I wholly reject the suggestion that the fear created by the threat at the gas station suddenly resurfaced at 255 Dolly Varden Boulevard. If Mr. Bruce had felt even the slightest fear at that point, he could simply have driven away. He had every opportunity to do so.

102I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was not a sudden reaction to either the threat or the alleged utterance of “255.” Mr. Bruce had ample time for any anger to subside between the gas station and the location of the shooting. For this reason as well, the defence of provocation cannot succeed.

V. CONCLUSION AND VERDICT

103The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill the deceased. No other elements of the offence are disputed. I therefore find the accused guilty of second degree murder.

104The accused relies on the partial defence of provocation. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the wrongful act of the deceased would not have caused an ordinary person to lose self‑control, and that the accused did not act suddenly in response to the alleged provocation. The partial defence is therefore unavailable.

105I convict Mr. Bruce of second degree murder.

Justice Peter Bawden

Released: March 12, 2026