Citation: R. v. Francis, 2026 ONSC 2888

Court File No.: CR-25-10000214 Date: 2026-05-19 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty the King – and – Michael Anthony Francis

Counsel: Patrick Harris, for the Crown Thomas Evangelista, for the accused, Michael Anthony Francis

Heard: February 2-4, 2026

Reasons for Judgment

Vermette J.

[1] The accused, Michael Anthony Francis, is charged with three offences, which are all alleged to have been committed in Toronto on February 17, 2024:[^1]

a. assault on Joshua Beckford causing bodily harm to him, contrary to subsection 267(b) of the Criminal Code;

b. assault on Joshua Beckford with a weapon, namely an edged weapon, contrary to subsection 267(a) of the Criminal Code; and

c. failure to comply with a probation order, contrary to subsection 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code; more specifically, failing to comply with the condition “Keep the peace and be of good behaviour” without reasonable excuse.

[2] On February 17, 2026, I found Mr. Francis not guilty with reasons to follow. These are my reasons.

I. EVIDENCE AT TRIAL

[3] The evidence before me included the following:

a. The viva voce evidence of three witnesses: Andrew Garcia, special constable with the Toronto Community Housing Corporation (“TCHC”), and two officers with the Toronto Police Service (“TPS”), Detective Constable (“DC”) Jordan Kowalsky and Police Constable (“PC”) Peter Katsaras.

b. A number of exhibits, including CCTV (closed-circuit television) surveillance video footage of 251 Sherbourne Street from February 17, 2024, a still shot from video footage of 251 Sherbourne Street from February 18, 2024, video footage from DC Kowalski’s body-worn camera from February 17 and 18, 2024, booking hall video footage, pictures of items seized at the time of Mr. Francis’ arrest, and a probation order dated June 28, 2023.

c. An Agreed Statement of Facts.

[4] All the witnesses were credible and their evidence was consistent with respect to the material facts.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

[5] I set out below my findings of facts based on the evidence before me.

1. Events of February 17, 2024

a. Altercation at 251 Sherbourne Street

[6] The building at 251 Sherbourne Street is managed by TCHC. On February 17, 2024, at approximately 9:40 p.m., while he was working in his office in a different building, Special Constable Andrew Garcia saw an altercation on the seventh floor of the building at 251 Sherbourne Street that was captured by CCTV surveillance camera on the floor. He was able to access this video footage from his office computer. Special Constable Garcia recognized Joshua Beckford in the video footage as one of the people involved in the altercation. He did not recognize the other two people who were involved – a Black man and a Black woman. Special Constable Garcia called 911 at 9:43 p.m.

[7] While Special Constable Garcia saw the video footage at approximately 9:40 p.m., the altercation occurred several minutes before, at approximately 9:29 p.m.

[8] The video footage showing the altercation was marked as an exhibit at trial. Among other things, the following can be seen in the video:

a. The camera shows the elevator area (with two elevators) on the right side, and a long corridor on the left side.

b. At the beginning of the corridor and close to the elevator area, there appears to be an alcove where some people are standing or going into. Special Constable Garcia testified that this was the garbage chute area and that there was a door at the back of the alcove leading to a stairwell.

c. During the video footage, there are a number of people walking or standing in the corridor, the alcove and the elevator area. One of these persons is a woman with purple hair wearing a pink jacket and a long black coat over it, and holding a cane.

d. At approximately 9:25 p.m., a Black man came out of one of the elevators and went into the unit that was identified by Special Constable Garcia as unit 707. The man was wearing a jacket of an ochre colour, with a teal jacket with a hoodie underneath, grey pants, black shoes and a white hat with colourful patterns on it. I will refer to this person as “the Black man” in these reasons. Just before the Black man went into unit 707, the woman with the purple hair knocked on the door of unit 707.

e. At approximately 9:27 p.m., we can see a man who was identified as Joshua Beckford appearing at the opposite side of the corridor and walking towards unit 707. Mr. Beckford was wearing a blue puffer jacket. Just before Mr. Beckford arrived at the door of unit 707, the woman with the purple hair knocked again on the door. Mr. Beckford also knocked on the door of unit 707. He knocked again on the door at 9:28 p.m. and at 9:29 p.m.

f. Approximately 20 seconds after Mr. Beckford’s last knock on the door of unit 707, the door opened (it is unclear whether it was opened by Mr. Beckford or not). Mr. Beckford walked forward to enter into the unit, but he was pushed by a person who does not appear on the camera. The woman with the purple hair was standing behind Mr. Beckford at that time. A few seconds later, she hit him on the head with her cane, but Mr. Beckford grabbed the cane.

g. Mr. Beckford then walked towards the garbage chute area. A Black woman exited from unit 707, followed by the Black man who was seen entering the unit earlier. The Black man was walking fast. The Black woman was holding an ivory jacket in her left hand. I will refer to this person as “the Black woman” in these reasons.

h. Both the Black woman and the Black man looked angry. Mr. Beckford backed away in the alcove, still holding the cane. Both the Black woman and the Black man followed Mr. Beckford into the alcove at 9:29:35 p.m. There was no contact between Mr. Beckford and either the Black woman or the Black man before they all went into the alcove.

i. While the three of them were in the alcove, Mr. Beckford and the Black man were not visible on the camera. The Black woman was partially visible. At the beginning, we can only see her back. Later, we can see her making motions with her right arm. As she is backing away, we see her stabbing Mr. Beckford on his back (on his blue jacket) with a silver object in her right hand.

j. Mr. Beckford appears again on the camera, backing away from the alcove, at approximately 9:29:44 p.m. Just before backing away, Mr. Beckford seems to be snatching the cane from someone. We can see blood on his left hand. Mr. Beckford then ran to the door of unit 707 and knocked on the door again. The Black man came out of the alcove and followed Mr. Beckford to the door. At first, the Black woman stood still in front of the alcove, but after a few seconds, she started following the Black man. As the Black man approached him, Mr. Beckford backed away in the corridor and then leaned on the cane.

k. The Black man then went back into the alcove at 9:29:57 p.m. As he is walking towards the alcove, we can see that he is wearing a grey shirt under his teal jacket with a yellow Adidas logo on it. The woman with the purple hair followed the Black man. Different video footage shows that they exited the building shortly thereafter. Mr. Beckford knocked again on the door of unit 707 at 9:30:05 p.m.

l. After the Black man and the woman with the purple hair left the seventh floor, the Black woman went to talk to a woman standing in the elevator area. We can see the Black woman wiping a silver object with the ivory jacket that she was holding. The object appears to be a screwdriver with some green on the handle.

m. Mr. Beckford ultimately went into unit 707. He left the cane on the floor. Less than 20 seconds later, he came out of unit 707, holding his hand. He then went into the alcove area, after passing by the Black woman. He appears to have left the seventh floor at that time, presumably through the door at the back of the alcove area. Less than one minute after Mr. Beckford left, the Black woman left as well via the elevator.

n. Less than two minutes later, the Black woman came back to the seventh floor and exited the elevator. She knocked on the door of unit 707 and went inside the unit. Shortly thereafter, someone came out of unit 707 and started wiping the cane that was left on the floor and cleaning the blood on the floor near unit 707 with a cloth and liquid in a spray can.

[9] Special Constable Garcia later retrieved additional video footage from the evening of February 17, 2024, including:

a. Video footage showing the Black man involved in the altercation entering the building at approximately 9:21 p.m. through a fire exit and going up some stairs.

b. Video footage showing the Black man involved in the altercation walking on Oskenonton Lane, which is east of (and behind) the building at 251 Sherbourne Street. At the beginning of the video, at 9:31 p.m., the Black man appears to be coming out of the fire exit of 251 Sherbourne Street. He is followed by the woman with the purple hair.

[10] It was an agreed fact at trial that at approximately 9:29 p.m. on February 17, 2024, Joshua Beckford was at 707-251 Sherbourne Street, and that he sustained a three-inch laceration to the back of his left hand.

[11] It was also an agreed fact at trial that the Black woman in the video footage of the altercation was Diane Campbell. The following was also agreed upon. Ms. Campbell is seen on CCTV camera holding a silver object in her right hand and making aggressive stabbing gestures towards Mr. Beckford. Ms. Campbell was arrested by TPS officers at approximately 9:55 p.m. on February 17, 2024. When she was searched incident to arrest, a screwdriver with a green and black handle was located in her bag and seized by the police.

b. Interactions between the police and Mr. Beckford

[12] At approximately 9:45 p.m., DC Jordan Kowalski (at the time, PC Kowalski) and PC Peter Katsaras were conducting general patrol in a marked police car. They heard a radio call about a stabbing at 251 Sherbourne Street. The call indicated that the victim, Joshua Beckford, had left the scene and was last seen traveling towards Sherbourne Street and Dundas Street East. DC Kowalski started driving in that direction. While they were driving along Sherbourne Street and making their way towards 251 Sherbourne Street, DC Kowalski saw a man standing in the parking lot of a convenience store with a towel or wound covering around his hand. He believed that that man might have been the victim.

[13] DC Kowalski and PC Katsaras exited the car to speak to the man, who was responsive when called “Josh” or “Joshua”. At the request of DC Kowalski, Mr. Beckford removed the covering on his left hand and showed the injury to his hand, which was covered in blood. DC Kowalski asked Mr. Beckford to cover it again. The officers noticed two rips in Mr. Beckford’s jacket. DC Kowalski lifted Mr. Beckford’s jacket and other layers of clothing to check whether he had any injuries. Mr. Beckford did not have any visible injuries on his arm, his back or his torso. At the request of the officers, Mr. Beckford then removed the covering on his left hand again. His hand had blood on it and was actively bleeding. There was a laceration on the back of his hand. DC Kowalski also noticed some bruises on Mr. Beckford’s face and blood coming from his nose.

[14] During his interaction with Mr. Beckford, DC Kowalski asked him questions and inquired about details, but Mr. Beckford was very reluctant to say anything. He was not cooperating and did not disclose details. Among other things, he did not provide information about the suspect.

[15] DC Kowalski then requested an ambulance. The ambulance arrived shortly thereafter and DC Kowalski walked Mr. Beckford to the ambulance. The officers later followed the ambulance to St. Michael’s Hospital. At the hospital, the officers asked some questions of Mr. Beckford, but Mr. Beckford declined to provide any information, to sign a medical release or to have any photographs taken of himself or his injuries. DC Kowalski seized Mr. Beckford’s jacket at the hospital.

[16] DC Kowalski’s interactions with Mr. Beckford were captured on video by DC Kowalski’s body-worn camera.

2. Events of February 18, 2024

[17] On February 18, 2024, two bulletins were sent by e-mail to TPS officers regarding a suspect for the incident at 251 Sherbourne Street that had occurred the previous day. The first e-mail was sent at 12:05 a.m. The second e-mail was sent at 7:17 p.m., and it attached a picture showing what the suspect was allegedly wearing that day. The picture attached to the e-mail was a still shot taken by Special Constable Garcia from video footage of February 18, 2024, which he had sent to the police. In the still shot, we see a man coming down the stairs in the staircase of 251 Sherbourne Street. The man is wearing, among other things, a blue jacket, a shirt underneath that has a yellow logo on it, and a gold necklace.

[18] In the evening of February 18, 2024, DC Kowalski and PC Katsaras were conducting general patrol in a marked police car, traveling southbound on Yonge Street. At approximately 11:28 p.m., when they were south of College Street, PC Katsaras told DC Kowalski that he thought that he had seen someone who matched the suspect who was in the picture included in the bulletin that he had reviewed earlier that evening. DC Kowalski turned the car around as PC Katsaras was pulling up the photograph that was attached to the e-mail for reference. DC Kowalski and PC Katsaras reviewed the picture and compared the person in it to a person standing on the sidewalk. They concluded that it was the same person. The man on the sidewalk was wearing a blue jacket, a grey shirt underneath that had a yellow logo on it, and a gold necklace.

[19] DC Kowalski and PC Katsaras exited the police car, crossed the street, directed the man not to move and told him that he was under arrest for aggravated assault. The man was Mr. Francis. DC Kowalski took control of Mr. Francis and PC Katsaras handcuffed him. PC Katsaras read his rights to counsel to Mr. Francis at 11:40 p.m. DC Kowalski and PC Katsaras then searched Mr. Francis. During the search, the officers located a number of items, including a black folding knife and money in Mr. Francis’ left pant pocket. PC Katsaras also removed the chains around Mr. Francis’ neck.

[20] After placing Mr. Francis in the back of their police car, DC Kowalski and PC Katsaras left the area at 11:48 p.m. and transported Mr. Francis to 51 Division. They arrived at 51 Division at 11:58 p.m. Mr. Francis was paraded before the officer in charge at 12:14 a.m.

[21] After the parade, Mr. Francis was lodged in a cell. Before that, the search of Mr. Francis continued, and the officers removed certain clothing and items that Mr. Francis could not have in the cell. The clothing and the jewelry that he was wearing were seized, including three long chains (one with a medallion), a ring, black shoes, a blue jacket and a sweater.

[22] In February 2024, Mr. Francis was subject to a 12-month probation order that was made on June 28, 2023. One of the conditions with which he had to comply was to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. Position of the Crown

[23] The Crown identifies two issues in this case: (1) whether Mr. Francis is the Black man seen in the CCTV footage of 251 Sherbourne Street on February 17, 2024; and (2) whether the Black man participated in the assault on Mr. Beckford.

[24] The Crown notes that some facts are not in dispute, including the following: Mr. Beckford sustained a laceration to the back of his hand on February 17, 2024; Ms. Campbell was involved in the incident with Mr. Beckford and was subsequently apprehended by TPS on February 17, 2024; Mr. Beckford’s jacket was punctured and was leaking insulation on the right back and the right arm; and Mr. Francis was subject to a probation order at the relevant time.

[25] According to the Crown, the central evidence in this case is the video surveillance footage and it is the most reliable evidence. The Crown submits that the Court can review the video footage, compare the video footage of February 17, 2024 at 251 Sherbourne Street with the video footage of Mr. Francis’ arrest and booking on February 18, 2024, and reach its own conclusion on the issue of identity.

[26] The Crown argues that the Black man’s face, entire body, clothing and accessories are visible in the video footage of February 17, 2024 at 251 Sherbourne Street and permit comparison. The Crown submits that when the footage of February 17, 2024 is reviewed together and compared with the footage of Mr. Francis on February 18, 2024, it can be concluded, based on the physical features and clothing, that Mr. Francis is the Black man in the February 17, 2024 footage. According to the Crown, identity has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

[27] The Crown submits that Mr. Francis is the man in the still shot captured by Special Constable Garcia on February 18, 2024, notwithstanding the blurred face in the picture. According to the Crown, this is confirmed by the footage of Mr. Francis’ arrest that same day. The Crown notes that the physical features and clothing appear to be the same. The Crown notes that the still shot shows that Mr. Francis was at 251 Sherbourne Street less than 24 hours after the assault on Mr. Beckford.

[28] The Crown does not argue that the knife found on Mr. Francis at the time of his arrest can be positively identified as being the weapon used during the assault on Mr. Beckford because there is no forensic evidence before the Court. However, the Crown submits that the knife shows that Mr. Francis had the means to commit the offence.

[29] The Crown states that the Crown witnesses were credible, honest and forthcoming. The Crown also states that they were reliable with respect to setting out the contours of their investigation and authenticating the media before the Court. The Crown argues that if opinions expressed by the witnesses are contrary to what the Court concludes upon reviewing the media evidence, then the Court’s conclusions should prevail.

[30] The Crown states that Ms. Campbell committed an assault with a weapon on Mr. Beckford, but that the weapon used was a screwdriver, not an edged weapon. The Crown notes that it is not apparent from the footage that Ms. Campbell caused any laceration to Mr. Beckford. The Crown submits that the video footage from DC Kowalski’s body-worn camera shows harm to Mr. Beckford that is more than transient or trifling.

[31] The Crown’s position is that the Black man in the video surveillance of February 17, 2024 is the principal offender in causing bodily harm and carrying out an assault with a weapon of his own.

[32] The Crown notes that Mr. Beckford only backed away in the alcove when the Black man came out of unit 707 behind Ms. Campbell and quickly got ahead of her. The Crown submits that the orientation of the parties in the alcove is important and shows that Ms. Campbell was behind Mr. Beckford and stabbing his back holding the screwdriver with her right hand. The Crown states that Ms. Campbell caused the punctures in Mr. Beckford’s jacket. The Crown submits that Mr. Beckford was facing away from Ms. Campbell, and that Mr. Beckford’s left hand was outstretched in front of him.

[33] The Crown points out that when he pulled away from the alcove, Mr. Beckford was moving away from what was in front of him, not from Ms. Campbell. At that time, Mr. Beckford has a visible gash on his hand. The Crown notes that while Ms. Campbell stood still, the Black man pursued Mr. Beckford to the front of unit 707. The Crown states that after Mr. Beckford knocked on the door of unit 707, the parties disengaged and the Black man left the building. Ms. Campbell remained on the seventh floor of 251 Sherbourne Street. The Crown submits that Mr. Beckford later walked by Ms. Campbell without any sign of concern while holding his injured hand.

[34] The Crown argues that based on the video footage, the conduct of the parties towards each other and the orientation of Ms. Campbell and Mr. Beckford, the only reasonable inference is that it is the Black man, not Ms. Campbell, who was the primary aggressor on Mr. Beckford and the cause of the injury to his left hand.

[35] In the alternative, the Crown argues that the Black man / Mr. Francis is liable as an aider or abettor. The Crown notes that there is manifestly a confrontation between Mr. Beckford and Ms. Campbell in which the Black man participated. According to the Crown, the Black man is encouraging, promoting and aiding insofar as he charges towards Mr. Beckford and helps to keep him in the alcove without any means of exit while Ms. Campbell comes behind him. The Crown states that the screwdriver was visible in Ms. Campbell’s hand all the way from unit 707 to the alcove. The Crown submits that the only reasonable conclusion is that the Black man knew that there was going to be something done to Mr. Beckford. The Crown asserts that given the context, the Black man’s knowledge that Ms. Campbell had a screwdriver in her hand is sufficient to show knowledge on the part of the Black man that Ms. Campbell would be committing the offences on Mr. Beckford.

[36] The Crown’s position is that even if the Black man did not see or know about the screwdriver, he had the knowledge and intent to engage in an unarmed assault and he would be liable of the included offence of assault.

[37] The Crown states that no inferences should be drawn from the decision to call or not to call a witness and from the absence of forensic testing. The Crown also points out that there is no need to establish a motive.

2. Position of Mr. Francis

[38] The defence submits that Mr. Francis should be acquitted of the charges.

[39] The defence’s position is that liability as a principal or as a co-perpetrator, aider or abettor has not been established.

[40] The defence notes that there is no video evidence of what occurred within the alcove during the ten-second period while Mr. Beckford was there. The defence points out that there is no direct evidence that Mr. Francis assaulted Mr. Beckford, and that there has been no cooperation or evidence from Mr. Beckford.

[41] The defence states that mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to ground culpability. The defence further states that presence at the scene of an offence can be evidence of aiding and abetting only if accompanied by other factors.

[42] The defence argues that, in a group assault context, it must be demonstrated that the accused knew that the other people were engaging in an assault and intended to assist in that assault. The defence states that there is no reliable evidence that Mr. Francis knew that Ms. Campbell would become involved in an altercation or that she was carrying a screwdriver and was prepared to use it to cause injury to Mr. Beckford. The defence points out that this was a spontaneous event and that there was no opportunity for Mr. Francis to form a common intention to carry out an assault with Ms. Campbell.

[43] The defence submits that what the Crown is asking the Court to infer as to what happened in the alcove is speculative and amounts to almost pure conjecture.

[44] The defence notes that there is no evidence as to the relationship between the parties and as to what triggered the altercation.

[45] According to the defence, the failure to call key witnesses – including the complainant – should translate to a reasonable doubt in this case. The defence states that it is speculative to say that the Black man was the principal aggressor who caused injury to Mr. Beckford’s hand. The defence argues that this is not the only possible inference that is available. The defence points out that after Mr. Beckford came out of the alcove, the Black man walked in the direction of Mr. Beckford and had the opportunity to assault him, but there was no assault. The Black man appeared to be surprised to see an injury on Mr. Beckford’s hand and he chose to walk away.

[46] The defence submits that it is possible that Ms. Campbell caused the injury to Mr. Beckford’s hand. The defence points out that Ms. Campbell was making aggressive gestures with her right hand and making contact with Mr. Beckford’s body in a reckless way. The defence states that at times, it is not possible to see where the screwdriver was making contact. According to the defence, it is possible that Ms. Campbell made contact with Mr. Beckford’s left hand and caused the laceration to the hand. The defence notes that after the altercation, Ms. Campbell was attempting to wipe the screwdriver with her ivory jacket. The defence argues that she was trying to wipe off blood to conceal evidence of a crime.

[47] The defence points out that no forensic testing was done with respect to the knife that was seized from Mr. Francis. The defence submits that the seizure of the knife has no relevance to the offences in question. The defence notes that the video footage does not show any weapon in the possession of the Black man.

[48] In the alternative, the defence submits that the Crown has not established the critical aspect of identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

[49] The defence points out that the clothing depicted in the media files was different on February 17 and 18, 2024, and that facial features are largely absent in the photograph of February 18, 2024. The defence states that when arresting Mr. Francis, the police relied on a photograph which was not a photograph of the suspect on the day of the offence.

[50] The defence’s position is that the evidence on identity is a far cry from proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person who was arrested is the same person seen in the video footage on the seventh floor of 251 Sherbourne Street on February 17, 2024.

[51] According to the defence, there was nothing distinctive about the stature, gait, mannerism, or other personal characteristics of the Black man in the video footage of February 17, 2024 that would permit to conclude that there is a match between that Back man and the man who was arrested on February 18, 2024.

IV. DISCUSSION

1. General principles

[52] Mr. Francis is presumed to be innocent, unless and until the Crown has proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To prove Mr. Francis’ guilt of the offences with which he was charged, the Crown must prove each and every essential element of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense, a doubt that logically arises from the evidence or the absence of evidence.

[53] Proof of probable or likely guilt is not proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It would not be safe to convict a person of a criminal offence with only that degree of confidence. In order to find Mr. Francis guilty of an offence, I have to be sure, based on all the evidence before the Court, that he committed the offence. See R. v. Nyznik, 2017 ONSC 4392 at paras. 6-7.

[54] In this case, the Crown relies on circumstantial evidence. The issue with respect to circumstantial evidence is the range of reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it. If there are reasonable inferences other than guilt, the Crown’s evidence does not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case in which proof of one or more elements of the offence depends exclusively or largely on circumstantial evidence, an inference of guilt drawn from circumstantial evidence should be the only reasonable inference that such evidence permits. The trier of fact cannot “fill in the blanks” or jump to conclusions by overlooking reasonable alternative inferences. See R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33 at paras. 30, 35 (“Villaroman”).

[55] When assessing circumstantial evidence, the trier of fact should consider other plausible theories and other reasonable possibilities which are inconsistent with guilt. 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. The line between a “plausible theory” and “speculation” is not always easy to draw, but the basic question is whether the circumstantial evidence, viewed logically and in light of human experience, is reasonably capable of supporting an inference other than that the accused is guilty. Thus, the inferences that may be drawn must be considered in light of all of the evidence and the absence of evidence, assessed logically, and in light of human experience and common sense. See Villaroman at paras. 30, 36-38.

[56] Video evidence can present clear and convincing evidence of identification that triers of fact can use as the sole basis for the identification of the accused before them as the perpetrator of the crime. Once it is established that video evidence has not been altered or changed, and that it depicts the scene of a crime, then it becomes admissible and relevant evidence. It can and should be used by a trier of fact in determining whether a crime has been committed and whether the accused before the court committed the crime. It may provide such strong and convincing evidence that, of itself, it will demonstrate clearly either the innocence or guilt of the accused. The weight to be accorded to that evidence can be assessed from a viewing of the video evidence. The degree of clarity and quality of the video, and to a lesser extent the length of time during which the accused appears on the video, will all go towards establishing the weight which a trier of fact may properly place upon the evidence. Although triers of fact are entitled to reach a conclusion as to identification based solely on video evidence, they must exercise care in doing so. See R. v. Nikolovski, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197 at paras. 22-23, 28-30.

2. Offences

a. Assault causing bodily harm

[57] The essential elements of the offence of assault causing bodily harm are the following:

a. the accused intentionally applied force to the complainant;

b. the complainant did not consent to the force that the accused applied;

c. the accused knew that the complainant did not consent to the force that the accused applied; and

d. the force that the accused applied caused the complainant bodily harm.

[58] “Bodily harm” is any hurt or injury that interferes with the complainant’s health or comfort. It has to be more than something that is merely transient or trifling in nature. See section 2 of the Criminal Code. Further, it must result from the force that the accused intentionally applied to the complainant. In other words, the accused’s intentional application of force to the complainant must contribute significantly to the bodily harm that the complainant suffered. See R. v. Williams, 2017 ONSC 634 at para. 124.

[59] Crown counsel does not have to prove that the accused meant to cause bodily harm of any kind to the complainant by the force that the accused intentionally applied. Rather, what has to be proven is that a reasonable person, in the circumstances, would realize that the force that the accused intentionally applied would put the complainant at risk of suffering some kind of bodily harm, although not necessarily serious bodily harm or the precise kind of bodily harm that the complainant actually suffered. See R. v. Powell, 2021 ONCA 271 at para. 51 (“Powell”).

b. Assault with a weapon

[60] The essential elements of the offence of assault with a weapon are the following:

a. the accused intentionally applied force to the complainant;

b. the complainant did not consent to the force that the accused applied;

c. the accused knew that the complainant did not consent to the force that the accused applied; and

d. a weapon was involved in the accused’s assault of the complainant. A weapon is anything used, designed to be used or intended for use in causing death or injury to any person or for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person: see section 2 of the Criminal Code. For the Crown to establish that a weapon was involved in an assault committed by the accused on the complainant, the Court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused carried, used or threatened to use such a weapon in assaulting the complainant.

See R. v. J.F.B., 2026 ONSC 264 at paras. 19-20 and R. v. Dindyal, 2019 ONSC 4364 at para. 40.

[61] Proof of injury is not an essential element of the offence of assault with a weapon. See R. v. Andalib-Goortani, 2015 ONSC 1403 at para. 4.

c. Failure to comply with a probation order

[62] The essential elements of the offence of failing to comply with a probation order are the following in this case:

a. Mr. Francis was bound by a probation order on February 17, 2024.

b. The probation order contained a term requiring Mr. Francis to “Keep the peace and be of good behaviour”.

c. Mr. Francis failed to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

d. Mr. Francis failed to comply with the probation order knowingly or recklessly. Mr. Francis had to know or be wilfully blind to the condition to “Keep the peace and be of good behaviour”. See R, v. Zora, 2020 SCC 14 at paras. 50-51, 72, 112, 115 and R, v, Docherty, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 941 at 957-958.

3. Parties to offences

[63] Subsection 21(1) of the Criminal Code provides as follows:

Every one is a party to an offence who

(a) actually commits it;

(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or

(c) abets any person in committing it.

[64] Thus, Canadian criminal law does not distinguish between the principal offender and parties to an offence in determining criminal liability. However, the actus reus and mens rea for aiding or abetting are distinct from those of the principal offence. See R. v. Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13 at para. 13 (“Briscoe”).

[65] The actus reus of aiding and abetting is doing (or, in some circumstances, omitting to do) something that assists or encourages the perpetrator to commit the offence. While it is common to speak of aiding and abetting together, the two concepts are distinct, and liability can flow from either one. Broadly speaking, to aid means to assist or help the actor, and to abet includes encouraging, instigating, promoting or procuring the crime to be committed. See Briscoe at para. 14.

[66] Doing or omitting to do something that resulted in assisting another in committing a crime is not sufficient to attract criminal liability. The aider or abettor must also have the requisite mens rea. The mens rea requirement reflected in the word “purpose” in subsection 21(1) of the Criminal Code has two components: intent and knowledge. The Crown must prove that the accused intended to assist the principal in the commission of the offence. However, it is not required that the accused desired that the offence be successfully committed. In order to have the intention to assist in the commission of an offence, the aider must know that the perpetrator intends to commit the crime, although they need not know precisely how it will be committed. See Briscoe at paras. 15-17, 19.

[67] In the context of an assault causing bodily harm, mere participation in a “melee” in which the complainant suffered bodily harm is insufficient to support a conviction of assault causing bodily harm. The accused’s own act of participation must be intentional as opposed to accidental. Moreover, before the accused can be held responsible for bodily harm that may have been caused by another person involved in the group assault, it must be found that the accused knew that the others were engaging in an assault, and intended to assist in that assault. Where a reasonable person would realize that the group assault would put the victim at risk of suffering some kind of bodily harm, a person who has joined in a group assault cannot avoid responsibility by arguing that they did not intend to cause bodily harm. See Powell at paras. 47, 51.

4. Assessment of the evidence

[68] I do not need to decide whether the Black man in the CCTV footage of 251 Sherbourne Street on February 17, 2024 is Mr. Francis because I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Black man in the footage participated in an assault on Mr. Beckford.

[69] Because the Black man is not on camera during the altercation in the alcove and we do not see him in possession of a weapon at any time, the Crown relies on circumstantial evidence. While I am satisfied that the injury suffered by Mr. Beckford on his left hand constitutes “bodily harm” as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Black man caused this bodily harm or that he used a weapon while assaulting Mr. Beckford. There are at least two reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence and that would explain the fact that Mr. Beckford did not have an injury on his hand when he went into the alcove and that he had one when he came out of it.

[70] First, the Black woman, i.e., Ms. Campbell, could have caused the injury to Mr. Beckford’s left hand with the silver object that she was holding in her right hand. It is true, as pointed out by the Crown, that Ms. Campbell was facing Mr. Beckford’s back at the end of the altercation and that it would have been difficult for her, in this position, to reach Mr. Beckford’s left hand with the silver object in her right hand. However, I do not accept that Mr. Beckford was in the same position during the entire altercation. At the beginning of the altercation, as Mr. Beckford was backing away in the alcove, he was facing both Ms. Campbell and the Black man. Thus, it is possible, and in fact likely, that Mr. Beckford and Ms. Campbell had different positions at different times in the alcove and that, at certain times, Ms. Campbell was able to access Mr. Beckford’s left hand with her right hand. The silver object used by Ms. Campbell – which appears to have been a screwdriver – was sharp enough to cut Mr. Beckford’s puffer jacket in two different places.

[71] Another reasonable inference arises from the absence of evidence as to what was in the alcove. No picture or video of the alcove was adduced in evidence. The only evidence regarding what was in the alcove is the testimony of Special Constable Garcia who stated that the garbage chute was located in the alcove and that there was a door at the back of the alcove leading to a stairwell. I also note that the CCTV footage shows some people standing in the alcove for unknown reasons during several minutes before the altercation. It is reasonably possible that Mr. Beckford could have injured his left hand by accident on something in the alcove, such as the door to the garbage chute or something left in the alcove area by a tenant or visitor. This inference is supported, in part, by what was noted by the defence, i.e., that the Black man’s demeanor appeared to change after he saw an injury on Mr. Beckford’s hand – as if he did not know before that Mr. Beckford had injured his hand – and he chose to walk away.

[72] Given that we do not see what is happening between Mr. Beckford and the Black man in the alcove, I am also not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Black man assaulted Mr. Beckford while they were in the alcove. A number of things could have happened in there. I also note that the Black man did not assault Mr. Beckford when they came out of the alcove, even though the Black man had the opportunity to do so. As stated above, the Black man decided to leave shortly after coming out of the alcove and seeing the injury on Mr. Beckford’s hand.

[73] Further, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Black man aided and/or abetted Ms. Campbell in committing an assault with a weapon on Mr. Beckford, an assault causing bodily harm to Mr. Beckford, or even a simple assault on Mr. Beckford.

[74] The following observations are relevant on this point. The reason for the altercation and the nature of the relationships between the parties are unknown. So is the parties’ connection to unit 707, which appeared to be visited by numerous people. There was no sound on the video footage that was adduced in evidence, but Ms. Campbell and the Black man do not appear to be talking to each other or to be saying anything after coming out of unit 707 and while walking towards Mr. Beckford and the alcove. Ms. Campbell came out of the apartment first and it took a couple of seconds for the Black man to come out of the apartment behind her. Everything seemed to happen spontaneously and without coordination. The actual altercation in the alcove lasted less than 10 seconds. What happened after also did not show any sign of coordination. After Mr. Beckford came out of the alcove, the Black man followed him to unit 707 while Ms. Campbell remained near the alcove at first. Shortly after, the Black man left the building and Ms. Campbell stayed on the seventh floor.

[75] In the absence of evidence as to what the parties said and what the Black man did in the alcove, I am unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the Black man did anything to assist or help Ms. Campbell to commit an assault on Mr. Beckford, or to encourage, instigate, promote or procure the crime to be committed.

[76] I am also unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the Black man had the requisite mens rea for aiding or abetting. Among other things, given how the events unfolded and how quickly everything happened, I cannot conclude that the Black man knew that Ms. Campbell intended to commit an assault on Mr. Beckford, and that he intended to assist her in that assault.

[77] Further, based on the evidence I cannot conclude that the Black man knew that Ms. Campbell had a weapon on her (i.e., a screwdriver). I note that I cannot see anything in Ms. Campbell’s right hand when she comes out of unit 707 and walks towards the alcove. If the Black man did not know that Ms. Campbell had a weapon on her, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that a reasonable person in the position of the Black man would have realized that an assault by Ms. Campbell would put Mr. Beckford at risk of suffering some kind of bodily harm.

[78] Given that it has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Francis was party to an assault on Mr. Beckford on February 17, 2024, it has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt that he failed to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, as required by his probation order.

V. CONCLUSION

[79] Accordingly, I find Mr. Francis not guilty on all counts.

Vermette J.

Released: May 19, 2026

[^1]: Count 2 on the indictment (unlawful confinement contrary to subsection 279(2) of the Criminal Code) was dismissed at the request of the Crown after the close of the Crown’s case and is not discussed in these reasons.