CITATION: R. v. Daniels, 2026 ONSC 3225

COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-20000229

DATE: 20260529

BETWEEN:

his MAJESTY THE king

– and –

moulay daniels

Julia De Vuono, for the Crown

Ari Goldkind, for Mr. Daniels

HEARD at Toronto: April 27, 28, 29 and May 4, 2026

1Eric Brown was shot inside Lesley Russell’s apartment shortly before 3:00 pm on July 7, 2024. Moulay Daniels is charged with 10 counts arising out of that shooting: attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, reckless discharge of a firearm, aggravated assault, possession of a loaded firearm, four counts of breaching a weapons prohibition order, and one count of breaching his bail.

2Many of the facts surrounding the shooting are not in dispute. Mr. Daniels admits he arrived at Ms. Russell’s apartment at 2:25 pm on July 7, 2024. Mr. Daniels and Ms. Russell were friends but Ms. Russell was not expecting to see Mr. Daniels that day. Mr. Daniels asked Ms. Russell if he could charge his e-scooter in her apartment. Ms. Russell agreed, and Mr. Daniels stayed in her apartment while his scooter was charging.

3Mr. Brown arrived at Ms. Russell’s apartment 30 minutes after Mr. Daniels. Mr. Brown and Ms. Russell were also friends. Ms. Russell was not expecting to see Mr. Brown that day either. Approximately 30 seconds after Mr. Brown arrived, he was shot six times in the torso, arm and leg. Mr. Brown stumbled out of Ms. Russell’s apartment as soon as he was shot, staggered down the hallway and out of the building.

4Mr. Daniels left Ms. Russell’s apartment less than a minute after the shooting and rode away on his scooter.

5Mr. Daniels was on bail at the time of the shooting. He was required to wear a GPS monitoring device. Mr. Daniels admits he cut the GPS monitoring device off his ankle about an hour after the shooting and threw it in a public garbage can.

6Counsel for Mr. Daniels invited me to find him guilty of breaching his bail but argued the Crown has not proven any of the other charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

7The outcome in this case turns on three issues:

a. Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Daniels shot Mr. Brown?

b. If Mr. Daniels shot Mr. Brown, was Mr. Daniels acting in self-defence?

c. If Mr. Daniels shot Mr. Brown and was not acting in self-defence, what was his state of mind when he shot Mr. Brown?

8For the following reasons, I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Daniels shot Mr. Brown. I find there is no air of reality to the argument that Mr. Daniels was acting in self-defence. And I find that Mr. Daniels intended to kill Mr. Brown. I, therefore, find Mr. Daniels guilty of all counts on the Indictment.

B. Mr. Daniels shot Mr. Brown

9The only people in Ms. Russell’s apartment at the time of the shooting were Ms. Russell, Mr. Daniels, and Mr. Brown. Ms. Russell and Mr. Brown both testified, but there is no direct evidence that Mr. Daniels shot Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown testified that Mr. Daniels is not the person who shot him. Ms. Russell testified that she did not see the shooting because Mr. Daniels pushed her out of the way before the shots were fired.

10Counsel for Mr. Daniels argued that there are insurmountable gaps in the evidence and the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Daniels shot Mr. Brown. I disagree. I do not accept Mr. Brown’s evidence that Mr. Daniels was not the person who shot him, and I am satisfied that the only reasonable inference from the rest of the circumstantial evidence is that Mr. Daniels was the shooter: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at para. 30.

a. Mr. Brown’s evidence is neither credible nor reliable

11Mr. Brown testified that he does not remember who was in Ms. Russell’s apartment when he was shot but insisted that Mr. Daniels was not the shooter. Mr. Brown was shown a video of Mr. Daniels from the day of the shooting. Mr. Brown testified he had never seen that person before. He testified that Mr. Daniels was not in the apartment when he was shot. Mr. Brown testified the man who shot him was 6’3” or 6’4” tall with very dark skin. Mr. Daniels is a white man who is not 6’3” tall.

12I reject Mr. Brown’s evidence about the shooter for three reasons.

13First, Mr. Brown was a very reluctant witness who was not candid during his testimony. Mr. Brown was subpoenaed to testify but did not come to court on the first day of trial. I issued a material witness warrant for his arrest. Mr. Brown was brought to court by the police. When he finally testified, Mr. Brown identified himself in the security video from the day of the shooting that shows him going into Ms. Russell’s apartment. Mr. Brown also identified himself in the video of him backing out of Ms. Russell’s apartment and stumbling down the hallway. Mr. Brown acknowledged he was shot that day but said he does not remember anything about what happened in the apartment. I am not satisfied that Mr. Brown’s lack of memory is sincere. I appreciate this was a traumatic event for him, but I find that he was feigning a lack of memory to avoid answering questions.

14Second, Mr. Brown’s testimony was internally inconsistent. On the one hand, Mr. Brown claimed he did not remember any details about the shooting. He did not remember how he got into Ms. Russell’s apartment. He did not remember who was in the apartment. He did not remember what happened in the apartment before he was shot. And he did not remember how he was shot. On the other hand, Mr. Brown claimed to have a clear memory of what the shooter looked like and was adamant Mr. Daniels was not the shooter. Mr. Brown had no explanation for why he had a memory of the shooter but nothing else.

15Third, Mr. Brown’s testimony that Mr. Daniels was not in Ms. Russell’s apartment when he was shot and that he was shot by a 6’3” or 6’4” tall man with very dark skin is demonstrably false. The security video from Ms. Russell’s apartment building shows that only two people went into Ms. Russell’s apartment before the shooting that afternoon: Mr. Daniels and Mr. Brown. It is an admitted fact that nobody other than Ms. Russell, Mr. Brown and Mr. Daniels left Ms. Russell’s apartment after the shooting took place and before the police secured the apartment. In other words, Mr. Daniels was in Ms. Russell’s apartment when Mr. Brown was shot. And there was no tall man with very dark skin in the apartment.

16I, therefore, reject Mr. Brown’s evidence that Mr. Daniels is not the person who shot him and that he was shot by a tall dark-skinned man.

17Mr. Brown also testified that he was not carrying a firearm or any other weapon that day. Given the problems with Mr. Brown’s credibility and reliability, I do not accept his evidence on that point either.

18Of course, rejecting Mr. Brown’s evidence does not prove that Mr. Daniels shot Mr. Brown. Nor does it prove that Mr. Brown was carrying a weapon that day. To decide those issues, I must consider the rest of the circumstantial evidence.

b. Circumstantial evidence proves that Mr. Daniels shot Mr. Brown

19I am satisfied that the only reasonable inference from the totality of the circumstantial evidence – including Ms. Russell’s testimony, the forensic evidence and the video evidence – is that Mr. Daniels shot Mr. Brown.

i. Ms. Russell’s evidence

20Ms. Russell did not see the shooting because Mr. Daniels pushed her into the kitchen just before the shots were fired. Nevertheless, Ms. Russell’s testimony contains important pieces of circumstantial evidence about who shot Mr. Brown.

21Ms. Russell’s testified that she was friends with Mr. Daniels and Mr. Brown. She knew Mr. Daniels as “Moon”, and she knew Mr. Brown as “Bullet”. Ms. Russell was not expecting to see either of them on the day of the shooting.

22Ms. Russell testified that Mr. Daniels came to her apartment and asked if he could charge his e-scooter. She agreed, and Mr. Daniels plugged his scooter into an outlet in her hall.

23Ms. Russell’s apartment was long and narrow with the front door at one end and a combined living room and sleeping area at the other. The kitchen was a small alcove off the hall about half-way between the front door and the living room. The hall between the front door and the kitchen was only a few feet wide and was quite cluttered. The outlet where Mr. Russell plugged in his scooter was in the hall close to the kitchen.

24Ms. Russell testified that she offered Mr. Daniels a drink while he waited for his scooter to charge. Ms. Russell testified that she and Mr. Daniels stood in the hallway talking for about 20 minutes.

25As Ms. Russell and Mr. Daniels were talking, Mr. Daniels said, “your door is opening” or “someone is opening your door.” Ms. Russell testified that when the door opened and she saw Mr. Brown, she said to Mr. Daniels, “relax, it’s my buddy Bullet.”

26Ms. Russell testified that Mr. Daniels then pushed her into the kitchen. Ms. Russell testified that she tripped and when she stood up, she heard gunshots right by her ear. Ms. Russell testified that Mr. Daniels was still standing in the hallway by his scooter when the shots were fired. Ms. Russell testified that she did not hear Mr. Daniels or Mr. Brown say anything before the shooting. Ms. Russell testified that when she looked up, Mr. Brown was gone and there was blood in the hallway. Ms. Russell testified that as soon as the shooting was over, Mr. Daniels unplugged his scooter and left her apartment. Ms. Russell testified the whole incident lasted only a few seconds.

27I permitted the Crown to cross-examine Ms. Russell about one portion of the statement she gave to the police on July 7, 2024. Ms. Russell told the police that she saw Mr. Daniels with his arm raised up when she heard the shots. In cross-examination by the Crown, Ms. Russell confirmed that what she told the police was true. She then testified that she saw Mr. Daniels with his arm raised straight in front of him when she heard the shots.

28Ms. Russell testified that she did not have a firearm on July 7, 2024 and she did not shoot Mr. Brown. Ms. Russell testified that she did not see Mr. Brown or Mr. Daniels with a gun that day either. Ms. Russell testified that she does not know how or why the incident started. She was not aware of any pre-existing conflict between Mr. Daniels and Mr. Brown.

29I accept Ms. Russell’s description of what happened in her apartment that day. I found Ms. Russell to be a credible witness. I appreciate there were some gaps in Ms. Russell’s memory of the events. And Ms. Russell did not always answer questions in a focused or succinct way. But I am not troubled by the gaps in her memory or the manner in which she testified. The shooting took place close to two years ago and was very traumatic for her. I am satisfied that Ms. Russell was trying her best to tell the truth about what she remembers happening that day.

30Ms. Russell’s evidence about the timing and sequence of events was corroborated by the video evidence, which gives me confidence about her reliability as a witness. The police obtained video from several security cameras in Ms. Russell’s building. One of the cameras captured the activity in the hall outside Ms. Russell’s apartment. Mr. Daniels did not challenge the authenticity or accuracy of the video evidence.

31The video evidence corroborates Ms. Russell’s description of events before and after the shooting in the five significant ways:

The video shows Mr. Brown arriving at Ms. Russell’s apartment about 30 minutes after Mr. Daniels arrived with his e-scooter, which corroborates Ms. Russell’s evidence that she and Mr. Daniels were chatting for about 20 minutes before Mr. Brown arrived.
The video shows that Mr. Brown used a key to open Ms. Russell’s door. It does not appear that he knocked before opening the door, which explains why Mr. Daniels said, “your door is opening” or “someone is opening your door.”
The video shows Mr. Brown stumbling backwards out of Ms. Russell’s apartment clutching his stomach approximately 30 seconds after he arrived, which corroborates Ms. Russell’s evidence that the incident unfolded very quickly.
Less than 30 seconds after Mr. Brown arrived, a burst of smoke is visible in the hall outside Ms. Russell’s apartment. I am satisfied the smoke was produced by a gun being fired inside her apartment. Two seconds later, Mr. Brown stumbled out of the apartment. In other words, the video shows that Mr. Brown fled as soon as he was shot, which corroborates Ms. Russell’s testimony that Mr. Brown was gone when she looked up after hearing the shots.
The video shows Mr. Daniels leaving Ms. Russell’s apartment with his e-scooter a few seconds after Mr. Brown, which corroborates Ms. Russell’s evidence that Mr. Daniels unplugged his scooter and left as soon as the shooting was over.

32Given my findings that Ms. Russell was a credible witness and that much of her evidence was corroborated, I accept her testimony about what happened in her apartment. I accept that Mr. Brown opened the door to her apartment unexpectedly as she and Mr. Daniels were talking in the hall. I accept that Ms. Russell saw Mr. Brown and said to Mr. Daniels, “relax, that is my buddy Bullet.” I accept that Mr. Daniels pushed Ms. Russell into the kitchen just before the shots were fired. I accept that Mr. Daniels was in the hallway close to where his scooter was plugged with his arm raised in front of him when the shots were fired. And I accept that Ms. Russell did not shoot Mr. Brown.

ii. Forensic Evidence

33After the shooting, the police conducted a forensic examination of Ms. Russell’s apartment and the hallway outside her apartment. Mr. Daniels did not challenge the reliability of the forensic evidence. I am satisfied that the forensic evidence proves three things: (i) all the shots were fired from a single gun, (ii) all the shots were fired from inside Ms. Russell’s apartment, and (iii) most if not all the shots were fired towards the front door of her apartment. When those three findings are considered together with my findings that Ms. Russell did not shoot Mr. Brown and Mr. Daniels was in the hall of Ms. Russell’s apartment by his scooter when the shooting occurred, the only reasonable inference is that Mr. Daniels shot Mr. Brown while Mr. Brown was near the front door.

34The police found five spent cartridge cases inside Ms. Russell’s apartment. One cartridge was on the floor in the hallway of Ms. Russell’s apartment, approximately five feet from the front door. One cartridge was a few feet further down the hall, very close to the outlet where Ms. Russell said Mr. Daniels plugged in his e-scooter. The other three cartridge cases were found by the window in the living room of Ms. Russell’s apartment. All five were 9mm cartridge cases but were not from the same manufacturer. Through forensic examination it was determined that the five cartridge cases had been fired from the same gun.

35The police also found four projectiles or bullet fragments. Three of the bullets were found in Ms. Russell’s apartment: two were on the floor just inside the front door and one was a few feet further down the hall. The fourth bullet was found embedded in the wall across the hall from Ms. Russell’s apartment. The bullets were examined, and it was determined that they were all fired from the same gun.

36The police found two holes through Ms. Russell’s front door and a hole through the wall just beside her front door. The police found another hole in the wall across the hall from Ms. Russell’s apartment very close to where the bullet was lodged in the wall.

37I did not hear expert evidence about the expected trajectory of cartridge cases or bullets when they are fired from a gun. I understand that the cartridge cases and bullets could have rolled or bounced when they landed on the tiled floor in Ms. Russell’s hall. I also understand that the cartridge cases or bullets could have been moved after they landed. For example, one of the bullets was found on the floor near the front door. That bullet could have been moved when Mr. Brown and Mr. Daniels opened the front door when they left after the shooting. I, therefore, cannot make any findings about exactly where the shooter was when the shots were fired based on the location of the cartridge cases or bullets alone.

38Nevertheless, I can make some findings from the forensic evidence.

39First, I find that only one gun was fired during the incident. That is the only reasonable inference from the fact that all the cartridge cases were fired from the same gun and all the bullets were fired from the same gun.

40Second, I find that all the shots were fired inside Ms. Russell’s apartment. There is no other explanation for the fact that all the spent cartridges were found inside her apartment.

41Third, I find that most if not all the shots were fired towards the front door of Ms. Russell’s apartment. That is the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the fact that (a) two bullets were found just inside her front door, (b) there were two holes through Ms. Russell’s front door, (c) there was a hole in the wall beside her front door, and (d) a bullet was lodged in the wall across the hall from her apartment.

42The video evidence strengthens my conclusion that the shots were fired from inside Ms. Russell’s apartment towards her front door. Two seconds before Mr. Brown stumbled out of the apartment, a plume of smoke burst out of Ms. Russell apartment. I am satisfied that the smoke was a byproduct of the gun being fired in Ms. Russell’s apartment towards Mr. Brown. The video also confirmed that no shots were fired in the hall outside Ms. Russell’s apartment.

iii. Video evidence

43There are two additional pieces of circumstantial evidence from the security video that are relevant to the question of who shot Mr. Brown.

44First, the video shows that Mr. Brown did not have anything in his hands as he left Ms. Russell’s apartment. He was not pointing a gun when he backed out of the apartment. Nor was he carrying a gun as he staggered down the hallway after he was shot. Mr. Brown was wearing a cross-body bag when he arrived at Ms. Russell’s apartment. He still had that bag around his neck when he left her apartment. He did not put anything into that bag as he left Ms. Russell’s apartment or staggered down the hall. Because Mr. Brown was shot just two seconds before he fled (as evidenced by the burst of smoke in the hallway outside Ms. Russell’s apartment) and because he was empty-handed when he left, I am satisfied Mr. Brown was not in possession of a gun when the shots were fired at him.

45I heard evidence that someone who lived in Ms. Russell’s building took Mr. Brown’s bag, which he left in the lobby of the building after he was shot. When the bag was given to the police several hours later, it was empty. Counsel for Mr. Daniels argued that the fact the bag was empty is suspicious and supports an inference that Mr. Brown was carrying a gun that day. I agree the circumstances surrounding the delivery of Mr. Brown’s bag to the police are suspicious, but I do not agree that the circumstances support a finding that he had a gun in his bag when he left Ms. Russell’s apartment. I have already found that Mr. Brown was shot two seconds before he emerged empty-handed from the apartment. I have also found that Mr. Brown did not have a gun when he was shot and he did not put anything into his bag after he left the apartment. The fact that someone emptied Mr. Brown’s bag before giving it to the police supports an inference that Mr. Brown was involved in some illegal activity that day, but considering the other circumstantial evidence, it does not support an inference that he was carrying a gun.

46Second, as Mr. Daniels ran towards the elevator with his scooter after the shooting, he was holding onto a cross-body bag he was wearing under his jacket. As he waited for the elevator, he zipped up his bag. Unlike Mr. Brown, who left Ms. Russell’s empty-handed, Mr. Daniels appears to have put something into his bag as he was leaving.

iv. Conclusion on circumstantial evidence

47Based on all the circumstantial evidence, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Daniels shot Mr. Brown. I find that Mr. Daniels was in the hall of Ms. Russell’s apartment talking to Ms. Russell when Mr. Brown unexpectedly opened the front door. I find that Ms. Russell told Mr. Daniels not to worry because Mr. Brown was her friend. I find that Mr. Daniels pushed Ms. Russell into the kitchen and then shot at Mr. Brown. Finally, I find that Mr. Brown was not in possession of a firearm when he was shot. I am satisfied those are the only reasonable inferences from all the circumstantial evidence.

C. Mr. Daniels was not acting in self-defence

48Mr. Daniels argued that if I find he was the shooter, the Crown has not proven that he was not acting in self-defence. Mr. Daniels argued that there are so many gaps in the evidence about why the shooting happened and how the shooting unfolded that I could not be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-defence. For example, Mr. Daniels argued that the evidence does not preclude the reasonable possibility that Mr. Brown pulled a gun on Mr. Daniels, Mr. Daniels and Mr. Brown struggled over the gun and the gun went off accidentally during the struggle.

49Mr. Daniels has an evidentiary burden to show there is an air of reality to self-defence before the burden shifts to the Crown to disprove it: R. v. Cinous, 2002 SCC 29, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 3, at para. 51. Self-defence has three elements. There must be an air of reality in relation to each element: Cinous, at para. 95. There must be some evidence that Mr. Daniels reasonably believed force or a threat of force was being used against him or Ms. Russell. There must be some evidence that Mr. Daniels shot Mr. Brown for the purpose of defending himself or Ms. Russell. Finally, there must be some evidence that shooting Mr. Brown was reasonable in the circumstances.

50Mr. Daniels did not testify. I, therefore, have no evidence from him about what happened before the shooting or why he shot Mr. Brown. Of course, Mr. Daniels does not have to testify to satisfy his evidentiary burden. An air of reality can be based on evidence adduced from the Crown witnesses. Nevertheless, I find there is no air of reality to self-defence in this case.

51I appreciate that Mr. Brown unexpectedly opened the door to Ms. Russell’s apartment while Mr. Daniels and Ms. Russell were talking. In some circumstances, that might be enough to find that Mr. Daniels reasonably believed there was a threat that force would be used against him or Ms. Russell by the intruder. However, Mr. Brown was not an intruder. Ms. Russell testified that she had given him permission to use her apartment. And Ms. Russell told Mr. Daniels that Mr. Brown was not a threat. Once Ms. Russell said, “relax, it’s my buddy Bullet”, there is no air of reality that Mr. Daniels reasonably believed Mr. Brown was a threat.

52There is also no evidence Mr. Brown used or threatened to use force against Mr. Daniels or Ms. Russell after he entered the apartment. Counsel for Mr. Daniels did not ask Mr. Brown any questions or make any suggestions to him about what happened immediately before the shooting. He did not ask Mr. Brown if he produced a gun or if he pointed a gun at Mr. Daniels or if he threatened Mr. Daniels or Ms. Russell in any other way. Counsel for Mr. Daniels conceded that he made a strategic decision not to ask Mr. Brown those questions.

53The video evidence establishes that the shooting unfolded very quickly. Mr. Brown was in Ms. Russell’s apartment for only 30 seconds. Ms. Russell testified and I accept that she did not hear Mr. Daniels or Mr. Brown said anything to each other before the shooting. Based on Ms. Russell’s evidence, there was no argument or physical struggle between Mr. Brown and Mr. Daniels before shots were fired. Ms. Russell also testified and I accept that Mr. Daniels was close to the kitchen when the shots were fired. I have already found that Mr. Brown was close to the front door when he was shot. I, therefore, reject Mr. Daniels’s argument that the evidence supports a reasonable inference that Mr. Russell produced a gun and there was a struggled over the gun before shots were fired.

54Based on the totality of the evidence, I find that there is no air of reality that Mr. Daniels reasonably believed that force was being used or threatened against him or Ms. Russell. If there is no air of reality that Mr. Daniels reasonably believed force was being used or threatened against him or Ms. Russell, there is no air of reality that Mr. Daniels shot Mr. Brown for the purpose of defending himself or Ms. Russell.

55Even if I am wrong and there is an air of reality to self-defence, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that shooting Mr. Brown repeatedly at close range was not reasonable. I have already found that Mr. Brown did not have a gun when he was shot because he was empty-handed when he backed out of the apartment two second after he was shot. Even if there was some basis to find that within 30 seconds of Mr. Brown entering Ms. Russell’s apartment, Mr. Brown produced the gun and Mr. Daniels disarmed him, once Mr. Brown was disarmed, shooting him would not be reasonable.

56I am, therefore, satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Daniels was not acting in self-defence when he shot Mr. Brown.

D. Mr. Daniels’ intent during the shooting

57Mr. Daniels is charged with attempted murder, discharging a firearm with the intent to wound, maim, disfigure, or endanger Mr. Brown’s life, reckless discharge of a firearm and aggravated assault. Based on the wording of the Indictment, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Daniels meant to kill Mr. Brown when he shot him before I could find Mr. Daniels guilty of attempted murder. The Crown must prove that Mr. Daniels wounded Mr. Brown or endangered his life by assaulting him before I can find Mr. Daniels guilty of aggravated assault. The Crown must prove that Mr. Daniels meant to wound, maim, disfigure, or endanger Mr. Brown’s life when he discharged the firearm before I can find him guilty of discharging a firearm with intent. Finally, the Crown must prove that Mr. Daniels knew or was reckless about the risk to the lives or safety of other people when he intentionally fired the gun before I can find him guilty of recklessly discharging a firearm.

58I have no difficulty finding that Mr. Daniels wounded Mr. Brown and endangered his life. A “wound” is an injury that breaks or cuts the skin in a way that is more than trifling or fleeting: R. v. Brown, 2021 ONCA 678, 158 O.R. (3d) 275, at paras. 23-26. Mr. Brown had 12 penetrating injuries from six gunshots. Any one of those injuries meet the legal definition of a wound. Mr. Brown had penetrating wounds to his lower back and hip. His hip and pelvis were also fractured. He had two penetrating wounds to the centre of his chest and a fractured rib. And he has penetrating wounds to his groin and upper thigh.

59Endangering someone’s life involves creating a situation in which the person could die: R. v. M.J., 2018 ONCA 708, at paras. 4-5. Mr. Brown underwent emergency surgery immediately after the shooting. In addition to addressing the 12 gunshot wounds, part of Mr. Brown’s colon was removed during the surgery. I am satisfied that Mr. Brown’s injuries were sufficiently serious that he could have died.

60The real issue for me to decide is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Daniels had the intent required for attempted murder or for discharging with the intent to wound, both of which require the Crown to prove subjective intent.

61For attempted murder, the Crown must prove that Mr. Daniels meant to kill Mr. Brown. Mr. Daniels argued that I cannot be satisfied Mr. Daniels meant to shoot Mr. Brown six times or that he meant to shoot Mr. Brown in the torso. Mr. Daniels argued that without evidence about what sort of gun Mr. Daniels used and whether it was an automatic or semi-automatic weapon, I cannot draw any inferences about how many shots Mr. Daniels meant to fire at Mr. Brown. Mr. Daniels also argued that there is no basis to conclude that he meant to harm or kill Mr. Brown. I do not agree.

62I have already found that Mr. Brown was unarmed when he was shot. Mr. Daniels was just a few feet from Mr. Brown when he shot Mr. Brown. The hallway in Ms. Russell’s apartment was narrow and short. If Mr. Brown was right inside the front door when he was shot, Mr. Daniels would have been eight to ten feet away from him. If Mr. Brown had moved further into the apartment before he was shot, Mr. Brown and Mr. Daniels would have been even closer together. Mr. Brown had gunshot wounds to his torso, arm, lower back and legs.

63Guns are designed to kill. When a gun is pointed at a vital part of the victim’s body and deliberately fired several times, the only reasonable inference, in the absence of evidence that the gun discharged accidentally, is that the gun was fired with the intent to kill the victim: R. v. Bains (1985), 7 O.A.C. 67 (C.A.), at p. 5, leave to appeal refused, [1985] S.C.C.A. No. 158; R. v. Hassan, 2026 ONCA 66, at para. 32, R. v. Bruce, 2026 ONSC 2307 at paras. 72-73. There is no evidence the shooting in this case was an accident. I am satisfied that Mr. Daniels deliberately shot Mr. Brown repeatedly at close range in vital parts of his body.

64I appreciate that there is no apparent motive for the shooting. There is no evidence of any pre-existing dispute or conflict between Mr. Daniels and Mr. Brown. Ms. Russell testified that Mr. Daniels and Mr. Brown may have met once but did not otherwise know each other. The absence of evidence of motive is, of course, relevant to the issue of intent. However, motive is not an essential element of an offence.

65I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that when Mr. Daniels shot Mr. Brown six times at close range, he meant to kill him. It follows from my finding that Mr. Daniels subjectively intended kill Mr. Brown that the Crown has also proven the mental element for aggravated assault, discharging a firearm with intent and recklessly discharging a firearm.

E. After-the-fact conduct

66The Crown argues that Mr. Daniels’s conduct after the shooting is circumstantial evidence that Mr. Daniels shot Mr. Brown and meant to kill him. At the time of the shooting, Mr. Daniels was required to wear a GPS monitoring device as a condition of a bail order made on June 5, 2024. Mr. Daniels removed the device about an hour after the shooting and threw it in a garbage can on Queen Street East.

67Counsel for Mr. Daniels argued that his conduct after the shooting had no probative value because there are other innocent explanations for why he left and removed his GPS monitor.

68I do not need to resolve this issue because I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Daniels shot Mr. Brown and intended to kill him without considering what Mr. Daniels did after the shooting.

F. Conclusion

69I find Mr. Daniels guilty of attempted murder, discharging a firearm with the intent to wound or endanger Mr. Brown’s life, recklessly discharging a firearm and aggravated assault. I will hear submissions about whether any of those findings of guilt should be stayed.

70Mr. Daniels admits that the cartridge cases and projectiles found in and around Ms. Russell’s apartment were fired from a prohibited or restricted firearm. Mr. Daniels also admits that he was not licensed or authorized to possess a firearm. Given that I have found that Mr. Daniels was the shooter, I find him guilty of unauthorized possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm.

71Mr. Daniels admits that at the time of the shooting he was bound by four weapons prohibition orders. Given my finding that Mr. Daniels was in possession of a firearm when he shot Mr. Brown, I find him guilty of breaching those prohibition orders.

72Finally, counsel for Mr. Daniels invited me to convict him of breaching his bail. He was required to wear a GPS monitoring device. He admits he deliberately cut off the device and threw it in the garbage. I, therefore, find him guilty of breaching his bail.

___________________________ Davies J.

Oral reasons delivered: May 29, 2026

Written reasons released: June 4, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Daniels, 2026 ONSC 3225

COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-20000229

DATE: 20260529

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE