CITATION: R. v. McPherson, 2026 ONSC 3642

COURT FILE NO.: CR-25-10000242-0000

DATE: 20260626

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

COBY MCPHERSON

Karolina Visic and William Deck, for the Crown

Neill Fitzmaurice and Daniel Fitzmaurice, for Coby McPherson

HEARD at Toronto: April 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 29, 2026

j.k. penman j.

Overview

1On March 12, 2024, Kai Alleyne-Martin was on his scooter on a footpath near Grenadier Pond in High Park, when he passed a male alleged to be Coby McPherson. The male called out to Mr. Alleyne-Martin, who stopped his scooter and walked toward the male. Words were exchanged between Mr. Alleyne-Martin and the male. The male then pulled out a firearm and fired six rounds toward Mr. Alleyne-Martin. No one was shot.

2Mr. Alleyne-Martin described the shooter as wearing a red tracksuit, with long blond hair with a neck tattoo. Four civilian witnesses describe the shooter wearing red, with feminine features, and three of them describe the shooter as having long blond hair. Mr. McPherson has long blond hair and a neck tattoo.

3Police obtained CCTV footage of a person they believed to be Mr. McPherson entering and exiting High Park at the relevant times with an unknown female and his father. Mr. McPherson was wearing a red tracksuit and a black puffy jacket. The footage shows Mr. McPherson leaving the park appearing to have switched clothing with his father.

4The footage also shows Mr. McPherson attending the residence of Aman Zerau the day after the shooting where it was believed he left the firearm. A search warrant was executed on Mr. Zerau’s residence on March 19, 2024, and a firearm was found. Ballistics testing determined that the casings found at the scene presumptively came from that firearm. Mr. McPherson’s DNA was found on the firearm. In addition to the firearm, police found clothing that Mr. McPherson had been observed wearing on the CCTV footage.

5At the time of the shooting, Mr. McPherson was on a release order requiring him to wear an ankle monitor. The data from the ankle monitor placed Mr. McPherson at the location of the shooting at the relevant time.

6Mr. Alleyne-Martin did not testify. On April 15, 2026, I granted the Crown’s application to admit his preliminary hearing testimony into evidence.

7Mr. McPherson is now charged with discharging firearm with intent to endanger life, contrary to s. 244(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, offences related to possession of the firearm, and breaches of various court orders.

8Mr. McPherson did not testify, nor call evidence.

9The Crown submits that the combination of the identification evidence from Mr. Alleyne-Martin, the CCTV footage and the civilian witnesses, along with the GPS data evidence, easily establishes that Mr. McPherson is the shooter. Mr. McPherson is connected to Mr. Zerau by virtue of the CCTV footage and the clothing found in the residence, and it is an overwhelming inference that the firearm found in the residence was the firearm involved in the shooting. The Crown submits that having fired six shots directly at Mr. Alleyne-Martin, Mr. McPherson intended to endanger his life.

10Counsel for Mr. McPherson argues that there is a reasonable doubt based on conflicting evidence as to where the incident began, and if so, Mr. McPherson must be acquitted because he was in another area along the footpath at the time of the shooting. Counsel also argues that, based on the discrepancies in the descriptions of the shooter, there is a reasonable doubt that the person the witnesses were describing is Mr. McPherson. Counsel also argues that the after the fact conduct evidence does not provide any corroboration that Mr. McPherson is the shooter.

11Finally, counsel submits that there is a reasonable alternate inference on the evidence that Mr. McPherson was in the area of the shooting at the time and knew the shooter but was not involved in the shooting itself.

12Mr. McPherson submits that if I find that he is the person who fired the shots, I cannot be satisfied that he did so with the intent to endanger the life of Mr. Alleyne-Martin. In that case counsel concedes that Mr. McPherson should instead be found guilty of reckless discharge of a firearm contrary to s. 244.2(1) of the Criminal Code.

13The issues I must decide are as follows:

1. Is Mr. McPherson the person who discharged the firearm at Mr. Alleyne-Martin?

2. If Mr. McPherson is the person who discharged the firearm, did he do so with the intent to endanger the life of Mr. Alleyne-Martin?

14For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that Mr. McPherson was the person who shot at Mr. Alleyne-Martin on March 12, 2024, and that he did so with the intent to endanger his life.

Analysis

Issue 1: Is Mr. McPherson the person who discharged a firearm at Kai Alleyne-Martin?

15The shooting occurred along a stretch of a footpath at the south end of Grenadier Pond between Colborne Lodge to the east and Ellis Avenue to the west. There are three inlets along the footpath which are paved areas with benches where people can sit and look out onto the pond. I will refer to the inlet furthest to the east along the footpath as the first inlet, the middle inlet as the second inlet, and the inlet further to the west along the footpath as the third inlet.

Identification Evidence

16While there is no direct eyewitness identification of Mr. McPherson as the shooter, the cautions relating to eyewitness evidence are applicable in this case. The weight to be assigned to eyewitness evidence varies according to the circumstances of the case, keeping in mind the inherent and specific frailties of the evidence, along with any confirmatory evidence: see R. v. Pelletier, 2012 ONCA 566, 291 C.C.C. (3d) 279, at para. 95; R. v. Yigzaw, 2013 ONCA 547, 301 C.C.C. (3d) 266, at para. 49.

Kai Alleyne-Martin

17I have cautioned myself that when assessing Mr. Alleyne-Martin’s evidence, I was not able to observe him testifying, nor hear an audio of his preliminary hearing evidence.

18Mr. Alleyne-Martin was riding his scooter westbound on the footpath at the south end of Grenadier Pond, when he observed two people at a bench about halfway along the path in one of the inlets, one standing and one sitting. The person who was standing initially appeared to be female, but after seeing facial hair, Mr. Alleyne-Martin believed the person to be male. Mr. Alleyne-Martin described the male as white, in his 20s, medium build, with long dirty blonde hair, wearing a red tracksuit and a long, light green or beige jacket and a hood. The male had a large tattoo on his neck.

19The person sitting on the bench was a Black woman with a short black afro with blonde tips. Mr. Alleyne-Martin believed she was on drugs because she was behaving “lazy” and as though she was “on another planet”.

20Mr. Alleyne-Martin heard someone call out to him. He stopped his scooter, turned around and went back to the inlet where he had seen the two people. The male asked him, “You good?” to which Mr. Alleyne-Martin responded, “Yeah”. The male asked where he was from, to which Mr. Alleyne-Martin responded, “Parkdale”. The tone from the male had become aggressive. The male then pulled out a gun and began shooting at Mr. Alleyne-Martin. While Mr. Alleyne-Martin initially described this interaction as lasting 30 seconds, in cross-examination he said it lasted less than 10 seconds before the gun came out.

21Mr. Alleyne-Martin believed the gun either came from the male’s jacket or was handed to him. He was not sure because at the time he was focused on the shooter’s face and eyes. Mr. Alleyne-Martin described the gun as a standard handgun, maybe a 1911 Glock, silver/grey in colour.

22The male fired in Mr. Alleyne-Martin’s direction at least five times. Mr. Alleyne-Martin lost one of his air pods in his rush to get back on the scooter.

23The shooter said, “Come back” and chased after Mr. Alleyne-Martin. The shooter then stopped and started running the other way. The shooter and the female companion then ran away heading east along the footpath. Mr. Alleyne-Martin travelled westbound.

24Mr. Alleyne-Martin was not shot.

25I am satisfied that Mr. Alleyne-Martin’s evidence is both credible and reliable. While there are some issues with Mr. Alleyne-Martin’s recollection, these are understandable given the frightening and traumatic nature of the interaction.

26Mr. Alleyne-Martin was candid about what he did and did not remember and did not try to fill in the gaps. For example, he was unable to recall what he himself was wearing, exactly what was said when the person first called out to him, which hand was holding the gun, and where the gun came from.

27Mr. Alleyne-Martin provided reasonable explanations for aspects of his evidence. For example, he explained why he was initially confused about Mr. McPherson’s gender.

28Mr. Alleyne-Martin did not know the shooter and had never seen or met him before. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Alleyne-Martin had a motive to fabricate.

29Mr. Alleyne-Martin had the best and most meaningful opportunity to observe the shooter and his companion prior to the shooting. First, he observed the couple as he was passing the inlet on his scooter, during daylight hours, and then returned on foot to see who had spoken to him. Second, Mr. Alleyne-Martin described locking eyes with the shooter as he was passing by. Third, Mr. Alleyne-Martin was then standing directly across from the shooter who was by the bench, while he was standing on the footpath.

30Mr. Alleyne-Martin’s evidence is also corroborated in the following ways.

Civilian eyewitness evidence

31The four civilians who witnessed the shooting all did so from different vantage points. While aspects of their descriptions of the event and the shooter differ from each other and that of Mr. Alleyne-Martin, they are consistent on several key details which I will outline below.

32All eyewitness evidence is subject to frailties, and this concern was obvious in this case. There is no question that all the witnesses who described what took place were affected by the sudden, shocking, traumatic nature of the event.

33As the Court of Appeal observed in R. v. G.M.C., 2022 ONCA 2, 159 O.R. (3d) 561, at para. 38, observations made by a witness during a traumatic event can be difficult to describe accurately at a later date. A witness cannot be expected to have a faithful memory of minor incidents that occurred during a traumatic event. The inability to recall a minor or insignificant event does not detract from the witness’s overall credibility or reliability. It is human nature to try to make sense of bits and pieces of memory about an event, and this may impact the accuracy of a witness’ testimony concerning the events.

34I have kept these propositions in mind when evaluating the evidence of the civilian witnesses.

Rebecca Briggs

35Ms. Briggs was walking westbound on the footpath when she passed the first inlet and saw two people who appeared to be arguing. One was sitting, one was standing. The person who was sitting was a white male with curly black or dark brown hair, wearing dark clothing, between the ages of 25 and 35 years. The person standing was white, with shoulder length blonde hair, wearing a red t-shirt or long sleeve with a beige hoody or vest. Initially Ms. Briggs believed this person was female because of their appearance and tone of voice but is less certain now, although could not articulate why.

36Ms. Briggs then noticed a male in dark clothing coming towards her at a high rate of speed on a scooter. The person almost ran into her and appeared to be focused behind her, leaving Ms. Briggs with the impression that he knew the people in the inlet.

37Ms. Briggs then heard gunshots, turned, and saw the male with the blonde hair shooting toward the person on the scooter. The man on the scooter was now “flying” past her going the other way. She then saw the shooter and the other person running eastbound along the footpath.

Charles Barangan

38Mr. Barangan was going fishing and heading eastbound on the footpath. A man on a scooter passed by Mr. Barangan heading in the same direction. Mr. Barangan proceeded to the middle inlet and began setting up his fishing gear.

39A few minutes later, Mr. Barangan heard yelling and banging and what sounded like gunshots coming from east of him. He went back to the footpath and as he emerged from the inlet, saw the male on the scooter quickly heading back westbound looking frightened. When Mr. Barangan looked east, he saw another person on the footpath chasing and shooting at the male on the scooter. The gun was in the shooter’s left hand. This took place on the footpath proximate to the middle inlet.

40Mr. Barangan heard approximately 8 shots in total, five or six of which were when he was watching the shooter on the footpath.

41The shooter was white, wearing a red ski jacket with a hood, with loose, shoulder length blonde hair. Mr. Barangan described the shooter as either effeminate or female. Mr. Barangan heard the shooter say to the male on the scooter, “Talk shit” in an angry tone of voice.

42After the shooting, the shooter removed and re-inserted the magazine of the firearm, although Mr. Branagan was not sure if it was the same or a different magazine. The shooter then began running at a full sprint eastbound and was joined by another person who appeared to be carrying a toolbox.

Gary Newhouse

43Mr. Newhouse was walking westbound on the path with his dog. As he passed the middle inlet, he noticed two people sitting on the bench facing the pond. The person on the left appeared to be male, was taller, wearing a dark overcoat. The person next to them was shorter and wearing a red jacket.

44Mr. Newhouse continued walking, heard something, and looked over his shoulder to see a male slowly pushing a scooter. The male was Black, with short hair, approximately 18 or 19 years of age. As Mr. Newhouse approached the third inlet, he heard raised voices and a commotion coming from the middle inlet. The male on the scooter then came back down the path going westbound at a faster rate of speed.

45Mr. Newhouse looked over his shoulder and saw a person standing on the footpath about five feet away, with a gun shooting at the man on the scooter. He did not see where the shooter came from. Mr. Newhouse heard five or six shots.

46The shooter was white, with grey-blonde shoulder length hair, possibly in a ponytail, with somewhat wrinkly skin, possibly in their 30s or 40s. Mr. Newhouse thought the person was female because of the hair and the “soft” facial features. The person was wearing a red nylon ski jacket and blue ski pants.

47When the shooting stopped, Mr. Newhouse looked back again and saw the shooter take the clip out of the gun and put a new clip in. He did not know where the new clip came from but assumed it was a different clip.

Maureen McDonald

48Ms. McDonald had just entered the southwestern end of the park and was walking eastbound along the footpath. Ms. McDonald heard an “electronic sound” that she thought was a gunshot. Ms. McDonald saw a group of people about 225 meters away, down the footpath, including one person in a red sweater who was running eastbound with another person.

Consideration of the Civilian Witness Evidence

49The areas of commonality between the civilian witnesses are that the shooter was wearing red, had feminine features, and had long blond hair. I accept that there are differences between the descriptions including the age of the shooter, and exactly what they were wearing.

50However, the core details of their testimony are corroborated by each other, and by the other evidence in the case, including the CCTV footage, the GPS data, and the firearm and ballistic evidence.

51I do not accept the submission that it defies comprehension that if Mr. McPherson was the shooter the witnesses had observed, it is impossible for them not to have noticed that he was wearing a full red tracksuit, as described by Mr. Alleyne-Martin. The import of the combined evidence of the civilian witnesses is that the shooter was wearing red with long blond hair. It defies coincidence in my view that the shooter happened to be someone else wearing red with long blond hair.

52What is consistent between the witnesses is significant because, as outlined below, it corroborates the description provided by Mr. Alleyne-Martin and is consistent with Mr. McPherson’s appearance as captured on the CCTV footage from the day of the shooting.

Location of the shooting and Mr. McPherson

53Mr. McPherson argues that Mr. Barangan and Ms. Briggs are correct that the incident began in the first inlet followed by the shooter running down the path towards the second inlet where most of the shots were fired. If this is correct, based on the GPS data, Mr. McPherson must be acquitted because the data places him in the area of the second inlet at the time, not the first. Mr. McPherson submits that I can find that he was in the “area” of the second inlet, for example in the surrounding bushes, at the time of the shooting but someone else was the shooter.

54As I will explain, I do not accept this submission. On a review of the whole of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the incident began in the first inlet.

55Mr. Barangan did not have a perfect memory of the event, and while he may have appeared the “least traumatized” by what took place, I am not prepared to find that there was no trauma and that it did not affect the reliability of his account.

56I have also carefully considered what Mr. Barangan said about the location of the shooter and shooting. Mr. Barangan testified that he began setting up his fishing gear in the second inlet, and that the gunshots that he first heard came from east of him. However, he was unsure which inlet the gunshots had come from. This is telling because if he was in the second inlet and the gunshots came from east of him, he should have been certain that they came from the first inlet.

57Mr. Barangan was also not sure if the shooter was already on the path or if he had emerged from an inlet at the time he observed him shooting at the male on the scooter. Mr. Barangan did not have a perfect recollection of the sequence of gunshots. Importantly, Mr. Barangan never testified that the shooter came from the first inlet.

58Mr. Barangan was a very credible witness who was candid in his testimony and was careful not to guess when he did not remember or was unsure. He readily acknowledged the brevity of some of his observations. In my view, Mr. Barangan was mistaken as to where he was making his observations from.

59Ms. Briggs was a very careful witness who readily acknowledged the effect of the trauma on her memory. Ms. Briggs testified that she was walking quickly and briefly saw the couple at the first inlet having an angry conversation. She did not stop walking and, because of the “confusion” in her mind, believed the person wearing red was female. Ms. Briggs heard a shot and then another shot, and that is when she turned back and saw the shooter. Ms. Briggs explained that the trauma in the moment “makes you feel unclear”, and she is uncertain about some of her observations.

60Ms. Briggs described that once she heard gunshots, she started running and at one point turned back. She kept running and saw a pathway on her right that she did not think had a bench. The first two inlets are virtually identical, with benches close to and easily visible from the pathway. The third inlet, on the other hand, has a much longer pathway before you get to the bench by the water. This is some support for Ms. Briggs having observed the couple in the second inlet because if she was passing the second inlet as she was running, she would have easily noticed the bench. I am satisfied that she must have been in the area of the third inlet, suggesting that the couple she had just seen was in the second inlet.

61In contrast, Mr. McPherson argues that I should find that Mr. Newhouse is mistaken and that when he is referring to the second and third inlets, he is actually referring to the first and second inlets. I do not agree. When shown a photo of himself standing at the second inlet, Mr. Newhouse was unable to say which inlet was in the photo, because the inlets “look pretty much the same.” When pressed on whether he had seen the couple at the first inlet, his response was that he seemed to recall passing the first inlet and that it was empty. He did acknowledge that he could have got the inlets confused. Although Mr. Newhouse says that the shooter was about five feet behind him just before the third inlet, in my view, Mr. Newhouse incorrectly put himself closer to the third inlet than what took place. This is evidenced by the location of the casings, which I outline below.

62Mr. Alleyne-Martin testified that he was familiar with the “little bench areas” and thought there might be two or three but was not sure. When asked how far along he was when he heard someone call out to him, Mr. Alleyne-Martin testified that he was about halfway along the footpath, which would be in the area of the second inlet.

63Importantly, Mr. McPherson’s theory is not supported by the forensic evidence. Five of the cartridge casings were found in the second inlet, and one was found farther west along the footpath. Mr. McPherson submits that this is consistent with the ballistics evidence from Ms. Gornall of the Centre of Forensic Sciences (“CFS”) that a Glock 23 ejects cartridges at a distance between 2 and 12 feet. Mr. McPherson argues that given that the inlet is paved, that the shots were fired from the footpath, that the casings ejected to the right from the firearm, and that the inlet is sloped towards the water, an inference can be drawn that the casings must have rolled to where they were found.

64To begin, there is no evidence that the paved area of the second inlet is sloped.

65There is no dispute that the shooting took place at 5:00pm based on the 911 calls, and the audio of the shooting is captured on a nearby homeowner’s home security system. The audio of that system’s recording captures seven shots. If Mr. McPherson’s narrative is correct and I am to accept Mr. Barangan’s and Ms. Brigg’s evidence that the incident began in the first inlet, then one or two shots would have occurred in the first inlet, five shots on the footpath directly opposite the second inlet, and one shot farther along the footpath. That is not what occurred. On the audio there are seven shots in total that can be heard as follows: five shots in quick succession—pause—one shot—pause—one shot.

66This sequence of shots would suggest that five casings would have been in or near the first inlet, and two casings farther along the footpath. The first inlet was not searched for casings, but six casings were found in and just past the second inlet. I appreciate the submission that one casing is missing, but on Mr. McPherson’s theory that the incident started in the first inlet, five casings should have been found around the first inlet, and one or two casings should have been found around the second inlet, not six.

67I find that the incident did not begin in the first inlet. The casings are found in the second inlet and west along the footpath. A strike mark on the tree in the second inlet suggests that the shooter was standing near the bench and firing in a westerly direction down the footpath. The sequence of shots as captured on the surveillance system’s audio supports this finding.

68I now turn to the rest of the circumstantial evidence that corroborates Mr. Alleyne-Martin’s account and establishes along with the rest of the evidence that Mr. McPherson is the shooter.

CCTV Footage

69The CCTV footage captures who the Crown alleges to be Mr. McPherson and his father, leaving from their High Park residence at 2317-100 High Park Avenue and joining an unknown female before travelling to and from the park at times proximate to the time of the shooting.

70I am satisfied that the person captured on the CCTV footage is Mr. McPherson for the following reasons.

71First, I have had ample opportunity to observe Mr. McPherson through the course of the trial. Second, Mr. McPherson was wearing an ankle monitor at the relevant time, and the data associated with his monitor puts him in the exact locations where he is observed on the footage. Third, I have had the benefit of reviewing Mr. McPherson’s booking photos from arrests before and after the shooting, and I am satisfied he is the person captured on the footage.

72I am also satisfied that the person captured on the CCTV footage in the company of Mr. McPherson, is his father, Tadeusz Chmielinski. Mr. Chmielinski was present for the pre-trial motions and several days of the trial, and I have had the benefit of reviewing Mr. Chmielinski’s booking photos. In addition, as per the terms of his release order, Mr. McPherson was required to reside with his father at the 100 High Park Avenue address, providing additional support for the inference that Mr. Chmielinski is the person captured on the footage with Mr. McPherson.

73CCTV footage from before and after the shooting shows Mr. McPherson to be wearing a red tracksuit, a black puffy coat, and red, white, and black running shoes. He has puffy, blond hair that was tied back in a ponytail. Mr. Chmielinski was wearing a long, light green or beige jacket, black pants, and has long, blonde or grey hair tied back in a ponytail. The unknown female is Black wearing a black top, with a black afro with blonde tips, who appears visibly intoxicated, requiring assistance walking.

74After the shooting, when the trio can be seen returning to the High Park residence, Mr. Chmielinski is now wearing the red trackpants and is carrying the large green or beige jacket. Mr. McPherson is wearing what I find are Mr. Chmielinski’s pants and a black sweater. The red tracksuit top is missing. The unknown female is now wearing Mr. McPherson’s black puffy coat.

75Mr. Alleyne-Martin described the shooter wearing a red tracksuit with a big, beige or green jacket, with long dirty blonde hair. Mr. Alleyne-Martin initially believed the shooter was female until he saw scruffy facial hair. Three of the civilian witnesses described the shooter as wearing red clothing, with female features and shoulder length blonde hair. The fourth observed red clothes but was too far away to provide any more details.

76Mr. Alleyne-Martin described the female companion as Black with a short afro with blond tips, who appeared impaired. This is consistent with the appearance of the female companion on the CCTV footage.

77These are distinctive descriptors, and there is significant consistency between the descriptions provided by Mr. Alleyne-Martin and the civilian witnesses. These descriptors are also consistent with Mr. McPherson as captured on the March 12, 2024, CCTV footage.

78I do not accept the submission that Mr. Alleyne-Martin’s description of the shooter wearing a long light green or beige jacket suggests that in fact Mr. McPherson is not the shooter. I find that the trio changed clothes at some point prior to exiting High Park. By the time the parties leave the park, the female is wearing Mr. McPherson’s jacket. While it is unclear where Mr. McPherson reunited with his father before returning to the High Park residence, it is not unreasonable to infer that, at some point, Mr. McPherson’s father gave him his jacket to wear.

79I do not accept the defence submission that as Mr. Alleyne-Martin was making his way along the footpath, he saw Mr. McPherson and Mr. Chmielinski and made note of Mr. Chmielinski’s jacket, and later when trying to describe the shooter, he tried to “backfill” his memory and came up with a white guy with a red tracksuit and a green jacket. First, none of the eyewitnesses describe a third person on the footpath. In addition, while Mr. McPherson is not seen on the CCTV footage wearing the green jacket when he is entering High Park, the important aspect of Mr. Alleyne-Martin’s description is that the shooter was wearing a red tracksuit, with long hair and a neck tattoo.

80The CCTV footage provides significant corroboration of Mr. Alleyne-Martin’s evidence.

Booking Photos of Coby McPherson and Tadeusz Chmielinski

81Mr. Alleyne-Martin described the shooter as having one large neck tattoo but was unable to provide any more details. The booking photos from arrests prior to and after the shooting show Mr. McPherson with two neck tattoos, one smaller and one larger.

82Because Mr. Alleyne-Martin could not describe the tattoo, nor which side of the neck it was on, Mr. McPherson submits that I cannot be satisfied whether Mr. McPherson is remembering Mr. McPherson’s tattoo or if he remembers a tattoo of the shooter.

83I appreciate that the tattoo is not visible at any time on the CCTV footage from the day of the shooting. In my view, however, this can be attributed to camera angles, and not that Mr. Alleyne-Martin is describing someone else.

84Although Mr. Alleyne-Martin could not provide any descriptive details of the tattoo, in my view this is a significant detail which supports the conclusion that Mr. McPherson is the shooter.

85Mr. Chmielinski does not have a neck tattoo.

GPS Data

86At the time of the shooting, Mr. McPherson was subject to a release order which required him to wear an GPS ankle bracelet that was monitored by Recovery Science Corporation.

87Steve Tan, the Director of Operations of Recovery Science testified and explained that once a person is fitted with an activated bracelet, it begins acquiring GPS points. The GPS data points produce a record of movement which is the sequence of GPS points or a breadcrumb trail of the locations of the person wearing the bracelet.

88The bracelet uses satellites to acquire a GPS point, and the number of satellites accessed at any point ranges from between 5 and 22. When a bracelet has access to more satellites there is greater triangulation between the satellite signals and the bracelet, providing for a more accurate GPS position.

89On March 12, 2024, the GPS coordinates for Mr. McPherson’s monitor tracked him travelling from his residence at 100 High Park Avenue to Grenadier Pond. At 4:42pm, the monitor worn by Mr. McPherson was at the Queensway and Colborne Lodge. The GPS data shows Mr. McPherson approaching the second inlet just before 5pm, remaining in and around the second inlet between 4:59pm and 5:01pm, then leaving eastbound and returning to his residence at 100 High Park Avenue.

90I am satisfied that the GPS evidence is reliable for the following four reasons.

91First, the GPS data is corroborated by the fact that the dates and times that Mr. McPherson is seen on the CCTV are reflected on the corresponding GPS points.

92For example, on March 12, 2024, between 3:04pm and 3:06pm, the GPS coordinates place Mr. McPherson around the Bloor/Parkside (Keele Station area) and then entering High Park. Mr. McPherson is captured on the CCTV footage crossing the street at the intersection of Bloor Street and Parkside Drive and entering High Park between 3:04pm and 3:06pm.

93Between 5:30pm and 5:32pm, Mr. McPherson is captured on the CCTV footage going up the stairs at the northwest end of High Park. Between 5:45pm and 5:46pm, Mr. McPherson and the two others are on CCTV footage arriving back at 100 High Park Avenue. The GPS coordinates place Mr. McPherson in the same locations at the same times.

94Second, I accept Steve Tan’s evidence that based on the number of satellites the monitor was accessing, the data is highly reliable. Between 3:37pm and 5:46pm on March 12, 2024, the GPS monitor was accessing anywhere between 12-20 satellites with an estimated accuracy of 5 metres.

95Third, there is no evidence that the GPS monitor was malfunctioning.

96Fourth, the GPS points can be “plotted” against known geographical structures, such as a pathway in a park, and in this case, we can see that the GPS points follow a logical and predictable path of travel.

97Based on the GPS data, in combination with the CCTV footage, I am satisfied that Mr. McPherson travelled to and from High Park prior to and after the shooting, and that Mr. McPherson was in the second inlet at the exact time the shooting occurred.

98Based on the above, I find that Mr. Alleyne-Martin’s testimony at the preliminary inquiry in which he described the shooter is reliable, and essential components of his evidence is corroborated by a large body of other evidence. Importantly, Mr. Alleyne-Martin’s description of the shooter, as well as the descriptions of other witnesses, match key characteristics of Mr. McPherson’s appearance.

Firearm located at 1252 Dundas St. West

Connection between Mr. Zerau and Mr. McPherson

99The Crown argues that the CCTV footage and GPS data establishes a connection between Mr. McPherson and Mr. Zerau, and that on March 13, 2024, Mr. McPherson attended Mr. Zerau’s residence for the purpose of getting rid of the firearm.

100Counsel for Mr. McPherson did not strongly contest the connection between Mr. Zerau and Mr. McPherson, and that it is Mr. Zerau’s apartment that Mr. McPherson attended in the weeks leading to the shooting, and again on March 13, 2024.

101I had the opportunity to observe Mr. Zerau in court during the pre-trial motions, and I had the benefit of the photos taken at the time of his arrest, and I am satisfied that the person on the CCTV footage is Mr. Zerau.

102On March 6, 2024, Mr. McPherson is seen entering the building wearing a blue patterned, zip-up jacket and red, black, and white Jordan Shoes. Approximately an hour later, Mr. McPherson exits the building with Mr. Zerau. Mr. McPherson is now wearing a different jacket that is puffy with a blue camouflage pattern, and white and blue Jordan shoes. Several hours later, Mr. McPherson and Mr. Zerau return to the building. Mr. McPherson is still wearing the blue camouflage pattern coat and the white and blue Jordan shoes. A short time later, Mr. McPherson leaves and is wearing the blue patterned jacket and red, black, and white Jordan shoes he arrived in hours earlier.

103When police executed the search warrant on Mr. Zerau’s apartment on March 19, 2024, the blue camouflage jacket and white and blue Jordan shoes were found in Mr. Zerau’s room. When police executed the warrant on Mr. McPherson’s residence, they seized a pair of red, black, and white Jordan shoes.

104This evidence supports the inference that Mr. McPherson has a connection to Mr. Zerau and has been inside his room.

DNA on the Firearm

105In this case, the DNA evidence provides evidence of a connection between Mr. Zerau and Mr. McPherson. Importantly, it also provides some additional support connecting Mr. McPherson to the firearm and the shooting. The evidence is somewhat weak, as I will explain below, but it is one factor that contributes to my overall assessment.

106On March 19, 2026, Toronto police simultaneously executed search warrants at the residences of Mr. McPherson and Mr. Zerau. In the fourth drawer of a dresser in the room where Mr. Zerau was found, police located a Glock firearm with a magazine with seven rounds in it.

107DNA profiles were developed on a swab that was taken from the firearm and the six cartridges cases that were found on the scene. Mr. McPherson was excluded as a contributor to the DNA found on the six cartridge cases found at the scene. Mr. McPherson could not be excluded as a contributor to the DNA found on the firearm with a likelihood ratio of 1.300. Ms. Gornall, a biologist from the Centre of Forensic Sciences (CFS), described this as “moderate” support for the result. A person who is excluded would have a likelihood ratio of zero.

108Mr. Chmielinski was excluded as a source of the DNA on the firearm.

109Mr. Zerau could not be excluded as a contributor to the DNA found on the six cartridge cases, with a likelihood ratio of 6.2000. Mr. Zerau could not be excluded as a contributor to the swab from the firearm, with a likelihood ratio of greater than 1 trillion. This is considered “very strong support” for the result.

110With respect to the DNA on either the firearm or the cartridge cases, Ms. Gornall could not determine when the DNA was deposited, the sequence of deposition, or if the DNA was deposited directly or indirectly.

111Mr. McPherson argues that the DNA result is a red herring because Mr. McPherson frequented the apartment so it is to be expected that his DNA would be in the apartment, and that his DNA could have been transferred at any point, including by the officer who conducted the search. The search officer agreed that he searched the closet first in which he found the jacket believed to have been worn by Mr. McPherson. The officer then moved to the drawer and found the firearm. The officer testified that he had no recollection of switching gloves between finding the clothing and finding the firearm.

112Ms. Gornall testified that a latex glove would not be likely to absorb DNA, although the surface could still have DNA from a foreign surface on it. If a person is wearing latex gloves and is handling a multitude of other items, there is an opportunity for DNA to transfer amongst the items.

113Mr. McPherson also argues that I cannot be confident that it was Mr. McPherson who brought the firearm to the apartment. On March 13, 2024, Mr. McPherson is seen entering the building with what appears to be an object, possibly a square object in the pocket. Mr. McPherson argues that the shape is not consistent with a firearm, nor does it make sense that if it was the firearm, that it was in Mr. McPherson’s pocket as opposed to the bag that Mr. Chmielinski was carrying.

114In addition, the day before the execution of the search warrant, Sergeant Garganis made observations of a black male being let into the building by Mr. Zerau. The male was carrying two blue Walmart bags, and one green Walmart bag. When the male left the building, he was no longer carrying the bags. During the search on March 19, 2024, next to the dresser where the firearm was found, police located a blue Walmart bag in which was a sock containing three small Ziploc bags with ammunition. One of the Ziploc bags contained 9mm Steer ammunition, the same as was found in the Glock from the dresser drawer.

115Mr. McPherson did not go so far as to suggest that the police moved the firearm from the blue Walmart bag to the dresser drawer but submits that I should not be satisfied that the firearm originated in the drawer. I appreciate the oddness of the suggestion that someone brought a few loose pieces of ammunition that happen to match the ammunition from the Glock.

116The import of the evidence is that, irrespective of how it got there, the firearm used in the shooting is found in an apartment to which Mr. McPherson is connected, and on which is Mr. McPherson’s DNA.

117Ballistics testing done by the CFS determined that the six cartridge casings found at the scene, presumptively came from the firearm found in Mr. Zerau’s apartment. Mr. McPherson’s DNA on the firearm provides some additional support connecting Mr. McPherson to the firearm and the shooting. It does not by itself establish, however, that Mr. McPherson is the shooter.

After the Fact Conduct

118The Crown relies on several pieces of after the fact conduct which they appropriately acknowledge assists with the issue of identity but does not assist with the issue of intent. I will deal with each of these in turn.

119The Crown suggests that on the CCTV footage, Mr. McPherson is visibly distressed and being consoled by his father in the elevator when the group returns from High Park on March 12, 2024. In my view Mr. McPherson appears agitated. Counsel for Mr. McPherson suggests that I should find that he was agitated because he was released on bail at the time and had just been around someone who opened fire in public. I do not accept this submission, but why Mr. McPherson is agitated is impossible to determine and does not fundamentally assist with the issues I must decide.

120Second, according to the GPS data, on March 13, 2024, Mr. McPherson returned to an area in High Park that he had passed through the day before, but not to the scene of the shooting. The Crown submits that he went straight from the park to Mr. Zerau’s, and that I can infer that he went back to the park to pick up the firearm or other evidence. I am not persuaded by this submission. For one, there is no evidence that the gun or any other evidence was left behind in the park. Additionally, the GPS data reveals that Mr. McPherson returned to his residence after being at the park, prior to going to Mr. Zerau’s. And finally, there is no evidence as to who Mr. McPherson was with, what he was wearing, what he was carrying, if anything, when he left his residence on March 13, 2024, and when he returned.

121Third, the Crown points out that the GPS data and CCTV footage show that Mr. McPherson left and returned straight home after the shooting. While this is true, counsel points out that the trio did not take the quickest, straightest path to get out of the park. They in fact walked along one of the main pathways through the park, and the time they took was slower than it should have taken. The length of time the party took however, is likely explained by the changing of clothing that took place. In addition, the female was clearly intoxicated and having some difficulty walking. In the end, this piece of evidence does not add much to the analysis.

122Fourth, the Crown argues that Mr. McPherson and his father having changed clothes suggests an attempt to avoid being apprehended. After the shooting, Mr. Chmielinski is wearing the distinctive red pants, and is carrying the green, grey jacket. Mr. McPherson is wearing Mr. Chmielinski’s pants and a black sweater. The red sweater is missing. Although we do not know when the clothing exchange took place, we know that Mr. Chmielinski was with Mr. McPherson when he entered the park, and he was with him when he exited the park.

123I do not accept the submission that it is equally plausible that Mr. McPherson was at the park and someone he knew was the shooter, who happened to also be wearing red. That is an entirely speculative suggestion that has no merit. It is much more likely that Mr. McPherson, who was on a bail at the time, changed his clothes to avoid being identified and arrested.

124I am satisfied that Mr. McPherson changed his appearance to avoid detection, and that this is a factor supporting the identification of Mr. McPherson as the shooter. It does not speak, however, to what Mr. McPherson’s intention was at the time he discharged the firearm.

Is there an alternative inference available on the evidence?

125The case against Mr. McPherson is largely circumstantial. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that, when assessing circumstantial evidence, “the trier of fact should consider ‘other plausible theor[ies]’ and ‘other reasonable possibilities’ which are inconsistent with guilt”: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at para. 37.

126Counsel submits that based on the GPS data and the DNA on the firearm, there is a reasonable inference that Mr. McPherson is not the shooter but knew the shooter and was likely at the park with the shooter. Although counsel for Mr. McPherson did not explicitly say so, the suggestion appears to be that the shooter was Mr. Chmielinski. This is said to be corroborated by the description of Mr. Newhouse that the shooter had wrinkly skin and was not a kid; that Mr. Chmielinski was wearing the red track pants when the trio left the park; that he has long grey/blond hair; and that he was in the park at the time of the shooting.

127For the following reasons, I am not satisfied that this is a reasonable possibility available on the evidence.

128Mr. Alleyne-Martin described the shooter as wearing a red tracksuit, with long blond hair and a neck tattoo. All four civilian witnesses describe the shooter wearing red, while three of them describe the shooter as having long blond hair. The CCTV footage captures Mr. McPherson wearing a red tracksuit as he is entering High Park shortly before the shooting and leaving the park after the shooting. I have already found that Mr. McPherson exchanged clothes with his father for the purposes of avoiding detection. Mr. McPherson has long blond hair and a neck tattoo. Mr. Chmielinski does not have a neck tattoo.

129Mr. McPherson’s GPS monitor puts him in the exact area of the shooting at the exact time the shooting took place.

130Three people enter the park, Mr. McPherson, Mr. Chmielinski, and an unknown female. Mr. Alleyne-Martin and the civilian witnesses describe two people sitting on a bench in the middle inlet. On the CCTV footage, it appears that Mr. McPherson and the female are known to each other and have some kind of “connection”. In the footage from when the parties return to 100 High Park Avenue, Mr. McPherson and the unknown female are holding hands. Mr. McPherson tends to the female when she appears to vomit in the corner of the elevator and ends up carrying her down the hall.

131There is no evidence to suggest there was anyone else with the trio during the time they are in High Park. There is no evidence as to where Mr. Chmielinski was between when the trio are seen entering High Park and when they leave, or specifically where Mr. Chmielinski was at the time of the shooting. It may be that he was letting Mr. McPherson and the female have time alone together.

132Mr. McPherson is connected to Mr. Zerau and his residence and appears to have been storing belongings in his room. Six cartridge casings were found at the scene, which presumptively came from the firearm located in Mr. Zerau’s room on March 19, 2024. Mr. McPherson’s DNA is on the firearm. Mr. Chmielinski’s DNA is not on the firearm.

133In my view it is entirely speculative to suggest that another person known to Mr. McPherson was the shooter, whether it be Mr. Chmielinski or someone else.

134I am amply satisfied that the only available inference on the evidence is that Mr. McPherson is the person who fired the shots down the footpath in the direction of Mr. Alleyne-Martin on March 12, 2024.

Issue 2: If Mr. McPherson is the person who discharged a firearm at Kai Alleyne-Martin, did he intend to endanger his life?

135Given the finding that Mr. McPherson was the person who shot at Mr. Alleyne-Martin, the question now becomes whether he did so intending to endanger Mr. Alleyne-Martin’s life.

136Counsel for Mr. McPherson argues that even if Mr. McPherson was trying to hit Mr. Alleyne-Martin, the evidence does not support a finding that he had the intent to endanger his life but, in all likelihood, was just trying to scare him. Counsel correctly points out that an intent to endanger life does not arise automatically from an intention to strike.

137A person intentionally discharges a firearm at another person when they deliberately, as opposed to accidentally, point it in the direction of someone and fire. In discharging the firearm, a person intends to endanger life when they mean to put someone in a situation or condition that could cause the person to die. It is irrelevant whether the person actually succeeded in achieving the purpose of endangering the victim’s life: R. v. McQuinn, 2021 ONSC 4884, at paras. 85 and112.

138As a matter of common sense, people know what the predictable consequences of their conduct are. Shooting at a person endangers their life, even if the shot is aimed at a less lethal area than the head or the chest. Endangering life is a less onerous intent than the intent to murder: R. v. Brown, 2021 ONCA 678, 158 O.R. (3d) 275, at paras. 30-34; leave to appeal refused, [2021] S.C.C.A. No. 460.

139Intent can rarely be proven by direct evidence but may be inferred from the accused’s actions, including what they did and said, the weapon they used, the manner of its use, and all surrounding circumstances.: see Lampard v. R., 1969 CanLII 695 (SCC), [1969] S.C.R. 373 at p. 380.

140For the following reasons, I am satisfied that Mr. McPherson intended to endanger the life of Mr. Alleyne-Martin.

141I have considered the context in which the shooting began. The shooting began immediately after the exchange of words between Mr. Alleyne-Martin and Mr. McPherson about Mr. Alleyne-Martin living in Parkdale. This suggests that there was something about the interaction that caused Mr. McPherson to start shooting.

142Several witnesses described loud or angered voices. Mr. Barangan described the shooter as having an angry voice and angry facial expression, and he heard words to the effect of “talk shit” directed at Mr. Alleyne-Martin. Mr. Newhouse heard at least two raised voices just prior to the shooting. Mr. Alleyne-Martin testified that the shooter’s tone was “aggressive”, and the last thing he heard was “come back” in an upset voice.

143Mr. Alleyne-Martin described that when the shooter pulled out the gun, he pointed it right at him. He said, “And then I’m looking down the barrel of the gun, and I get shot at”. Mr. Barangan described that the man on the scooter was being chased by the shooter. Mr. Newhouse testified that the man was pointing the gun toward the person on the scooter, holding the firearm straight forward, not sideways. Ms. Briggs testified that the shooter was firing in the direction of the man on the scooter, not upwards.

144I have also considered the evidence of Mr. Barangan and Mr. Newhouse that the shooter chased Mr. Alleyne-Martin, then stopped, and continued shooting, suggesting an intention to aim and fire.

145While five bullet casings were found around the area of the bench in the second inlet, one casing was farther along the footpath, and a projectile was even further down the path. I accept that the strike mark on the tree suggests that the shooter was in the second inlet aiming down the path.

146It is significant, in my view, that at minimum six shots were fired, although the audio captures seven shots. Whether it is six or seven shots, it is not one. The audio of the nearby security system captures five shots in quick succession, followed by a pause, then a sixth, a pause, and then a seventh. This sequence of shooting implies thought and intention.

147There is no question on the body of evidence that I have just reviewed that Mr. McPherson had an intention to strike and endanger the life of Mr. Alleyne-Martin. All the witnesses and Mr. Alleyne-Martin gave consistent evidence that Mr. McPherson shot in a straight line, chased after Mr. Alleyne-Martin, and fired multiple times. If Mr. McPherson’s intent was to simply scare Mr. Alleyne-Martin this would have been accomplished with one shot when Mr. Alleyne-Martin started to run away.

148In conclusion, I am satisfied that the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. McPherson’s intention was to endanger the life of Mr. Alleyne-Martin.

Disposition

149Mr. McPherson will be found guilty on count 1.

150All counsel agree that if I find Mr. McPherson guilty of discharging the firearm, he is also guilty of counts 2 to 8 on the indictment relating to possession of the firearm, and breaches of a release order, probation order, and a prohibition order.

151Mr. McPherson will be found guilty on counts 2 to 8.

J.K. PENMAN J.

Released: June 26, 2026

CITATION: R. v. McPherson, 2026 ONSC 3642