Superior Court of Justice
CITATION: R. v. Harris, 2026 ONSC 4129
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
JAMES HARRIS
Defendant
Iain Skelton, for the Crown
Benjamin Strickland, for the Defendant
HEARD: March 30, 31; May 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 2026
THOMAS, J.:
1The Covid-19 pandemic extended from March 2020 until May 2023. It had a profound impact on the world causing millions of deaths, overwhelming healthcare systems, disrupting societies and economies. Most Canadians embraced the science, accepted the necessary social distancing and vaccine mandates. Many, however, did not. There were protests in the form of blockades, convoys, rallies and civil disobedience.
2James Harris was one of those who was passionate about preserving what he believed was his bodily integrity. He became one of a vocal minority who protested and spoke out against mandatory vaccinations which were demanded if Canadians were to move about freely, and in some cases, continue to be employed. Mr. Harris is not, however, being tried for being a vaccine naysayer, rather his trial is to determine if on November 4, 2021, he set off an explosive device at the Stellantis automotive assembly plant in Windsor, (“Stellantis Windsor”), as part of his pushback against mandated vaccines by this employer.
3Mr. Harris is charged with the offences of causing an explosion of an explosive substance likely to cause bodily harm or serious harm to property, and the explosion to property being reckless as to whether the property was occupied.
Issues
4While the fact of an explosion has been admitted by the defence, the genesis or mechanism of that explosion has not. The theory of the Crown is that a device found on the second floor of the Stellantis Windsor plant triggered whatever explosive substance was present. There are real issues with that theory, and I will briefly touch on those in the following reasons.
5We know that somehow an explosion occurred. The real issue here, however, is whether the Crown has proven that Mr. Harris caused the explosion either as a principal or a party. Both Crown and defence suggest that this is a prosecution built entirely on circumstantial evidence bringing into focus the analysis in R. v. Villaroman, 2016, SCC 33.
6A significant part of this circumstantial case relies on inferences to be drawn from statements made by Mr. Harris to fellow employees both before and after the explosion.
7There was an imbedded admissibility application heard as part of this blended judge alone trial. It required that I rule on the admissibility of those comments by the accused.
8After hearing the evidence, I ruled all statements admissible with reasons to follow. A separate brief application ruling is being released at the same time as these reasons. The statements will be discussed below. For my purposes here, the statements were party admissions that spoke to motive, and with identity in issue, were far more probative than prejudicial.
Background
9The evidence disclosed that in October 2021, Stellantis Windsor advised its employees that they would be subject to an indefinite layoff if they failed to produce proof of having received two Covid-19 vaccines. That proof needed to be provided by January 1, 2022. In addition, there was speculation that the pandemic would cause production to be reduced from two shifts to one.
10Mr. Harris worked for a third party janitorial contactor at Stellantis Windsor. The plant occupied an entire city block and employed 5,000 to 6,000 workers, depending on the level of production. The day shift was estimated at 2,700 to 3,000 workers, with the afternoon shift estimated at 2,200 to 2,300 workers. The vast majority of those entering the plant would come through ten turnstiles, all of which had video security cameras. Entry was gained by using an employee pass or by direct contact with a security officer.
11Witnesses all suggested that the plant was in some ways like a large high school. Rumours were always rampant, and it was hard to separate fact from fiction. One thing was certain; in the fall of 2021, the plant was on edge. Concerns about the vaccine mandate and the potential of a shift reduction had triggered acts of vandalism, including fires set in garbage cans and an estimated 250 vehicles scratched at the end of the production line.
The Explosion
12Stephanie Salive was and is a security guard at Stellantis Windsor. She has worked in that capacity for 29 years. She came on duty for the afternoon shift on November 4, 2021, and arrived at the plant at about 2:30 p.m. That day she was tasked with patrolling the second floor of the plant in an abandoned area used for storage of extra equipment and old parts. In addition, there were batteries stored and an abandoned paint line nearby. She was checking to ensure that no one was in the area that should not be there and ensuring there was no vandalism, which had of late been a problem in that area.
13Salive circuited the area on a three wheeled cart any number of times during her shift. She believes it was on her third pass of the area of the explosion when there was a loud bang about 100 feet to her left. She saw a 6-8’ ball of fire rise up from the floor and then dissipate quickly. The ceiling shook. She had ringing in her ears, and they felt like they were underwater. There was a lot of smoke as she moved forward to inspect the area. She saw a van door that had not been there on her earlier passes and a large black plastic tote that had been smashed and its pieces spread. The tote container was about 4 feet by 3 feet by 3.5 feet high and used to move vehicle parts in the plant.
14Salive saw pieces of the tote as well as pieces of shredded yellow plastic strewn in a radius of about 40’ from the explosion location. The yellow plastic looked like pieces of garbage bags used to collect refuse in the plant.
15Upon approaching the shattered tote, Salive saw an extension cord plugged into an electrical outlet mounted on a nearby steel pillar. The cord ran to a timer with the Sunbeam brand name on it. There was a cord that ran under the tote and out of sight. She testified that she had noticed the tote and the extension cord plugged in on her first pass through the area at about 2:35 p.m. She knew that skilled trades had been working in the area earlier and thought little of its presence.
16Without touching anything, Salive called her supervisor and the on duty Fire Marshall who attended the scene. Later the entire plant was evacuated.
The Device
17After the call from Salive, various members of the Windsor Police Forensic Identification Unit attended the scene as well as a member of the Explosive Disposal Unit. Pictures taken reveal a thick black extension cord plugged into the pillar outlet and running into the now shattered plastic tote.
18The cord is plugged into a white Sunbeam timer. The timer, as found, had a series of what were described as dipswitches running around its face, each switch designated for a half hour on the 24 hour clock. The timer was tested and found to be in working order and the pillar outlet was supplying electric current after the explosion.
19The evidence disclosed that the timer should have been in an off position during the time when the explosion took place, meaning no electricity should have flowed past the timer.
20Plugged into the timer was a short section of a second extension cord and protruding from this cord were two orange wires. Those wires extended several feet before they are taped together with masking tape. Bare copper wire then connected the wires and the two orange cords together.
21It is the theory of the Crown that this device created an electrical event that detonated the explosion. Importantly for me, I have no expert evidence to explain how that happened.
22The masking tape was removed by the forensic identification officers to test for fingerprints. Swabs were taken of various items in an attempt to discern the presence of accelerant. These efforts provided no helpful results.
23Sergeant Levack of the Windsor Police Explosive Disposal Unit attended the plant in the late afternoon of November 4, 2021. He noted the device I have already described. All items were seized as were pieces of the shredded yellow bag and another inflated yellow bag found near the damaged tote. It was originally thought the bags might contain an explosive gas, but testing was negative.
24Sergeant Levack noted no burn marks on the cords, wires or timer, and no burn marks on the cardboard which was under the door near the timer. Sergeant Levack could not find the centre point where the explosion happened. He called this a failure to find the “seat of the explosion”.
25Eventually the components of the device were sent to the Canadian Armed Forces for analysis. A report was generated dated December 6, 2021. The following observations are of importance:
The device appears to be intended as the initiation system of the suspected explosive device.
The modified extension cord showed no signs of damage from heat or carbon scoring. The exposed copper wire is thin enough to have melted in high temperatures. The exposed copper wire could have been at a minimum distance of ~189 cm from the power source, in this case a two or three pronged outlet.
The suspected bridge wire is orange in color, 14 AWG, insulated, multi strand copper wire with a clear plastic outer coating along its length. This manufacturers outer coating is barely visible when undamaged but in this case was cracked and peeling near the cuts made in the wire ends. Observing this coating closely, shows no sign of heat or fire such as would be expected if exposed to an explosion or deflagration. There is no indication of any melting, charring, or burning to the wire anywhere along its length nor to the exposed copper core protruding from it.
The timer bore no visible indications of heat, blast or fragmentation damage. It is unknown at what distance it was placed to the suspected incident point although based on the length of the modified extension cord segment (item 001.1), the timer would have been no further than ~189 cm distant from the likely point of detonation.
The orange wire (exposed copper core) in the modified extension cord (ITEM 001.1) was tested by connecting it to a power supply of 120V protected by a 15 amp circuit breaker switch. The circuit breaker tripped instantaneously. No buildup of heat was measured and no spark was observed. The test was conducted again on a 20 amp fuse and this time there was a small puff of smoke before the breaker tripped. No heat increase was detected on our Fluke IR Thermometer.
With a 120 V power source, protected by a 20 Amp breaker available for testing, the exposed copper wire could not have ignited a main charge, including flammable gas, in this configuration.
Neither the timer nor the modified extension cord bore any indication of being exposed to heat, shock or an explosion.
The Evidence Implicating Harris
26The Crown called a number of workers from Stellantis Windsor who spoke of the comments and demeanour of James Harris during the relevant time period. The majority of the witnesses were employed with Harris for a janitorial company called Team Industrial. Team Industrial was a unionized employer under contract with Stellantis Windsor to perform all cleanup and spill services in the plant. Team Industrial employees were required to meet the same vaccine mandate as those who were direct employees.
27In cross-examination and in submissions, defence counsel suggested that the memory of these witnesses was suspect and that there were inconsistencies and lack of detail in some versions. I found their evidence individually and collectively credible, reliable and extremely helpful.
Charles Niaroski
28Niaroski has been employed by Team Industrial at Stellantis Windsor for over 10 years, doing a variety of janitorial tasks. He worked the same shifts as Harris, and in the days before the explosion, he heard Harris often speak of his strong opposition to the Covid-19 vaccine.
29Harris told him about being part of the protests at the Union 444 Headquarters and that secret meetings were being held at some farms in the Leamington area. Niaroski was aware of the protests during the summer and early fall of 2021. Several days before the explosion, which happened on a Thursday, Niaroski was sitting on a three wheel vehicle with another janitorial employee, Brytney Balkwill. Harris told them something big was going to happen on the weekend, but he couldn’t talk about it. Niaroski thought he meant there would be a big protest.
30The day after the explosion he saw Harris in the plant. Harris was carrying a radio and playing loud “creepy” music which was disturbing employees. Harris told him that Chrysler managers were following him as they think he was involved.
31The supervisor of the Team Industrial staff got involved over the loud music and Niaroski saw Harris leave the plant. The next day Niaroski saw Harris again. Niaroski was cutting grass outside the plant. Harris said management thought he set the explosion and his life was over. He gave Niaroski an anti-vaccine flyer which advocated for a class action lawsuit sponsored by a law firm. Harris said, “thumbs off the trigger – there are bikers involved”.
32Niaroski testified that he never thought of Harris as violent nor did he think he set off the explosion. He was a good worker. In his view, Harris did not fit in with people. He was a “wanna be” and wanted people to think he knew what was happening and was in the know.
Marsella Kukalmari
33In November 2021, this witness was the supervisor of the janitorial staff. Before this incident, she considered Harris as a great worker who kept to himself.
34On the day after the explosion, she met with Harris about his loud music. Harris told her that he didn’t care. He had not seen his kids and had spent a night in jail (there is no evidence Harris was ever in jail). Harris said because of the vaccine mandate, he would lose his job and his home. Kukalmari testified that Harris went on to say, “I told them there would be repercussions and it would get worse – they’re basically telling us to go kill ourselves – if we don’t have jobs we have nothing.”
35Harris then requested to leave and was given permission to leave the plant and go home.
Robbie Johnsrud
36Johnsrud was a Team Industrial employee. Johnsrud and others would often go for a walk in the abandoned second floor space when on their breaks. He recalls seeing Harris on the Tuesday before the Thursday explosion. Harris told him that he had heard something might happen in the second floor area and he should avoid it.
37Johnsrud testified that Harris was an odd person who always wanted to inject himself into a conversation and to include himself in a lot of things. He called him a “one-upper”. He did not think Harris was involved in the explosion. He ignored his warning and walked on the second floor the next day.
Brytney Balkwill
38Balkwill testified that in 2021 she was working with Team Industrial at Stellantis Windsor and partnered with Robbie Johnsrud. She had heard Harris be very vocal about his opposition to the vaccine mandate. Balkwill confirmed the warning given by Harris to the effect: “I know you guys walk upstairs. I wouldn’t in the next few days. Something is going to happen. I can’t say what.” In cross-examination, she agreed that she could not recall the exact words now as it was a long time ago.
39Balkwill agreed that lots of employees frequented the second floor. There were hidden beds there and she had to clean up after employees who drank alcohol and smoked marijuana in that space.
Victoria Moore
40Victoria Moore also worked with James Harris. She did not work on November 4, 2021, but worked the next day and was aware of the previous day’s explosion. She was nervous going into work. She saw Harris that day in the plant. He was playing loud bagpipe music through a Bluetooth speaker. Harris said something about the war and his grandfather giving up his life for his country.
41Moore saw Harris later in the smoking area outside. There were others there with her. Harris said he was being followed by supervisors as they thought he had something to do with the explosion. There were no supervisors in the area and Moore saw no reason for him to say this. Harris said if pushed into a corner he was going to fight back. Harris seemed passionate. Moore recalls him saying something to the effect of “don’t worry it was in a secluded place – no one would have gotten hurt.” She wanted to press him on what he was thinking and expressed to him no one should get hurt. He told her not to worry; nothing was going to happen that night. He said the intent was to push back to prove a point, “we weren’t going to hurt anyone”.
42Moore testified that she thought of Harris as an oddball. He did not fit in socially and he tried to make it seem like he knew everything that was going on. On that same day, she was having a conversation with others about the electrical technician course she was taking and Harris injected himself into the conversation expounding on his knowledge of electricity and saying, “I built this City”.
Plant Video
43The security camera video at the plant entrance turnstiles was examined for the presence of James Harris. In the days leading up to the explosion, Harris can be seen entering and exiting carrying his backpack at appropriate shift times.
44On November 4, 2021, Harris is seen entering at 2:23 p.m. and exiting with others at 5:43 p.m. at the time of the evacuation. There is nothing untoward picked up by these video clips.
The Search
45After Harris was charged, Windsor Police executed a search warrant at his apartment on Drouillard Road close to the Stellantis plant. They were searching for items connecting Harris to the explosion. Nothing of significance was located, but a hand painted poster was found with a message consistent with that expressed by Harris at work:
When are we gonna say enough to terror part are brothers, sisters and our family ove a vaccine. I worked my best to make people feel safe. Put my life last put other people’s life first, now I will be losing my job.
Tik Tok Videos
46As part of their investigation, police located videos depicting Harris and his opposition to vaccination. One video shows the interior of Harris’ apartment and zooms in on the view of the Stellantis plant seen through a window. The video shows the painted poster mentioned earlier and plays a soundtrack which states, “Don’t put me in a position where I gotta show you how heartless I can be. You might never look at me the same.”
Positions of the Parties
Crown
47Crown counsel argues that the only rational conclusion to be drawn about the explosion is that the device found inside the shredded tote box was the cause of the detonation and that it was deliberately set. Further, the Crown says with that the strong public opposition to the vaccine mandate expressed by Harris is evidence of his motive. Following on that his statement of warning before and after the event can only lead to the conclusion that he was involved in the explosion either as a principal or a party.
Defence
48The defence takes the opposite perspective on both issues. There is an absence of evidence to support the conclusion that the detonation was caused by the device found. Further, while the comments of Harris undoubtedly formed the grounds for his arrest and prosecution, his guilt as a principal or party is not the only reasonable inference to be drawn from his comments.
Analysis
49James Harris is charged with two Counts. Each Count has the explosion at Stellantis Windsor as an essential element. It is without dispute that there was an explosion. That element has been admitted by defence.
50Count 2, however, requires the Crown to prove that the explosion was caused by Harris placing a timed bomb on the second floor. While initially it may seem obvious that the powered timer connected to a cord with crossed wires placed in a large tote must be a timed device used to detonate a bomb, there is, however, a complete lack of hard evidence to support the Crown’s theory. The Crown’s bombing theory is inextricably tied to the device found.
51There is no expert evidence that supports this essential element. Let me consider the evidence that works against the Crown.
There was no explosive substance found. No accelerant of any kind.
A “seat” for the explosion could not be located.
Both the onsite investigators and the Canadian Armed Forces examiners noted an absence of damage from heat or carbon scoring on any components of the device despite the 6-8’ fire ball.
The cardboard under the proposed point of detonation showed no signs of fire or explosion.
The Sunbeam timer, which was found to be operating properly, was actually set in an “off” position at the time of the explosion.
The Canadian Armed Forces examiner could not get the device to build up heat or cause a spark. The circuit breaker was instantly tripped when the extension cord was connected to a power source.
The bridging copper wire, which it is theorized, was meant to cause a detonation spark was totally exposed and should have melted at high temperature.
The device and its components were manipulated by several different investigators so that by the time it was examined by the Canadian Armed Forces, it could not be said to be in its original state.
There is evidence that skilled trades were working in the area before Salive witnessed the explosion. There is evidence that a variety of parts and equipment were stored there and that the area was a haven for workers who slipped away to sleep, drink and smoke.
52While there may be an argument that my conclusions regarding the timed device alone might justify acquittal, it is important that I move forward to confront the issue of identity.
53It could be suggested that these reasons are long on evidence and short on analysis. In my view, such is the way of circumstantial cases that rely upon a body of evidence to support inferences.
54Harris’ strong vocal opposition to the vaccination mandate, his fixation on remaining a “pureblood” and his fear of losing his job supply evidence of motive. As do his threats of not being pushed into a corner.
55There is no direct evidence that Harris placed a timed bomb or that he was a party to that act, but for his use of the pronoun “we” in his discussions with co-workers. The evidence from Salive indicates she initially saw the device extension cord set up at 2:35 p.m. on November 4, 2021. Harris entered the plant that day at 2:23 p.m. Testimony suggests it was not possible for him to travel the necessary distance and set up the device in 12 minutes. His warning against frequenting the second floor, given prior to the explosion, is troublesome and obviously suspicious.
56However, the evidence discloses that he was an active part of the Local 444 protest demonstrations and that he had knowledge of secret meetings of small groups purportedly held at farms in the Leamington area.
57In assessing evidence in a circumstantial case, I must apply the Supreme Court of Canada’s analysis in R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33.
58At paras. 36-38, Justice Cromwell described the analysis this way:
36I agree with the respondent’s position that a reasonable doubt, or theory alternative to guilt, is not rendered “speculative” by the mere fact that it arises from a lack of evidence. As stated by this Court in Lifchus, a reasonable doubt “is a doubt based on reason and common sense which must be logically based upon the evidence or lack of evidence”: para. 30 (emphasis added). A certain gap in the evidence may result in inferences other than guilt. But those inferences must be reasonable given the evidence and the absence of evidence, assessed logically, and in light of human experience and common sense.
37When assessing circumstantial evidence, the trier of fact should consider “other plausible theor[ies]” and “other reasonable possibilities” which are inconsistent with guilt: R. v. Comba, , [1938] O.R. 200 (C.A.), at pp. 205 and 211, per Middleton J.A., aff’d , [1938] S.C.R. 396; R. v. Baigent, 2013 BCCA 28, 335 B.C.A.C. 11, at para. 20; R. v. Mitchell, [2008] QCA 394 (AustLII), at para. 35. I agree with the appellant that the Crown thus may need to negative these reasonable possibilities, but certainly does not need to “negative every possible conjecture, no matter how irrational or fanciful, which might be consistent with the innocence of the accused”: R. v. Bagshaw, , [1972] S.C.R. 2, at p. 8. “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.
38Of course, 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.
59Justice Cromwell at para. 40 then found useful the principles expressed in an old Australian case, Martin v. Osborne (1936), 55 C.L.R. 367 (H.C.) at p. 375:
In the inculpation of an accused person the evidentiary circumstances must bear no other reasonable explanation. This means that, according to the common course of human affairs, the degree of probability that the occurrence of the facts proved would be accompanied by the occurrence of the fact to be proved is so high that the contrary cannot reasonably be supposed. [Emphasis added.]
60The evidence discloses that Harris’ co-workers called by the Crown had never seen him as a violent person. They had, perhaps with the exception of Victoria Moore, never considered him to be actually involved in the explosion. However, all witnesses described him as odd, socially inept and struggling to fit in. He was a “wanna be”. Wanting them to think he was “in the know”, wanting to achieve a level of knowledge and importance in their eyes. He interjected in conversations making comments like “I built this City”. In reality, he knew he was a part-time janitor living in an apartment on Drouillard Road who hadn’t seen his children in years.
61I find it to be a reasonable inference that his comments about the explosion, including the use of the pronoun “we”, were again an attempt to achieve some increased standing in the eyes of his co-workers. It may very well be that his involvement in protests and secret meetings allowed him to gain knowledge of a proposed event within the plant. I do not find that possibility to be speculation or conjecture. I recognize that I come to this conclusion without having heard from the accused.
62As mentioned earlier, the unsatisfactory evidence regarding the proposed explosive device may be enough to support an acquittal, however, the circumstantial case as a whole, which includes the comments of Harris both offered to support motive and actus reus, do not convince me that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence is the guilt of this accused. That is the failed Crown burden here.
63As a result, James Harris is acquitted of both Counts. In conclusion, let me gratuitously offer this comment. With the circumstances facing Stellantis Windsor and Team Industrial at the time, with the knowledge they had and their duty to employees, there was no place in that plant for James Harris after November 4, 2021.
"Justice Bruce G. Thomas"
Justice Bruce G. Thomas
Released: July 20, 2026.
CITATION: R. v. Harris, 2026 ONSC 4129
COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-6182
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
JAMES HARRIS
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Thomas, J.
Released: July 20, 2026.