COURT FILE NO.: CR- 39700-24-109

DATE: 2026/02/09

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

His Majesty The King Crown – and – David Paul Accused

Brina Underwood, Counsel for the Crown

Mellington Godoy, Counsel for the Accused

HEARD: January 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 and 14, 2026 (Cornwall)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DOYLE J.

Overview

[ 1 ] David Paul is charged with 22 counts including several counts of failing to comply with a release order, probation order and s. 109 prohibition order, threatening death/bodily harm, robbery with a firearm, possession of a prohibited firearm, carrying a concealed weapon, pointing a firearm, assault with a weapon and conspiracy to commit the indictable offence of robbery with a firearm.

[ 2 ] The charges stem from what the Crown alleges was an attempt by Mr. Paul to collect a drug debt from Ryan Royer by pointing a firearm at him, pistol whipping him and threatening him. Mr. Royer’s girlfriend, Bobbie Sylvester, then stabbed Mr. Paul in the neck area, which required him to attend at the hospital.

[ 3 ] Mr. Paul has pleaded guilty to counts 1, 3, 12 and 14 on the indictment, namely:

• Count 1: Breach of a release order by failing to comply with a condition that he not attend Cornwall, Ontario, except for court purposes or to meet with counsel, contrary to s. 145(5) (a) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46;

• Count 3: Breach of a release order in failing to comply with the condition of remaining in the residence at all times except when in the presence of one of his sureties, contrary to s. 145(5)(a) of the Code;

• Count 12: Breach of a probation order made by Cortes J., dated November 3, 2022, by failing to comply with a condition not to communicate with people who sell, traffic or use drugs or have drugs in their possession, contrary to s. 733.1(1) of the Code ; and

• Count 14: Breach of the said probation order by failing to comply with a condition by being in a place where illegal drugs are used, sold, trafficked or distributed, contrary to s. 733.1(1) of the Code .

[ 4 ] The Crown withdrew Counts 2 and 4, which alleged breaches of the release order.

[ 5 ] The trial proceeded on the other 16 counts on the indictment.

[ 6 ] This case turns on whether the Crown can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Paul had a firearm on the day he was trying to collect a drug debt from Mr. Royer, thereby threatening and assaulting him.

[ 7 ] This incident occurred on June 25, 2024, in an apartment at 435 Amelia St. which was known as a “drug house”. According to different witnesses, there were at least 7 to 11 other people present.

[ 8 ] The court heard from six Crown witnesses. Only one witness, Ms. Sylvester, testified that Mr. Paul used a firearm to enforce payment from Mr. Royer.

[ 9 ] I will discuss some general legal principles dealing with reasonable doubt, credibility and reliability, Vetrovec witnesses, and Villaroman requirements when dealing with circumstantial evidence. I will then discuss the evidence and make findings.

[ 10 ] For the reasons set out below, the court convicts Mr. Paul of counts 1, 3, 12 and 14, for which he pleaded guilty. I also find him guilty of count 11 for failing to comply with a condition of the probation order made by Cortes J., that is, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. By the fact that he pleaded guilty to four counts, he is consequently guilty of failure to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

[ 11 ] All other counts are dismissed.

Legal principles

[ 12 ] The Crown has the burden to prove each of the elements of the alleged offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

[ 13 ] Mr. Paul is presumed to be innocent, unless and until the Crown proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The obligation never shifts.

[ 14 ] A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, far-fetched or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based on sympathy for or prejudice against anyone involved in this trial. It is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It is a doubt that logically arises from the evidence, or the absence or lack of evidence.

[ 15 ] I must assess the credibility and reliability of the witnesses.

[ 16 ] Credibility has to do with the honesty or veracity of the testimony of a witness, whereas reliability has to do with the accuracy of the testimony of the witness. The reliability of the testimony of a witness is often gauged by the ability of the witness to observe, recall, and recount the events at issue: see R. v. Sanichar , 2012 ONCA 117 , 280 C.C.C. (3d) 500, at para. 70 , per Laskin J.A. (dissenting), aff’d, 2013 SCC 4 , [2013] 1 S.C.R. 54.

[ 17 ] Where proof of the guilt of an accused rests “exclusively or substantially on the testimony of a single witness of doubtful credit or veracity, the danger of a wrongful conviction is especially acute”: R. v. Khela , 2009 SCC 4 , [2009] 1 S.C.R. 104, at para. 2 .

[ 18 ] After considering the totality of the evidence, a trier of fact is entitled to believe the evidence of a disreputable witness, even on disputed facts that are not otherwise confirmed, “if the trier is satisfied that the witness, despite his or her frailties or shortcomings, is truthful”: R. v. Kehler, 2004 SCC 11 , [2004] 1 S.C.R. 328, at para. 22 .

[ 19 ] As stated in R. v. Tubic , 2024 ONCA 833 , at para. 35 , citing R. v. Bulleyment (1979) , 46 C.C.C. (2d) 429 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 447, the law does not necessarily require confirmatory evidence relating to each aspect of the witnesses’ testimony. Rather, “[w]hat is sought is evidence that renders it probable that the [witness] is telling the truth”.

[ 20 ] The court must assess the evidence of each witness in the context of the evidence as a whole. The court may accept all, some or none of a witness’s evidence: R. v. R.B ., 2017 ONCA 74 , at para. 9 .

[ 21 ] In considering the circumstantial evidence in this case, before a conviction can be entered, the court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the guilt of the accused is the only reasonable inference from the proven facts.

[ 22 ] In R. v. Villaroman , 2016 SCC 33 , [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at para. 37 , the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the court must consider “other plausible theor[ies]” and “other reasonable possibilities” which are inconsistent with guilt. Thus, the Crown 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” (citations omitted).

Evidence

Admissions

[ 23 ] The defence has admitted the following:

• Identification;

• Continuity of the evidence;

• Photos of Ryan Royer’s injuries;

• CCTV and surveillance video recordings;

• Prohibition orders pursuant to s. 109;

• Probation order of Justice Cortes dated November 3, 2022;

• Validity of the search warrant;

• Records of texts;

• Dates; and

• Jurisdiction.

[ 24 ] The Crown brought an application for admission of evidence of discreditable conduct.

[ 25 ] The Crown alleges that the offences arose from a robbery by the accused in the context of a drug debt and that the relationship between the accused and the civilian witness is tied to the drug subculture. These alleged offences took place at 435 Amelia St. in Cornwall, which is a known drug house.

[ 26 ] The defence admits the incident leading to the alleged offence took place at 435 Amelia St. and that the location is a “drug house”, i.e., a place known for drug consumption and trafficking drugs. The defence does not oppose the admission of this evidence.

[ 27 ] As stated in R. v. Tanner , [1995] 2 S.C.R. 379, evidence that is adduced for context and narrative surrounding an incident may be admissible even though it includes bad character evidence.

[ 28 ] Discreditable conduct is presumptively inadmissible.

[ 29 ] After reviewing the Crown’s application and factum, and the submissions of counsel, the court finds that the Crown has met its burden that this evidence is relevant to a live issue at trial and that the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.

Trial Evidence

Facts not in dispute

[ 30 ] The apartment at 435 Amelia St. has been colloquially referred to as a “flop house” or “drug house” in this trial. It is a place where people gather to buy and sell and consume drugs.

[ 31 ] On June 25, 2024, the date that these charges arose, there were between approximately eight (according to Ms. Sylvester) and 12 people (according to Mr. McTaggart) present.

[ 32 ] The evidence confirms that Mr. Paul attended there to collect a drug debt from Mr. Royer, who was there with his girlfriend, Ms. Sylvester. A fight broke out between Mr. Paul and Mr. Royer leading Ms. Sylvester to stab Mr. Paul in the left shoulder area.

[ 33 ] Later that day, a male (later identified as Mr. Paul) was ushered into a trauma room at the Cornwall Community Hospital (CCH) with a wound to his neck which was bleeding profusely.

[ 34 ] Hospital staff attempted to obtain his name and when asked what happened, he indicated that he had fallen off his bicycle.

[ 35 ] Cst. Matthew Brush, who happened to be there on another matter, visited Mr. Paul in the trauma room and was told that Mr. Paul was not responsive regarding his identification and how he came about to have a stab wound.

[ 36 ] The hospital staff asked Cst. Brush to make attempts to find his next of kin and provided him with items found on Mr. Paul including:

• $710 CDN

• Two cellphones

• Two gold rings

• Blood soaked clothes

• Black shoes; and

• A small baggie of a white substance.

[ 37 ] Video footage from Cst. Brush’s body cam and the video footage show him speaking to the nurse in charge, Rebecca Greggan, who deals with the emergency department triage.

[ 38 ] Mr. Paul’s phone was not locked and Cst. Brush looked for ‘mom’ or ‘dad’ on his contact list. He noted the name of Atrius Paul and “Reek o Sam” as a social media name.

[ 39 ] Cst. Brush went to 435 Amelia St. as he had been advised by other officers that there had been an incident there the day before. His body cam shows him speaking to someone there with whom he was familiar and, later that evening, he was told that the male in the hospital was the accused.

[ 40 ] On June 24, 2024, Cst. Karley Pilon attended 435 Amelia Street in response to a report about an incident. She did not find anything unusual. She also inquired about a Hyundai Electra which was part of the investigation.

[ 41 ] Cst. Pilon was involved in the eventual arrest of Ms. Sylvester and Mr. Royer at the Comfort Inn on June 29, 2024.

Oliver McTaggart

[ 42 ] The disputed facts are with relation to what happened after Mr. Paul entered the 435 Amelia St. apartment.

[ 43 ] Mr. McTaggart was a Crown witness and, while testifying in chief, was not able to describe what had occurred on June 25, 2024, at 435 Amelia St.

[ 44 ] He admitted his criminal record, which was filed as an exhibit.

[ 45 ] Mr. McTaggart’s evidence is exculpatory to the defence and hence I must apply the W.D . analysis: R. v. W.D . , [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742.

[ 46 ] As will be further articulated below, due to the inconsistencies in his evidence regarding the presence of a firearm, his memory of the details on that day and his serious lack of candour in questions from the Crown, I do not believe him nor do I find that his evidence leaves me with a reasonable doubt.

[ 47 ] He made it clear that he did not want to testify and that, since he was under a subpoena, he was concerned he would be arrested if he did not come to court.

[ 48 ] Throughout the questioning by the Crown, it was clear he was not engaging in the process.

[ 49 ] He felt the Crown was pressuring him to answer questions and that it was really hard to remember when he is put on “the spot”. He explained that his mental health issues, including PTSD, childhood trauma and anxiety, as well as years of drug abuse, affected his memory.

[ 50 ] At times he would answer the Crown’s questions with “I don’t remember” and “sure if that is what you say”.

[ 51 ] His evidence in chief was very unhelpful as he feigned memory loss.

[ 52 ] He admitted to pleading guilty on January 17, 2025, to the unauthorized possession of a firearm, conspiracy to commit an indictable offence and careless use of a firearm as it relates to the incident on June 25, 2024, at 435 Amelia St. He also pleaded guilty to possession of incendiary material. He received a 6-month conditional sentence (with 300 days of pre-trial custody) and 3 years of probation.

[ 53 ] He recalled that there was an agreed statement of facts at the time of his plea but was not able to remember many details. For example, he remembered Ms. Sylvester stabbing Mr. Paul but did not recall the events leading up to the stabbing.

[ 54 ] The transcript from the guilty plea was presented to him and he said it was not helpful to him for refreshing his memory. In answering questions, he simply looked at the transcript and read from it.

[ 55 ] The Crown requested that the recording of his statement to the police be played in court.

[ 56 ] When asked the purpose of playing the recording, the Crown indicated that it was for the purpose of refreshing Mr. McTaggart’s memory.

[ 57 ] Out of court statements are presumptively inadmissible, and if the Crown wished him to review the video it could be arranged for him to review it privately. Mr. McTaggart was given the opportunity to view the videotape privately before resuming his testimony.

[ 58 ] When his examination-in-chief by the Crown continued, he stated that he was not able to recall and he answered “if you say so” or “sure” to any suggestions made by the Crown.

[ 59 ] For the most part, he would neither confirm, adopt nor remember when shown statements he made to the police.

[ 60 ] In his examination-in-chief, the following are examples of his inadequate responses and failure to recall events:

• That he did not remember why he was at 435 Amelia St., though he had told the police it was a drug house and that he was a user;

• He did not remember how many people were present at 435 Amelia St., but in his statement to the police he had said there were 12 people;

• He did not remember why he messaged Mr. Royer, but in his statement to the police he said he was passing information from Mr. Paul to Mr. Royer and Derek Mayer, and in the transcript of his guilty plea he admitted he was the middleman between these individuals;

• He testified that he was at 435 Amelia St. to hang out with acquaintances, but he told the police that Mr. Royer owed money to Mr. Paul and that he himself was there to buy drugs;

• He did not remember why Mr. Paul was there, but in his statements to the police and in the transcript of his guilty plea he said that Mr. Royer owed Mr. Paul a drug debt;

• He said he did not remember what lead to the stabbing, but he had told the police that Mr. Royer and Mr. Paul were fighting, and that Mr. Paul was smashing Mr. Royer’s face;

• He did not remember any firearm, but in his statement to the police he was not as definitive, and he said “it was not his responsibility” and that it may have been in the bag delivered to someone named “Malcom”;

• He was not prepared to admit sending texts to Mr. Royer when shown a record of his phone messages but admitted to the police that he did text Mr. Royer to apologize for how things unfolded; and

• He would not agree that he was in the Nest video showing him leaving 435 Amelia St. with Mr. Paul and heading to the car but later he admitted it.

[ 61 ] The court granted the Crown’s application to cross-examine Mr. McTaggart on his guilty plea in January 2025 and his statement to the police in July 2024, pursuant to s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5.

[ 62 ] In cross-examination, Mr. McTaggart was prepared to admit certain aspects from his statements to the police:

• That he set up a meeting between Mr. Royer and Mr. Paul;

• That he was at 435 Amelia St., which is a drug house where people purchase and consume drugs;

• That he was a drug user and addict;

• That Mr. Royer, Ms. Sylvester, Dan Lalonde and Mr. Mayer were present on that date at 435 Amelia St.;

• That there was a fight between Mr. Royer and Mr. Paul;

• That Ms. Sylvester stabbed Mr. Paul;

• That he went with Mr. Paul to the CCH;

• That he did not go into the CCH;

• That he left the car and took a bag with him to Malcom; and

• That he texted Mr. Royer apologizing for what had happened.

[ 63 ] In his testimony, he did not accept the agreed statement of facts read out at the time of his guilty plea. He wished to be released from prison so he could return to this family and pleading guilty was his only hope. A trial would delay the matter and he had no possibility of achieving bail. The joint submission on sentence was attractive to him as it would amount to time served and he would receive a 6-month conditional sentence and 3 years probation.

[ 64 ] His plea of guilty to conspiracy to commit an indictable offence, that being robbery, does not correspond to his trial testimony or even his statements to the police. He testified that he did not plan a robbery with Mr. Paul but rather he was just a middleman for him to meet up with Mr. Royer so he could be paid.

[ 65 ] He admitted to being high on drugs at the time of his interview with the police, which he said affected his memory but not his memory that there was no firearm present on that day.

[ 66 ] In contrast to questions posed to him by the Crown, he was willing to agree to almost everything that the defence counsel put to him in cross-examination even when he had previously claimed he could not recall the events in response to the Crown’s questions.

[ 67 ] When under the cross-examination by defence, he was much more forthcoming and responsive to questions. The court can consider demeanour when assessing credibility and reliability, but the court does not overly rely on his demeanour in assessing his credibility and reliability.

[ 68 ] As stated by Justice David Paciocco in “Doubt about Doubt: Coping with R. v. W.(D.) and Credibility Assessment” (2017) 22 Can, Crim. L. Rev. 31, at p. 17: “Demeanour encompasses things such as eye contact, posture and body language…”

[ 69 ] The abrupt change in his responses to questions asked by the defence causes the court concern that he is not prepared to tell the court the truth but rather to agree to whatever the defence suggests.

[ 70 ] In cross-examination by defence, he admitted knowing Mr. Paul since December 2023 as someone he bought drugs from. Mr. Paul resides in Ottawa.

[ 71 ] Mr. McTaggart had a clean record, so he would rent cars on behalf of the accused.

[ 72 ] Eventually he began drug dealing at a low level and Mr. Paul would be his supplier. He would sell the drugs and pay Mr. Paul back. He would also use drugs regularly.

[ 73 ] Mr. Paul asked him to pay him what was owed, and he mentioned that Mr. Royer also owed him money.

[ 74 ] He acknowledged the texts to Mr. Paul arranging for him to come to Cornwall from Ottawa so he could collect money from Mr. Royer.

[ 75 ] Mr. McTaggart was at the 345 Amelia St. residence, and he scoped it out to ensure it was safe before Mr. Paul arrived. There are texts between Mr. McTaggart and Mr. Paul that there were 5 men and 6 women there and a number of people on the porch.

[ 76 ] He acknowledged that people were there to buy and consume drugs.

[ 77 ] He is seen coming from a black car going to the Amelia St. residence before Mr. Paul attends there. Mr. McTaggart is carrying a green Food Basics bag and a satchel on his back.

[ 78 ] Mr. McTaggart said that Mr. Paul was demanding his money and Mr. Royer was getting upset.

[ 79 ] He is not sure who started the fight, but that Mr. Paul did hit Mr. Royer in the head and held him up against the wall.

[ 80 ] At no time did he see Mr. Paul carry or use a gun. He would not have allowed Mr. Paul to enter the residence with a gun.

[ 81 ] He was shocked when Ms. Sylvester stabbed Mr. Paul in the neck.

[ 82 ] Everyone left the residence as soon as the stabbing occurred. He left with Mr. Paul and escorted him to the hospital, and on the video he is seen escorting Mr. Paul to his vehicle while he is bleeding from his neck.

[ 83 ] Some of Mr. McTaggart’s evidence is supported by other evidence. Some of his evidence is reliable (e.g., the texts show him arranging a meeting between Mr. Paul and Mr. Royer, and the Nest videos confirm he attended the residence and that no gun is visible). Other Crown witnesses confirm that there were a number of people in the residence at the time of this incident.

[ 84 ] In cross-examination by the defence, he acknowledged the texts found on his phone and that he apologized to Mr. Royer and Mr. Mayer for the way events unfolded. He told Mr. Mayer on June 26, 2024, the next day, that that he was confused and he did not expect Mr. Paul to “try [sic] to tenderize the guys face like a steak”.

[ 85 ] He was credible regarding his distaste for firearms and their danger. He testified that he would not have agreed for Mr. Paul to meet with Mr. Royer if he had a firearm.

[ 86 ] One of the key areas of inconsistency concerned the contents of the bag he carried from the car after he dropped Mr. Paul off at the hospital.

[ 87 ] He had various accounts as to what was in the bag, in statements he made to the police, in his responses to the Crown, and then in his answers to the defence.

[ 88 ] He said he never looked in the bag. He told the police “it was not his responsibility” and he appeared to agree with the suggestion from the police that it may have been a gun.

[ 89 ] He first told the Crown that he did not know what was in the bag. Then he said there was some clothes and other personal items. He later said it was being delivered to Malcom.

[ 90 ] Then, in cross-examination by defence, he said there were drugs in the bag and that he did not wish to admit it to the police as he did not want to be seen as having any involvement in drug dealing.

[ 91 ] His previous acceptance of a guilty plea to the presence of a firearm also casts doubt on the veracity of his evidence regarding the circumstances on that day.

[ 92 ] Nevertheless, despite repeated questions in cross-examination by Crown and defence, he denied the presence of a firearm. The gun was never found although Mr. McTaggart was found with a bullet on him when he was arrested.

[ 93 ] As stated earlier, he made it clear from the outset that he did not understand why he had to attend. He was there only because he had been subpoenaed and threatened with imprisonment for failure to attend. He inquired as to why he had to testify given that the Crown had his statement to the police and his plea to robbery on January 17, 2025. The court had to explain to him that he was required to answer questions and that there were rules of evidence as to what the court can admit in a criminal trial.

[ 94 ] Regarding the interview with the police, although his statement appeared to be voluntarily provided, it appears he was very surprised when the interviewing officer asked him about a robbery. He thought his warrant for arrest was regarding possession of an incendiary item (Molotov cocktail). He testified that he had no idea that he would be asked about a robbery and that he was high on drugs during the interview, and he stated that he had “said too much”.

[ 95 ] For all these reasons, I find that Mr. McTaggart’s evidence is neither credible nor reliable and I do not believe his evidence, nor do I find that it leaves me with a reasonable doubt.

Bobbie Sylvester

[ 96 ] Ms. Sylvester said she had been in a relationship with Mr. Royer at the time for 9 years.

[ 97 ] They had gone to 435 Amelia St., where there were other people including Mr. Lalonde and Mr. Mayer. She had gone there to get high and buy drugs, which was a regular occurrence.

[ 98 ] She does not remember how long they were there before Mr. McTaggart arrived.

[ 99 ] She saw Mr. Royer go outside, come back in, slam the front door and then go to the back of the house to get bear mace.

[ 100 ] She did not know Mr. Paul at the time. He came in aggressively and flung the door open. Mr. Royer took the bear mace from Mr. Mayer.

[ 101 ] The front door opens into the kitchen, and she had just come up from the stairs from the basement.

[ 102 ] She believed Mr. Paul had a gun by the way he walked in, and then she saw he pointed a gun at Mr. Royer and hit him on the head and in the face with the butt of the gun. He was threatening him and said he would “smoke” him and his “cunt of a wife”. By this, she understood that Mr. Paul was threatening to kill Mr. Royer and herself. Mr. Paul was pistol-whipping Mr. Royer. He told him to empty his pockets.

[ 103 ] She went to the kitchen to get a butcher knife and put it in the back of her pants and told Mr. Paul, “please do not do this”. Mr. Paul said, “I don’t f---know you” and then she said he “put me behind him with his arm”. He was holding the gun with the other arm.

[ 104 ] Mr. Paul continued to pistol-whip Mr. Royer while trying to push him into the back room. Ms. Sylvester testified that she feared that Mr. Royer was losing consciousness because she could see his head cracked open and he appeared to have no strength. She decided to stab Mr. Paul. She was afraid he would shoot her, so she jumped out of the way and stabbed herself in the leg. She thought the gun was jammed.

[ 105 ] She said people were “freaking out and scared and it was chaotic”, and she said “it was happening so fast”.

[ 106 ] Ms. Sylvester dragged Mr. Royer out of the house and put him on a bicycle while she walked beside him.

[ 107 ] On January 5, 2026, on the first day of this trial, she and Mr. Paul were transported in the same truck to the courthouse from the detention centre. When they arrived at the courthouse, Mr. Paul asked if she was there to testify against him. She responded that she should have finished him off and that he should have pleaded guilty, and she used other derogatory language.

[ 108 ] She agreed to testify against Mr. Paul in exchange for the dismissal of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon charges as per her statutory declaration.

[ 109 ] The court has concerns with Ms. Sylvester’s evidence, and I give little weight to her evidence because of her animus against Mr. Paul, her motive to lie, her numerous inconsistencies and her past explosive and violent over-reactions to situations.

[ 110 ] First, she showed a strong animus towards Mr. Paul.

[ 111 ] She told Mr. Paul when they had arrived together on Monday morning at the courthouse for the first day of trial that she should have finished him off, that he “sucked dick in exchange for cookies” and that “he was Swiss Cheese” (meaning he was soft when she stabbed him).

[ 112 ] She gave her evidence in an evasive and controlled manner and in a guarded way. For example, when asked a question by the defence, at times, she would question what was in a previous statement. Again, I do not place significant weight on this demeanor.

[ 113 ] Next, Ms. Sylvester had a motive to lie.

[ 114 ] Her serious charges of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon would have attracted a serious criminal sentence and they were dropped on the condition that she testify against Mr. Paul.

[ 115 ] There were several inconsistencies, as set out below. With the sheer number of inconsistencies, the refusal to admit certain facts and the other concerns outlined by the court, the court cannot accept Ms. Sylvester was telling the truth that Mr. Paul had a firearm that day:

• Mr. Royer had a mark above his brow shown on a photo on her Facebook dated June 14, 2024 (11 days before this incident), which was similar to the one shown in Exhibit 14 as allegedly caused by the fight with Mr. Paul. She would not acknowledge that it appeared to be the same injury that predated the fight with Mr. Paul;

• She never said that she was pushed by Mr. Paul when she asked him to stop;

• She denied at trial that Mr. Royer told her she did not need to work as an escort and that her mother was crazy, and that she never admitted to stabbing Mr. Lalonde. However, these are all statements she made to the police;

• She tried to minimize her violent temperament;

• She told the officer during the interview that she stabbed Mr. Lalonde that day but it turned out not to be true despite her belief that she had stabbed his shirt;

• She said that the gun had been jammed as Mr. Paul hit Mr. Royer with the gun several times, but this was not stated in her statutory declaration; and

• She also said that she was pushed by Mr. Paul but did not state this in the statutory declaration.

[ 116 ] She had been involved with Mr. Royer for 9 years. At trial, she denied being involved in his drug business, but she had previously told the officer, in her statement, that she was involved in some of the business aspect of Mr. Royer’s drug dealing. During the trial, she was attempting to distance herself from the drug dealing and minimizing her involvement.

[ 117 ] At trial, she did not initially agree to the suggestion that another individual, Blake, was a bigger drug dealer than Mr. Royer, before accepting this to be true. However, she had already provided this in her statement to the police.

[ 118 ] The Crown tries to explain that, during her interview, Ms. Sylvester was tired and nodding off and had consumed drugs. However, she is articulate and responsive to the officer’s questions and is able to eat and drink without an issue.

[ 119 ] At trial, for the first time, she described the gun as dark after having never before given any description.

[ 120 ] In cross-examination, she did not acknowledge knowing Malcom, saying only that she “maybe” knew him, but she had told police that she was familiar with him.

[ 121 ] She tended to minimize her criminal activities, including her involvement in past offences that appeared in her criminal record.

[ 122 ] There were external inconsistencies as well. As will be discussed below, I accept the evidence of the neighbour, Damian MacDermid. Ms. Sylvester’s evidence was inconsistent with his evidence:

• She said did not hear Mr. Royer say anything, although Mr. MacDermid heard him say things;

• She said that she did not say anything when she walked out of the house, so as to minimize her behaviour, but Mr. MacDermid heard her say that she had stabbed “that n---er“;

• She said they left with Mr. Royer on a bike, which is inconsistent with Mr. MacDermid; and

• She does not recall threatening Mr. MacDermid’s girlfriend. I accept that these threats prompted Mr. MacDermid to make a second statement to the police to provide details and to hopefully appease Ms. Sylvester.

[ 123 ] Next, the court heard that she has a pattern of violent and explosive behaviour. In 2019, she pleaded guilty to assault and forcible confinement. She attempted to minimize her involvement.

[ 124 ] An individual had been duct-taped. Ms. Sylvester denied actually tying him up, stating that she was not present when he was bound and that she did not participate in holding him down. She did threaten him with a needle, explaining that he had stolen a ring from an acquaintance. She also admitted that she was on drugs at the time of the offence.

[ 125 ] In the summary of the court decision at her plea, she accepted responsibility for her participation in the forcible confinement charge.

[ 126 ] On December 15, 2025, she pleaded guilty to threatening to stab a Mr. Bedard, who she said had photos on his phone and he would not give her his phone.

[ 127 ] At trial, she denied that she threatened to stab him but, in her plea, it was part of the agreed statement of facts. She went after him with a bat and she blocked his passage out of the home. He eventually left the home but fell as he collided with someone who was on the way in.

[ 128 ] She smashed his front driver window and admitted at her plea that she hit the passenger window and left a mark. At trial, she did not remember the second hit.

[ 129 ] She could not remember that she said that “I am going to stab you”. It was indeed part of the facts supporting the plea of guilty. In fact, she denied having a knife and admitted only to having a bat.

[ 130 ] On the record, there was evidence that he had cuts on his arm, but she did not remember him having any cuts.

[ 131 ] Finally, she also took the opportunity in her interview with the police to fit her story to a self defence theory. It was clear that the officer wanted her to give her version of events, and he mentioned that he had spoken to Mr. Royer and knew that she stabbed Mr. Paul, but he wanted to know what she was thinking (e.g., to know her state of mind).

[ 132 ] Ultimately, she told the officer that she thought Mr. Paul was going to shoot Mr. Royer over a $4,800 drug debt. This scenario fit the theory of self-defence, and the presence of a firearm would support that theory for her.

[ 133 ] For these reasons, I place little weight on Ms. Sylvester’s testimony.

Damian MacDermid

[ 134 ] Mr. MacDermid was a credible witness who gave his testimony in a straightforward and candid manner. He had no reason to provide an untruthful account of the events.

[ 135 ] He was living on top of the apartment at 435 Amelia St. with his girlfriend, Maggie Payne, who, earlier that day, was threatened by Ms. Sylvester. Ms. Sylvester denied this.

[ 136 ] He was on the porch when he saw Mr. Paul coming to the apartment. They collided when he approached the apartment and just acknowledged that it was accidental, and he jolted and said “whoa”.

[ 137 ] He heard arguments inside. He thought it was Ms. Sylvester and her boyfriend, Mr. Royer, as they fought constantly. He knew of Ms. Sylvester being quick to anger and explosive, and stated that she routinely got into fights. He called her “crazy”.

[ 138 ] He then heard arguing and fighting and could hear Ms. Sylvester’s voice. He heard Mr. Royer arguing and saying something.

[ 139 ] He then saw Mr. Royer come out and it looked like he had injuries to his face above his eyebrow. He was touching his head and there was a laceration at the back of his head. Mr. Royer was not bleeding and was fully conscious.

[ 140 ] Right behind him was Ms. Sylvester who had a gash in her leg and had blood all over her. As she exited, she said, “I stabbed that n---er”. They left walking down Amelia St. This is in contrast to Ms. Sylvester’s evidence that Mr. Royer was very badly hurt and that she escorted him on his bike.

[ 141 ] Thirty seconds later Mr. Paul came out, and he was bleeding profusely and holding one hand to his shoulder and the other hand down to his hip.

[ 142 ] He asked what direction they went and he then went in the opposite direction.

[ 143 ] When shown the video, he acknowledged that Mr. Paul was walking to the car with his hands in the position he said.

[ 144 ] When shown the photos of injuries on Mr. Royer, he said he saw the laceration in the back of his head but not the one in the middle of his forehead.

[ 145 ] He never saw a gun and never heard a gunshot.

[ 146 ] His first statement to the police was made at his home, but he then provided a second statement to the police at the Cornwall police station. He later claimed that he felt under pressure to make the second statement due to his girlfriend saying Ms. Sylvester threatened her.

[ 147 ] His evidence of the location of both Mr. Paul’s hands is supported by the Nest video and the CCTV at CCH. Mr. Paul is holding his shoulder with one hand and the other hand on the side of the injury is down towards his waist. A review of those videos gives glimpses of his hand outside his pocket as well.

[ 148 ] I find Mr. MacDermid to be credible and reliable. He was consistent, not confrontational, and attempted to answer questions honestly without exaggeration.

Other evidence

[ 149 ] The Crown relies on other circumstantial evidence, such as the fact that Mr. Paul refused to cooperate at the hospital when asked for his name and how it came to be that he was stabbed. There are other inferences that can be gathered from this post-conduct behaviour. Mr. Paul was under bail conditions prohibiting him from being in Cornwall and he was a drug dealer attending at a drug house, which are both facts he would not wish to share as this would lead to his arrest.

[ 150 ] The Crown relies on Mr. Paul’s statements to Ms. Sylvester on January 5, 2026, the first day of trial, when they were both arriving at the courthouse. Ms. Sylvester perceived these statements as intimidation. The other inference is that he was upset that she would come to court and misrepresent what happened.

[ 151 ] The Crown asks the court to infer that the term “ting” used in a text by Mr. McTaggart is reference to a firearm. Mr. McTaggart texted Malcom that Mr. Paul had “digits” and there is some discussion of “picking it up”. Later it is referred to as a “ting”, which Mr. McTaggart says was the bag of drugs. There are discussions with Mr. Paul’s girlfriend regarding picking something up, to which Mr. McTaggart testified that they were discussing the money that was owed by Malcom to Mr. Paul.

[ 152 ] There is more than one reasonable inference regarding what “ting” refers to. The court can also reasonably infer that “ting” could be referring to the bag of drugs, as suggested by Mr. McTaggart. At the hospital, Mr McTaggart left the car with a bag and was told by Mr. Paul to bring it to Malcom. A reasonable inference is that the bag contained drugs.

[ 153 ] Other circumstantial evidence is that Mr. Paul is holding his waist when leaving 435 Amelia St. and walking to the car and he is holding on to a firearm. The other reasonable inference is that his hand is “dead weight” from the injury to that side of his body. In fact, having viewed the Nest video many times, it does appear that one can see his hand out during that walk.

[ 154 ] The laceration on her leg was circumstantial evidence of Ms. Sylvester trying to jump out of the way due to the gun and accidentally stabbing herself. But another reasonable inference is that, during the stabbing, she lost her balance as a result of Mr. Paul’s reaction and the knife cut her leg.

[ 155 ] The photos of Mr. Royer (exhibit 14) show a laceration over his brow that could have existed prior to the time as evidenced on Facebook. Mr. MacDermid said he saw his head and that it looked like he had hit his head on something. There was no medical evidence that the injury would have been caused by a blunt object and could not have been caused by a punch or a fall against the wall, or indeed that it even occurred on that day. Mr. Royer did not give evidence.

Conclusion

[ 156 ] Having considered all of the evidence and on the third branch of W.D. , the court finds that the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Paul had a firearm that day and that he assaulted Mr. Royer with a weapon and threatened his life.

[ 157 ] The court finds that there was an argument and a physical altercation. Clearly, Mr. Royer was injured, receiving at least a flesh wound to the back of his head. He had some marks on his face but it is possible that some of them existed before the incident, as evidenced by the photos posted on Facebook by Ms. Sylvester.

[ 158 ] Mr. Royer did not give evidence. The court is left with the evidence of two unreliable witnesses, and a third reliable witness who did not provide any evidence of Mr. Paul possessing a gun.

[ 159 ] The court has a paucity of evidence to convict Mr. Paul of assault. The Crown has failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Paul is guilty even of the lesser included offence of common assault.

[ 160 ] Therefore, the counts relating to the firearms are dismissed.

[ 161 ] In summary, the court convicts Mr. Paul on the following five counts:

• Count 1: failure to comply with the conditions of a release order by attending Cornwall, Ontario, for which Mr. Paul pleaded guilty;

• Count 3: failure to comply with the conditions of a release order by being out of his residence without the presence of one of his sureties, for which Mr. Paul pleaded guilty;

• Count 11: failure to comply with a condition of the probation order made by Cortes J., that he is to keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

• Count 12: failure to comply with a condition of the probation order made by Cortes J., that he is not to communicate or attempt to communicate with people who sell, traffic or use drugs or who have drugs in their possession, for which Mr. Paul pleaded guilty;

• Count 14: failure to comply with a condition of the probation order made by Cortes J., that he is not to be in a place where illegal drugs are used, sold, trafficked or distributed, for which Mr. Paul pleaded guilty.

[ 162 ] The Crown withdrew counts 2 and 4, which alleged breaches of the release order.

[ 163 ] The Crown has failed to prove the remaining 15 counts beyond a reasonable doubt. There is the lack of evidence regarding Mr. Paul’s possession of a firearm and the court has serious reservations with respect to Ms. Sylvester’s evidence regarding the events of June 25, 2024.

[ 164 ] Therefore, the court dismisses the remaining 15 counts:

• Count 5: breach a release order by failing to comply with a condition to not possess any weapon;

• Count 6: breach a release order by failing to comply with a condition to not possess any weapon;

• Count 7: uttering a threat to Mr. Royer – “I will smoke you and your c--- wife” – to cause death to Mr. Royer;

• Count 8: using a prohibited firearm, to wit a handgun;

• Count 9: possessing of a firearm contrary to prohibition under s. 109 order;

• Count 10: possessing of a firearm contrary to prohibition under s. 109 order;

• Count 13: failing to comply with a probation order by breaching a condition to refrain from possessing, carrying or acquiring a weapon;

• Count 15; carrying a gun for the purpose of committing an offence;

• Count 16: carrying a concealed weapon, to wit a handgun, without being authorized under the Firearms Act , S.C. 1995, c. 39;

• Count 17: possessing of a firearm, to wit a gun, without holding a registration certificate for the firearm;

• Count 18: being an occupant of a motor vehicle knowing that there is a firearm, to wit a handgun, present;

• Count 19: using a firearm, to wit a handgun, while committing an indictable offence, being assault with a weapon;

• Count 20: pointing, without lawful excuse, a firearm, to wit a handgun, at Ryan Royer;

• Count 21: committing an assault upon Ryan Royer while using a weapon, to wit a handgun. The lesser included offence of assault simpliciter is also dismissed given the frailties of Ms. Sylvester’s evidence.

• Count 22: conspiring to commit the indictable offence of robbery with a weapon.

[ 165 ] Accordingly, Mr. Paul is guilty of 1, 3, 11, 12 and 14.

[ 166 ] The Crown has withdrawn counts 2 and 4.

[ 167 ] All other counts are dismissed.

Date : February 9, 2026

Justice A. Doyle

COURT FILE NO.: CR- 39700-24-109

DATE: 2026/02/09

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE His Majesty The King Crown – and – David Paul Accused REASONS FOR Judgment Justice A. Doyle

Released : February 9, 2026