CITATION: R. v. Henry, 2026 ONSC 84

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-50000616-0000

DATE: 20260115

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

• and -

alpha henry

Michael Wilson, for the Crown

Jamie Kopman, for Alpha Henry

HEARD: December 23, 2025

J.M. BARRETT, J.

Reasons for judgment

BACKGROUND

1The defendant, Alpha Henry, is charged with the second-degree murder of his mother, Veronica Henry, and his father, Colin Henry, contrary to s. 229 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. He is also charged with the attempted murder of his brother, Daniel Kwame Henry,¹ contrary to s. 239(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

2Evidence was heard in October and November 2024, during a four-week judge-alone trial. At trial, the defence called no evidence. Prior to closing submissions, defence counsel advised the Court of the defendant’s intent to raise a defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder pursuant to s. 16 of the Criminal Code. Consequently, the parties agreed that a bifurcated approach ought to be adopted such that if I found that the Crown had proven the actus reus of each offence beyond a reasonable doubt, the issue of mens rea ought to be considered only after the defendant had an opportunity to request and pursue a psychiatric assessment, pursuant to s. 672.11 of the Criminal Code.

3As reported at R. v. Henry, 2025 ONSC 7, I found that the Crown established the actus reus of all three counts beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, I found that the defendant unlawfully killed his mother, Veronica Henry, and his father, Colin Henry. I also found that the defendant did an act beyond mere preparation, thereby satisfying the actus reus of the offence of attempt murder of Daniel Henry.

4Following this decision, I granted the defence request for a psychiatric assessment to determine the issue of criminal responsibility, pursuant to s. 672.11 of the Criminal Code. For reasons that are not relevant to the issue now before the Court, the assessment report was only received in September 2025.

5Having considered the report, the defendant no longer seeks to raise a defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.² The defendant is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder of sufficient gravity that would exempt him from criminal responsibility: s. 16(2), Criminal Code; R. v. Dobson, 2015 ONSC 2865, at para. 64, aff’d 2018 ONCA 589, leave to appeal denied [2019] S.C.C.A. No. 70.

6With neither party raising the issue of criminal responsibility, the sole remaining issue is whether the Crown has proven the requisite mens rea for each offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Submissions on this issue were heard on December 23, 2025. The matter was adjourned to today for judgment.

7Having carefully considered the submissions of counsel and the whole of the evidence adduced at trial, I am satisfied that the defendant possessed the requisite mens rea for each of the three offences charged.

8In coming to my conclusions, I have reminded myself of the duties of a trier of fact: to decide the facts and make findings based upon all of the evidence given at trial; and to come to common sense conclusions based on the evidence that is accepted, but without speculating about what evidence there might have been, or about theories that lack an evidentiary foundation.

THE EVIDENCE

9The facts of the offences are set out in detail in R. v. Henry, 2025 ONSC 7. I rely on that review. What follows is a brief summary.

10At 1:43 and 1:44 a.m. on Wednesday, September 21, 2022, two 911 calls were made: one by the defendant from inside the Henry residence at unit 417, 27 Bergamot Avenue, in the west end of Toronto; the other by his brother, Daniel Henry, who was at a nearby Esso gas station. Each reported being attacked by the other. Officers were dispatched to both locations.

11Upon entering unit 417, officers found the defendant in the living room, bleeding from stab wounds. The lifeless bodies of Veronica and Colin Henry were found in the bathtub doused in gasoline. Officers who attended the Esso gas station found Daniel Henry with a bloodied butcher knife. Daniel Henry was arrested immediately, but later released unconditionally. The defendant was transported to hospital where he was arrested and charged with murder and attempt murder.

12The next day, on September 22, 2022, forensic pathologist Dr. Christopher Ball performed an autopsy on the bodies of Veronica and Colin Henry. He concluded both died from stab wounds.

13Veronica Henry sustained 16 sharp instrument injuries, including 10 to the head and neck area, four to the torso, one to the left shoulder, and one to the left hand. Three of the 16 were critical – those to the neck, which perforated her right jugular vein, and one near her belly button, which perforated her aorta.

14Colin Henry similarly had multiple stab wounds. Colin sustained 14 sharp injuries to his head and neck, five stab wounds to his torso, and six sharp injuries to his hands. Most critical was the stab wound to his upper right chest, which penetrated through his rib cage and transected the right main bronchus – the main airway connected to his right lung.

15Dr. Ball found that both Veronica and Colin Henry had “defensive-type” injuries on their hands.

16As noted, the defence called no evidence. However, the defendant’s account of events was adduced through four statements the defendant made the night of his arrest that were tendered at trial by the Crown. In all four statements, the defendant claimed that when his brother returned home from an overnight flight, he flew into a rage and attacked the defendant and his parents. I rejected his account.

17I found that there was overwhelming evidence that established beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant unlawfully killed his parents sometime between 11:50 a.m. and 12:20 p.m. on Monday, September 19, 2022, shortly after gaining entry into his parents’ apartment building. Only hours earlier, at about midnight on Sunday, September 18, 2022, the defendant was found living in the boiler room of a nearby apartment building at 2757 Kipling Avenue. An officer with the Toronto Police Service escorted the defendant out of the boiler room and cautioned him not to return.

18Having fatally stabbed his parents, I found that when Daniel Henry returned to the family residence at approximately 1:35 a.m. on Wednesday, September 21, 2022, the defendant was waiting and attacked him with a knife.

19At issue now, is the defendant’s state of mind. Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the state of mind for murder, as required for Counts 1 and 2? And, did the defendant have an intent to kill his brother, Daniel Henry, as required for Count 3?

20The only development since the release of my earlier decision is that the defendant, at his request, underwent a court ordered psychiatric assessment. That assessment has now been completed. Neither party seeks to rely on the report. In other words, neither party seeks to challenge the statutory presumption of criminal responsibility as set out in s. 16(2) of the Criminal Code. The sole remaining issue is whether the Crown has proven the requisite mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt for each of the three offences.

COUNTS 1 & 2: MENS REA FOR SECOND DEGREE MURDER

21For Counts 1 and 2, I have already found that the defendant unlawfully caused the death of Veronica and Colin Henry by stabbing them. In other words, he committed a culpable homicide. Culpable homicide is either manslaughter or murder: Criminal Code, s. 234.

22The crime of murder requires proof of a particular state of mind. For an unlawful killing to be murder, Crown counsel must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant either (i) meant to kill the named victim (s. 229(a)(i) of the Criminal Code) or, (ii) meant to cause bodily harm the defendant knew was likely to kill the named victim and was reckless whether they died or not (s. 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code). Proof of either intent will suffice.

23With respect to s. 229(a)(ii), the essential element is that of intending to cause bodily harm of such a grave and serious nature that the defendant knew it was likely to result in the victim’s death. The element of “recklessness” is considered an afterthought. “Recklessness” requires a “deliberate disregard for the death” an accused knows is a likely result of his actions: R. v. Zoldi, 2018 ONCA 384, 46 C.R. (7th) 149, at para. 19. As explained by Fairburn J.A., (as she then was), in Zoldi, at para. 42:

Once the Crown establishes the principal's intention to cause such grave and serious bodily harm that he knows it is likely to result in death, recklessness follows as almost a matter of course: [citations omitted]. This is why being "reckless whether death ensues or not" is often referred to as an "afterthought".

24In this case, there is no direct evidence of the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the stabbings. Accordingly, in determining whether the Crown has proven the requisite intent for murder, I am mindful of the principles set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at para. 35, which directs that if there are reasonable inferences other than guilt, the Crown has failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, when assessing the circumstantial evidence, I must consider “other plausible theories” and “other reasonable possibilities” which are inconsistent with guilt: Villaroman, at para. 37. Inferences consistent with innocence do not have to arise from proven facts: Villaroman, at paras. 35-36.

25Although I have rejected the defendant’s account of events, I must still consider whether his statements, and any other exculpatory evidence, raise a reasonable doubt. If not, I must determine whether, on the basis of all of the evidence, or the lack thereof, the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the requisite intent for murder for each victim. The standard of proof is an exacting one. It requires more than “probable” or “likely” guilt. The defendant can only be found guilty if I am sure of his guilt: R. v. Lifchus, 1997 319 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320, 9 C.R. (5th) 1, at paras. 13-14.

26In this case, the Crown relies on the nature, number and location of the injuries to support its position that the defendant had the requisite intent for murder. As a matter of common sense, a sane and sober person usually knows and intends the natural consequences of repeatedly stabbing another human in vulnerable areas of the body: R. v. Seymour, 1996 201 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 252, at paras. 19-20; R. v. Debassige, 2021 ONCA 484, at para. 79.

27The defendant argues that this inference ought not to be drawn in this case because of the cumulative impact of three factors, namely: (i) the nature of the injuries; (ii) the defendant’s mental health issues; and (iii) the defendant’s marijuana consumption. He argues that these three factors raise a reasonable doubt about his intent. Consequently, he ought to be convicted of manslaughter, not murder. I disagree.

28I will first address the nature of the injuries. During submissions, defence counsel argued that many of the injuries were “superficial” because they were described by Dr. Ball as “lacerations” and they were not concentrated in vulnerable parts of the body unlike the injuries inflicted in R. v. Daley, 2021 ONSC 5352, a case relied on by Crown counsel. In Daley, one victim sustained thirty-eight sharp force injuries. A second victim had thirty-five sharp force injuries. Defence counsel argued that unlike the stab wounds inflicted in Daley, the injuries in this case are more consistent with a random attack done without the level of deliberateness from which one can infer the requisite intent for murder.

29I disagree that the injuries lack the gravity and seriousness from which one may infer the requisite intent and foresight. While forensic pathologist Dr. Ball did not opine on the degree of force required to inflict the injuries sustained, Dr. Ball testified that both Veronica and Colin Henry suffered deep penetrating wounds. Indeed, Veronica Henry had a perforated right jugular vein, and a stab wound to her abdomen that penetrated through to her aorta. Similarly, Colin Henry had five stab wounds to the chest, one of which penetrated through his ribs to the right main bronchus – the main artery connected to the right lung. These are not surface wounds from a blunt weapon. Rather, they are clearly deep wounds inflicted by a sharp instrument. The defendant stabbed both his mother and father, repeatedly, in vulnerable areas of the body. Their hands bear marks of their failed efforts to resist his brutal attack. The only rational conclusion available is that the defendant, at a minimum, intended to cause bodily harm of such a grave and serious nature that he knew it was likely to result in the death of his mother and father and was reckless about whether they died or not.

30Second, the defendant argues that his mental health issues ought to raise a reasonable doubt about his intent. I accept that the defendant was struggling with some mental health challenges at the time of the offences. At trial, his brother Daniel testified that the defendant had been estranged from his family for several months. Prior to his estrangement, the defendant’s behaviour had been in a state of decline. The family had concerns about the defendant’s mental health. At trial, Daniel described an angry outburst by the defendant at the end of August or early September 2022. It occurred when Daniel and Colin Henry spotted the defendant walking near their church. The defendant thought his brother and father were following him and responded in a manner Daniel described as bizarre. Further, Sergeant Cilia, one of the first responding officers who found the defendant in his parents’ apartment, told another officer that the defendant was “EDP” – a term used in policing to refer to an emotionally disturbed person.

31At trial, there was also evidence that the defendant displayed some unusual behaviour in the hours after his arrest. For instance, he named his parents as his emergency contacts while at the hospital and, while waiting to be treated, he asked an officer if a male he heard speaking in the hallway was his father. Also, after arriving at 23 Division, the defendant asked to call his mother.

32Notably, however, much of the defendant’s conduct in the two hours preceding the fatal stabbings is captured in video recordings from the Rexdale Mall and 27 Bergamot. The recordings are free of any overt unusual conduct. Further, there is no evidence that the defendant has a diagnosed mental illness or has ever been treated for mental illness. Apart from the existence of some mental health concerns, there is an absence of evidence on how this could have prevented or impeded what otherwise appears to be a clear intent to murder his mother and father.

33Third, the defendant argues that his mental state was compromised due to his consumption of marijuana. In my view, this is speculative. I find that there is no evidence of marijuana consumption.

34As evidence of marijuana consumption, the defendant relies on the body worn camera recording of Police Constable Pathak, who escorted the defendant from his make-shift housing in the boiler room of an apartment building at midnight on Sunday, September 18, 2022. The recording showed that the defendant’s personal belongings included a pair of scissors and a lighter beside a leafy substance. Officer Pathak testified that the leafy substance was “tobacco”. Officer Pathak was not challenged on this evidence. The defendant further argued that consumption could be inferred from the fact that marijuana was found inside unit 417. Marijuana, however, was not identified as an item seized from the residence. Even if there was marijuana in unit 417, its ownership is unclear given that the toxicology report for Colin Henry (Exhibit 80) revealed the presence of Tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”). In my view, the evidence fails to show possession, let alone consumption of such a quantity and toxicity that it impeded what otherwise appears to be a clear intent by the defendant to murder his mother and father: R. v. Daley, 2007 SCC 53, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 523, at para. 41.

35Having considered carefully this evidence as a whole, it does not raise a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s intent for murder.

36The nature, location and number of wounds satisfy me that the defendant, at a minimum, intended to inflict serious bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause the death of his mother and father and was reckless whether death ensued or not: R. v. Jama, 2020 ONCA 106, at para. 40. Both Veronica and Colin Henry were stabbed repeatedly in vulnerable areas of the body. I find that the defendant knew there was a likelihood each would die but persisted, thereby showing a deliberate disregard for the fatal consequences: R. v. Moo, 2009 ONCA 645, 247 C.C.C. (3d) 34, at paras. 45-48. I find that no other rational and reasonable conclusion is available in the circumstances of this case.

37Aside from the compelling nature of the injuries, there is also evidence of motive. While not an element of the offence, where it exists, it can provide powerful circumstantial evidence against an accused.

38In this case, I find that the defendant’s motive was anger towards his family. At the time of the fatal stabbings, the defendant had been estranged from his family for several months. His estrangement started in May 2022, when the defendant was not invited to join his family in the move to 27 Bergamot Avenue. Instead, his mother rented a room for him where she visited with food. This arrangement, however, was short-lived. Based on the testimony of Daniel Henry, by August 2022, the defendant appears to have been homeless.

39The defendant found temporary shelter in a boiler room of an apartment building at 2757 Kipling Avenue. This too, however, did not last. It ended at about midnight on Sunday, September 18, 2022, after the Toronto Police Service received a call concerning an unwanted male living in the boiler room. Police Constable Pathak responded and escorted the defendant from the boiler room, cautioning him not to return. Hours later, the defendant reached out to his parents.

40Using the payphone at the Rexdale Mall, the defendant called his parents’ landline. One can easily infer that the twenty-five-minute call did not end favourably. When the call ended, the defendant immediately walked to 27 Bergamot. That he was uninvited is obvious from the fact that he waited near the main entrance for an opportunity to enter surreptitiously. Once he gained unlawful entry, the defendant wandered the floors clearly in search of his parents’ unit. Having failed in his effort, the defendant returned to the Rexdale Mall where he called his parents a second time. It too did not end favourably. Once the thirty-seven-minute call ended, the defendant immediately returned to 27 Bergamot. Being uninvited, he waited near the main door for an opportunity to gain entry. After a twenty-minute wait, he succeeded. As detailed in my earlier ruling, I found that the fatal stabbing occurred within the next thirty minutes. The defendant clearly found his parents’ unit and attacked them with a sharp instrument. His motive? Anger.

41I am satisfied that the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the second-degree murder of Veronica and Colin Henry: Criminal Code, s. 229(1)(a). This is the only reasonable conclusion available on the totality of the evidence.

COUNT 3: MENS REA OF ATTEMPT MURDER

42In my earlier ruling, I found that the defendant attacked his brother, Daniel Henry, with a knife as Daniel entered the apartment – an act beyond mere preparation.

43The issue now is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant meant to kill Daniel Henry. Nothing less than a specific intent to kill will suffice. As I will explain, I am so satisfied.

44To determine the defendant’s state of mind, I have considered the whole of the trial record, including the evidence that suggests the defendant was struggling with mental health issues.

45While I accept that the defendant had some mental health problems, this does not raise a reasonable doubt as to his intent. Rather, his words and conduct before, during and after this attack, provide significantly compelling evidence that this was nothing short of a planned and deliberate attempt to kill. In my view, no other reasonable conclusion is available on the totality of the evidence.

46First, there is compelling evidence that the defendant strategically planned this attack. The planning started shortly after the defendant fatally stabbed his parents, as evidenced by the defendant’s WhatsApp message to Daniel sent on Monday, September 19, 2022, at 2:23 p.m., using his mother’s cell phone. His message read, “Hey Dan when will you guys be coming back.” Daniel replied, “We should be coming back on Tuesday evening.”

47Armed with this knowledge, the defendant confidently embarked on an evening enjoying his ill-gotten gains. He travelled to Mississauga and sought out the services of a sex worker. He returned to his parents’ apartment with pizza. The next day, knowing that Daniel was to return that evening, the defendant walked to a nearby Canadian Tire store and purchased a three-piece set of MasterChef knives and a knife sharpener.

48When Daniel entered the unit at about 1:35 a.m. on Wednesday morning, the defendant was lying in wait armed with the largest of the three knives. Daniel testified that upon entering the unit, the defendant emerged from behind the breakfront holding the butcher knife in both hands above his head. The defendant yelled “die bitch” in a loud and angry voice as he brought the knife down in a stabbing motion towards Daniel’s head. It is clear the defendant planned to ambush his brother, as demonstrated by the fact that – posing as his mother – he inquired into his brother’s expected time of arrival, purchased his weapon of choice and was lying in wait when Daniel returned home. The evidence is overwhelming that the defendant planned to kill his brother. In my view, the immediacy, determination and brutality of this attack reveals a clear intent to kill.

49While I have considered the submission that the defendant’s mental state was compromised by marijuana consumption, as explained, this is purely speculative. There is an absence of evidence of possession, let alone consumption. The defendant was in police custody within minutes of his attack on Daniel, yet no officers raised any concern about possible substance impairment. Nor are any such signs apparent in the video recordings of the defendant over several hours starting from when he was found inside unit 417 to the time of his videotaped police statement to Detective McGinn several hours later.

50Aside from the defendant’s words and conduct at the time of this savage attack, I find that the defendant had a strong motive to kill his brother. Daniel Henry was an obvious obstacle to the defendant evading responsibility for killing his parents and his continued enjoyment of his new lifestyle.

51Having considered the totality of the evidence, I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that when the defendant attacked Daniel with a knife, he meant to kill Daniel.

CONCLUSION

52Mr. Alpha Henry, I find you guilty of the second-degree murder of Veronica and Colin Henry and the attempt murder of Daniel Kwame Henry.

J.M. Barrett, J.

Footnotes

1. 1During submissions, Daniel Kwame Henry was referred to as “Kwame Henry”. As the indictment alleges an attempt murder of “Daniel Henry”, that is the name used throughout these Reasons.
2. 2The assessment report of Dr. Maryana Kravtsenyuk was filed as a lettered exhibit.