R. v. Williamson, 2023 ONCJ 396

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: R. v. Williamson , 2023 ONCJ 396 DATE: 2023 09 19 COURT FILE No.: Sudbury 4011-998-22-40102967-00, 4011-998-21-40101055-00, and 4011-998-23-40100542-00 BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING — AND — JAMES WILLIAMSON Before Justice Leonard Kim Heard on July 18 and 19, 2023. Reasons for Judgment released on September 19, 2023 J. Martin................................................................................................ counsel for the Crown R. Beckett................................................... counsel for the accused, James Williamson L.

KIM J.: Introduction [ 1 ] This was a trial that commenced before me on July 18 and 19, 2023. The central issue in this trial is the claim of self-defence advanced by the accused, James Williamson, in relation to multiple stab wounds he inflicted upon the complainant, Steven Leclair, during an altercation that took place at Mr. Leclair’s residence on Kathleen Street in the City of Greater Sudbury on July 27th, 2021. [ 2 ] The identity of Mr. Williamson as the person who stabbed Mr. Leclair is not in dispute.

There is also no issue as to the actus reus of the offences of assault with a weapon and aggravated assault upon Mr. Leclair by wounding. From a forensic standpoint, it is conceded that the blood on Mr. Williamson’s right hand and the handle of his knife is his own. It is also conceded that the blood found on the blade of this same knife consists of a mixture of blood from both Mr. Leclair and Mr. Williamson. [ 3 ] The parties disagree as to whether the actions taken by Mr. Williamson in stabbing Mr. Leclair constitutes self-defence within the meaning of

section 34 of the Criminal Code of Canada . [ 4 ] Mr. Williamson also disputes that he possessed his knife and a wooden stick for a purpose dangerous to the public, at the time this incident took place, on the date in question. The Initial Interaction and Events Leading up to the Stabbing [ 5 ] Mr. Williamson and Mr. Leclair presented vastly different versions of what transpired earlier in the day surrounding the initial contact between the two of them. [ 6 ] Mr. Williamson asserts that this started off as a chance encounter where he came upon Mr. Leclair, Mr.

McCoshen and his girlfriend, Ashley Aube, on Kathleen Street on the day in question. There was some discussion of Mr. Williamson obtaining a cigarette and all individuals made their way back to Mr. Leclair's residence. According to Mr. Williamson, it was in that residence where the “birthday hug” exchange and comments with Ms. Aube took place, much to the disapproval of Mr. McCoshen. This resulted in Mr.

Williamson's ejection from Mr. Leclair's residence. Shortly thereafter, most of Mr. Williamson's property was returned to him outside ofthe residence some of which was peacefully returned to him outside of the residence including some items that were returned to him byMr. Leclair himself. [7] On the other hand, Mr. Leclair denies any prior interaction with the male individual whom he perceived to have attacked himfrom behind and without any warning at his residence. The Defence have conceded identity but on Mr. Leclair’s evidence alone, he wasnot able to clearly identify Mr.

Williamson. [8] Having considered the variances with regard to the earlier events in the day as expressed by Mr. Williamson and Mr. Leclair, Iam unable to determine with any degree of certainty the nature of their initial interaction and the specific circumstances of what mighthave transpired between them. [9] Ultimately, I need not determine the exact circumstances that resulted in Mr. Williamson and Mr. Leclair coming in contact witheach other earlier that same day. [10] However, I agree with Mr. Beckett that the explanation provided by Mr.

Leclair is difficult to believe and is contrary to commonsense and logic. There is a major aspect of Mr. Leclair’s evidence regarding how he came into contact with Mr. Williamson earlier thatday that does not tell me the whole story. [11] Having considered their testimony in conjunction with the complete evidentiary record, I am prepared to accept Mr.Williamson’s explanation of how he came to be in contact with Mr. Leclair initially and the course of their interaction leading up to theactual stabbing that is the subject of the charges. [12] Subsequent to Mr. Williamson being ejected from Mr.

Leclair’s residence, I further conclude that Mr. Williamson retreated tothe green space across the street and deliberately left behind some of his property in the bushes. He then returned to Mr. Leclair’sresidence in order to seek out his remaining property which consisted of a hat and a necklace. [13] In re-attending Mr. Leclair’s residence, the knife was in Mr. Williamson’s possession wrapped around a piece of clothing andheld in his hand. Air of Reality to Mr. Williamson’s Claim of Self-Defence [14] The first legal issue I must address is whether there is an air of reality to Mr.

Williamson’s claim of self-defence. It is only if Ifind that an air of reality exists, that I proceed further and consider the legal requirements of self-defence in s. 34(1) and (2) of theCriminal Code. If there is an air of reality to the Defence of self-defence, the reasonable doubt standard applies to the Defence. [15] The test for an air of reality is a low burden. I must be satisfied that there is some evidence upon which a reasonable jury couldfind self-defence to apply on the facts of this case (R. v.

Osolin, (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595 at 677-680 per Cory J.; R. v.Budhoo, 2015 ONCA 912 at paras. 42-49.) [16] The evidentiary and persuasive burden was succinctly explained by J.M. Copeland J. in R. v. Elliot, 2016 ONCJ 362 at para. 62: “Self-defence is an affirmative defence. There must be an air of reality to the defence before the Court is obliged to consider it andbefore the Crown is obliged to negative self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is an air of reality to the defence of self-defence, the reasonable doubt standard applies to the defence.

The Crown must then negative at least one of the conditions required forthe defence beyond a reasonable doubt. If I have a reasonable doubt that self-defence applies on the facts, I must acquit. The test for anair of reality such that the court must consider a defence is a low burden. The trial judge must be satisfied that there is some evidenceupon which a reasonable jury could find that self-defence applies: R. v. Osolin, (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595 at 677-680per Cory J.; R. v. Budhoo, 2015 ONCA 912 at paras. 42-49.” [17] In this case, Mr. Williamson testified that he unintentionally used his knife to stab Mr.

Leclair at least four times in his upperback during a physical altercation with him. He claims that when he returned to Mr. Leclair’s residence to retrieve the remainingproperty that had not been returned to him, Mr. Leclair came at him, pushed him up against the wall and punched him. The otherindividuals present did not intervene in this scuffle, but according to Mr. Williamson, Mr. Leclair instructed Devlin McCoshen to go andretrieve a hammer. [18] At this stage of my analysis, I am not to weigh the strength of the evidence or assess the credibility of Mr. Williamson.

I remindmyself of this in light of the very different version of events presented by the Crown through the complainant, Mr. Leclair. [19] As stated above, the test to establish an air of reality to self-defence is a low burden and if I conclude that there is some evidenceupon which a reasonable jury could find self-defence to apply on the facts of this case, it is made out. [20] Accepting Mr.

Williamson’s evidence at its highest, I conclude that there is some evidence upon which a reasonable jury couldfind self-defence to apply in this case. [21] Accordingly, I find that there is an air of reality to the Defence of self-defence as raised by Mr. Williamson. Has the Crown Disproven Self-Defence Beyond a Reasonable Doubt? [22] I have determined that there is an air of reality to Mr.

Williamson’s claim of self-defence and will proceed to consider the meritsof his claim. [23] The Crown must disprove any one of the following three essential elements of self-defence in section 34(1) of the Criminal Codeto the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

[24] These three requirements were summarized by Justice Doherty on behalf of the Ontario court of Appeal in R. v. Khill, 2020ONCA 151 at para. 42: 1. “The Trigger” - The accused must believe, on reasonable grounds, that force is being used or threatened against him: s.34(1)(a); 2. “The Motive” - The act of the accused said to constitute the offence must be done for the purpose of defending himself: s.34(1)(b); AND 3. “The Response” - The act said to constitute the offence must be reasonable in the circumstances: s. 34(1)(c). [25] When I consider the reasonableness of Mr. Williamson’s act in stabbing Mr.

Leclair four times in his back, I am required toinclude in my assessment the relevant circumstances of Mr. Williamson, Mr. Leclair and the others who might have been present, inconjunction with the stabbing, including, but not limited to the following factors listed in section 34(2)(

a) to (h): (

a) the nature of the force or threat; (

b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential useof force; (

c) the person's role in the incident; (

d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon; (

e) the size, age, gender, and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident; (

f) the nature, duration, and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of forceand the nature of that force or threat; (f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident; (

g) the nature and proportionality of the person's response to the use or threat of force; and (

h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful. The Modified W.D. Analysis in Light of Self-Defence [26] The Court of Appeal in R v Reid, (ON CA), [2003] O.J. No. 2822 (ONCA) at para. 72 instructed trial judgesto apply a modified W.D. test in cases where self-defence is raised and a W.D. instruction is warranted. This principle is directlyapplicable to this case. Accordingly, the first two steps in W.D. I must apply are as follows: 1.

If you accept the accused's evidence and on the basis of it, you believe or have a reasonable doubt that he/she was acting inlawful self-defence as I have defined that term to you, you will find the accused not guilty. 2.

Even if you do not accept the accused's evidence, if, after considering it alone or in conjunction with the other evidence, youbelieve or have a reasonable doubt that he/ she was acting in lawful self-defence as I have defined that term to you, you will find theaccused not guilty. [27] To answer the above first two principles in the modified W.D. analysis, I must also consider the relevant self-defence provisionsin

section 34 of the Criminal Code. Application of the Facts to the factors in

Section 34 (Self-Defence) 1. “The Trigger” - The accused must believe, on reasonable grounds, that force is being used or threatened against him: s.34(1)(a); [28] With respect to the first essential element of self-defence in section 34(1)(a), I do not accept that Mr. Williamson believed onreasonable grounds that force was being used or threatened against him at the time he repeatedly stabbed Mr. Leclair in the back.

Myanalysis in coming to this conclusion is as follows. [29] During this trial, I heard significantly different versions of events as to what transpired during the physical altercation at Mr.Leclair’s residence that resulted in him being stabbed four times by Mr. Williamson. [30] To summarize Mr. Williamson’s evidence, he testified in his own defence that he returned to Mr. Leclair's residence to retrievethe remaining property that belonged to him. He indicated that he was still missing a hat and necklace and upon approaching theresidence, Mr.

Leclair came at him and pushed him against the wall and proceeded to punch him. This physical altercation took place inthe presence of three other individuals who did not physically intervene. [31] Although not mentioned in his evidence in chief, Mr. Williamson expressed during cross-examination that while he was in the

midst of this altercation, Mr. Leclair instructed Mr. McCoshen to retrieve a hammer. It was at this point that Mr. Williamson asserts that his subjective fear of being harmed by Mr. Leclair and Mr. McCoshen escalated to the point where he felt that it was objectively reasonable for him to stab Mr. Leclair four times in his back. [ 32 ] Contextually, it is worth noting that according to Mr. Williamson, Mr. McCoshen had earlier in the day become angry at him for allegedly making inappropriate comments that were thought to have been made to Ms. Aube, in the context of a “birthday hug”. Mr.

McCoshen had confronted Mr. Williamson and he was forcefully removed from Mr. Leclair’s residence with the bulk of his property being returned to him shortly thereafter. [ 33 ] The reference to a hammer and the threat to use it against Mr. Williamson was not mentioned to Mr. Beckett during his examination in chief when the evidentiary foundation for his self-defence argument was first established. [ 34 ] A central question that I must decide is whether Mr. Williamson was justified in using a knife upon an unarmed opponent in the context of a physical fight.

The omission of the hammer or threat to use a hammer against Mr. Williamson in his testimony in chief is not an insignificant or minor point. [ 35 ] Rather, the reference or threat to use a hammer by Mr. Leclair, if true, would reasonably have been raised by Mr. Williamson in his own evidence in chief given the theoretical potential for this weapon to be used against him during this fight. [ 36 ] Although there is no bar to raising additional evidence to support an argument in self-defence at any point in this trial, I find that the reference to a hammer and the implied suggestion that both Mr. Leclair and Mr.

McCoshen threatened to attack him while using a hammer to be difficult to believe. [ 37 ] On this particular evidentiary point, I reject the testimony of Mr. Williamson and do not accept that Mr. Leclair instructed Mr. McCoshen to go and retrieve a hammer during the physical fight that took place between Mr. Williamson and Mr. Leclair. In other words, I find that at no time did Mr. Leclair or Mr. McCoshen threaten to use a weapon against Mr. Williamson throughout the entirety of their interactions. [ 38 ] My finding in this regard is premised on the additional finding that no such physical altercation between Mr.

Williamson and Mr. Leclair took place at this stage of their interactions in the way that was described by Mr. Williamson. [ 39 ] I have carefully reviewed the evidence and exhibits in this trial and accept the evidence of Mr. Leclair specifically with respect to how this physical altercation resulted in him being stabbed. [ 40 ] I find that it was Mr. Williamson, not Mr. Leclair, to be the aggressor during the altercation at the moment the stabbing occurred in light of the following evidence before me: [ 41 ] Firstly, the video evidence in Cameras 1, 2 and 3 is highly probative of the state of mind of Mr.

Williamson during the material times. In

summary, after the alleged stabbing, it is clear to me that the video footage portrays Mr. Williamson to be confrontational, angry, and actively seeking violence as opposed to attempting to avoid it. [ 42 ] Secondly, at one point, Mr. Williamson demanded that one of the neighbours, Mr. Amilio Portal, delete video footage that he had thought he had recorded on his cell phone. Mr. Williamson could be seen on the video walking towards Mr. Portal’s property in an angry, confrontational manner while holding a stick that he had accessed from a child’s playhouse after trespassing on to Mr.

Hanninen’s property, located directly next door to Mr. Leclair’s residence. Mr. Portal also observed blood on the sidewalk. [ 43 ] Thirdly, another neighbour, Mr. David Hanninen, who lived directly next door to Mr. Leclair, testified that he heard Mr. Williamson yell in an agitated state, “give me back my stuff…”, while hitting and banging on the exterior door to Unit 2 of 306 Kathleen, the residence of Mr. Leclair. There is a sufficient nexus in time with these observations to the actual stabbing. [ 44 ] Finally, Mr. Michael Lemire, who resided across the street from Mr.

Hanninen’s home, testified that he was outside his home with his 6-year-old daughter when Mr. Williamson emerged in their immediate vicinity and was yelling, “someone’s going to die today…” . Mr. Lemire described Mr. Williamson to be walking quickly on the street in a highly agitated state of mind which caused him to immediately enter his home with his daughter and call 911. From his basement, he was able to watch Mr. Williamson in his front yard area on his security camera. [ 45 ] The combination of all three videos illustrates an armed, angry and confrontational Mr.

Williamson yelling and swearing, while pursuing one neighbour across the street who attempted to video record the events. [ 46 ] Additionally, the testimony of the three neighbours expressed strikingly similar descriptions of Mr. Williamson that included observations of a distraught, angry, and irate man stating among other things, “someone is going to die tonight” while armed with a large wooden stick. [ 47 ] Accordingly, I find that Mr. Williamson, not Mr.

Leclair, to have been the initial and only aggressor during the altercation at the moment the stabbing occurred. [ 48 ] Furthermore, I make the following additional observations that effectively weakens Mr. Williamson’s claim of self-defence: 1. In deliberately returning to Mr. Leclair’s residence, Mr. Williamson chose to actively seek out another weapon, namely, a large wooden stick, in a child playhouse in Mr. Hanninen’s backyard, which was situated directly next door to Mr. Leclair’s residence. This is further evidence that Mr. Williamson appeared to be seeking additional violence, not avoiding it; 2. Mr.

Williamson, who deliberately trespassed on Mr. Hanninen’s property in order to access Mr. Leclair’s residence, was attempting to access Mr. Leclair’s backyard from a surreptitious location, which is more consistent with the Crown’s theory of him

initiating a surprise attack upon Mr. Leclair. This conduct is entirely inconsistent with an argument of self-defence; 3. At some point after stabbing Mr. Leclair, Mr. Williamson’s state of mind and conduct appeared to be reckless and lacking in control. For example, Cst. Shirazi and Cst. Brown testified that leading up to the arrest, they had witnessed Mr. Williamson to be behaving in a bizarre manner, and approaching unknown people and attempting to remove his shorts prior to being arrested; 4. Prior to the police arriving in the area, but after the stabbing, the deliberate choice by Mr.

Williamson to enter the bushes and stash both weapons he possessed (knife and large wooden stick) throughout the course of these events speaks to the degree of awareness he had regarding the offensive use of those weapons including the use of the knife to repeatedly stab Mr. Leclair. This is conduct inconsistent with a person who was purported to have behaved in a defensive manner. 5. Ultimately, on the different versions of events presented by both the Crown and the Defence, at the time Mr. Williamson stabbed Mr.

Leclair, these two men were engaged in a physical altercation exclusively with each other and at no point did anyone else intervene. In other words, the evidence clearly supports the conclusion that at no point did Mr. McCoshen physically engage Mr. Williamson during the course of this physical altercation between Mr. Leclair and Mr. Williamson when Mr. Williamson returned to the residence to claim his remaining belongings. 6. Furthermore, on the evidence of Mr. Williamson himself, at no point during this physical altercation were Mr. Leclair or Mr. McCoshen in possession of a weapon of any type.

The evidence strongly supports my conclusion that the only person who was armed with a weapon at all material times was Mr. Williamson. [ 49 ] I find that Mr. Leclair was sitting outside his residence on Kathleen Street with his neighbour about to consume a beer. Without warning, a male individual who we now know to be Mr. Williamson, came at him with a knife wrapped up in a cloth and began to stab him repeatedly. [ 50 ] In response to this physical attack from Mr. Williamson, Mr. Leclair pushed Mr. Williamson up against the wall to his residence and punched him during the physical altercation. Mr.

Williamson then retreated but prior to leaving the residence, proceeded to access a paint can but then released this item before fleeing. [ 51 ] Accordingly, with respect to the first essential element of self-defence in section 34(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code , I do not accept that Mr. Williamson believed on reasonable grounds that force was being used or threatened against him because I have rejected his version of events. [ 52 ] On the facts that I do accept, I find that Mr. Williamson was the aggressor and repeatedly stabbed Mr.

Leclair without warning and without any threat to his own safety, while in a state of anger over unrecovered property. [ 53 ] This takes me to the second essential element of self-defence discussed below. 2. “The Motive” - The act of the accused said to constitute the offence must be done for the purpose of defending himself: s. 34(1) (b); [ 54 ] As I have found, the evidentiary record strongly supports the reasonable inference that Mr. Williamson was the aggressor and was not in any way defending himself from a perceived threat or actual attack from Mr. Williamson, or from Mr.

McCoshen. [ 55 ] However, as it relates to the motive in the act of stabbing Mr. Leclair, even if Mr. Williamson had perceived on reasonable grounds that force was being used or threatened against him, I find that the actions taken by Mr. Williamson in stabbing Mr.

Leclair were not carried out for the purposes of defending himself. [ 56 ] The third essential element of self-defence is discussed below. 3. “The Response” - The act said to constitute the offence must be reasonable in the circumstances: s. 34(1) (c). [ 57 ] If I am wrong in my assessment up to this point of my analysis, I would find that the act of Mr. Williamson stabbing Mr. Leclair four times in the back to fall well short of what would be reasonable within the meaning of section 34(1) of the Criminal Code . [ 58 ] Even on Mr. Williamson’s own version of events, at no point did Mr. Leclair or Mr.

McCoshen have any weapons on their persons. Also, on his own version of events, the history of interaction with Mr. Leclair was peaceful, when Mr. Leclair returned most of his property to him earlier in the day. [ 59 ] The final physical altercation from the perspective of the accused himself reveals that no one produced a knife but him, in an otherwise unarmed physical fight. For these reasons, even if Mr. Williamson believed that he had to stab Mr.

Leclair to defend himself, the level of force he used was excessive and unreasonable in the circumstances. [ 60 ] Having completed my analysis of the self-defence provisions in section 34(1) of the Criminal Code , I wish to revert back to the initial two principles in the modified W.D. analysis. My conclusions for the first two questions are summarized as follows: 1. If you accept the accused's evidence and on the basis of it, you believe or have a reasonable doubt that he/she was acting in lawful self-defence as I have defined that term to you, you will find the accused not guilty.

As explained in my analysis above, I do not accept the evidence of Mr. Williamson. Therefore, I do not believe or have a reasonable doubt that he was acting in lawful self-defence. 2. Even if you do not accept the accused's evidence, if, after considering it alone or in conjunction with the other evidence, you believe or have a reasonable doubt that he/ she was acting in lawful self-defence as I have defined that term to you, you will find the accused not guilty.

[ 61 ] Further to my analysis above, even though I do not accept the evidence of Mr. Williamson, after I considered it alone or in conjunction with the totality of the evidence before me, I do not believe or have a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williamson was acting in lawful self-defence. [ 62 ] I come to this conclusion having considered the totality of the evidence in this trial as well as the utterances made by Mr. Williamson that were proven to be voluntary.

Those utterances consisted of the following statements by him to police after he was provided with his rights to counsel under the Charter and cautions: [ 63 ] While Cst. Shirazi was showing Cst. Brown a photo of Mr. Williamson, the accused said to the officers – “yeah, you got me, that is me.” . [ 64 ] Mr. Williamson further stated, “The guy deserved it, he attacked me first, so I finished him. If you’re wondering… The knife is in my pants in the bush where I ran…” [ 65 ] After Cst. Brown reiterated a caution to him and told him not to say anything, Mr.

Williamson responded, “Who cares, you got me, I am guilty.” [ 66 ] Although I do not accept Mr. Williamson’s evidence, I have still considered his admissions to police in consideration of the three elements of self-defence in section 34(1) of the Criminal Code . [ 67 ] Having considered these statements in conjunction with the complete evidentiary record, self-defence would fail on the third element of section 34(1) (c). Put another way, the act of stabbing Mr. Leclair even if I would have accepted that Mr. Leclair had initiated the physical altercation and told Mr.

McCoshen to retrieve a hammer, would not have been reasonable in the circumstances. Using a knife to stab an unarmed individual in the midst of a physical scuffle was both subjectively and objectively unreasonable in this case. [ 68 ] Finally, on the third question in W.D. , I must ask myself the following question: 3. Even if Mr.

Williamson’s evidence does not leave me with a reasonable doubt about his guilt, if after considering all the evidence that I do accept, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt, I must acquit. [ 69 ] I remind myself that the burden of proof throughout the entirety of this trial is upon the Crown and never shifts to Mr. Williamson. [ 70 ] I have considered the totality of evidence before me in this trial and on the basis of the evidence that I do accept, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr.

Williamson is guilty of the offences of Aggravated Assault and Assault with a Weapon. [ 71 ] Upon review of the totality of the evidence, I reject Mr. Williamson’s claim of self-defence. [ 72 ] Accordingly, I conclude that the Crown has disproven all three essential elements of self-defence in section 34(1) of the Criminal Code to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 73 ] Mr. Williamson’s use of the knife by stabbing Mr.

Leclair four times in the back was deliberate and the risk of bodily harm he caused was objectively foreseeable. [ 74 ] The Crown has proven the mens rea elements of the charges of Assault with a Weapon and Aggravated Assault. There will be findings of guilt on both counts. Weapons Dangerous (knife and wooden stick) [ 75 ] On the remaining charge before the Court, I must ask myself whether Mr. Williamson possessed the knife or large wooden stick for a purpose dangerous to the public, contrary to

section 88 of the Criminal Code . [ 76 ] Mr. Williamson claims that he did not possess his knife and large wooden stick for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. [ 77 ] Dealing first with the knife, he testified that as a homeless person, he requires this knife for various different reasons. He did not specify in any great detail as to what those reasons were that would justify possession of it. [ 78 ] Even if Mr. Williamson’s initial purpose for possessing this knife was not for a dangerous purpose, the focus of my analysis should be directed at why he was in possession of this knife on the day he used it to repeatedly stab Mr. Leclair. [ 79 ] The offence under

section 88 of the Criminal Code is not a use offence but rather, a possession offence. Regardless of whether or not this knife was used to stab Mr. Leclair, the question I must answer is whether Mr. Williamson possessed it for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. [ 80 ] The knife itself does not appear to be one that would be used for utility purposes such as cutting wood, rope, cardboard, or other day to day use for a person living on the street.

Exhibit 6 includes two photographs of the knife which appears to be precisely the type of knife that a person would use to intimidate or attack as opposed to some utility purpose. [ 81 ] Upon careful consideration of the evidence from the three neighbors combined with the video evidence, observations of the police officers and the testimony of Mr. Williamson himself, it is clear to me that he possessed this knife for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

I explicitly reject the explanation offered by him as to why he was in possession of this knife and find that one of the reasons why he had it at the time he used it to stab Mr. Leclair was to threaten, intimidate or harm another human being on the date in question. [ 82 ] The evidence clearly supports that he deliberately returned to the location of Mr. Leclair with this knife in his possession prior to

attacking Mr. Leclair with it. Regardless of what prior purpose existed before the actual stabbing, I find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williamson chose to arm himself with this dangerous weapon for the purposes of intimidating or physically attacking Mr. Leclair with it in order to retrieve his remaining property. [ 83 ] Additionally, with respect to the possession of the large wooden stick, the evidence as viewed on the three videos along with the testimony of the three neighbors would also sufficiently support a conviction under

section 88 of the Criminal Code for possessing this weapon also for a dangerous purpose. There was no other reason why Mr. Williamson was in possession of this large wooden stick other than to attack or intimidate others. [ 84 ] Accordingly, I find that while in an irate and angry state of mind, he purposely trespassed onto Mr. Hanninen's property and accessed this large wooden stick for no other reason but for a dangerous purpose. [ 85 ] The evidence in support of the charge pursuant to

section 88 of the Criminal Code , namely possession of a weapon such as a knife or large wooden stick for a dangerous purpose is overwhelming. There will be a finding of guilt on that count. [ 86 ] I wish to thank Mr. Beckett and Mr. Martin for their very able submissions in this trial. Released: September 19, 2023 Signed: Justice Leonard Kim