Law360 Canada (June 12, 2026, 10:48 AM EDT) --

John L. Hill

There was a late-night gunfight outside Karma Nightclub in St. Catharines, Ont., on Sept. 29, 2019. The Crown had to prove that Jamar Stephens was one of the shooters. It did. A jury convicted Stephens on a multi-count indictment charging him with various offences arising from the shooting.

Stephens appealed his conviction. The Ontario Court of Appeal delivered its reasons upholding the conviction on June 8 (R. v. Stephens, 2026 ONCA 390).

The Appeal Court accepted facts that suggested reasonable doubt.

At approximately 2:30 a.m., two groups were outside the nightclub. Group 1 consisted of Saeed Savalanpour and two friends. Group 2 consisted of Stephens, his cousin Shamaree Wilson, his brother Dwight Stephens, cousin Shaun Myers, Jayson Hypolite and several other men who had travelled from the Greater Toronto Area.

As Savalanpour left the nightclub, he approached Group 2. Witnesses heard a man say words to the effect of “don’t move” and raise a handgun. At trial, it was agreed that this man was Savalanpour. Multiple shots were then fired. Forensic evidence established that at least two firearms were used, and it was also agreed that Savalanpour was one of the shooters.

The exchange of gunfire left Savalanpour shot twice in the abdomen and wounded five innocent bystanders, two of whom were seriously injured and required surgery.

The most important eyewitness was Michael Huggan, one of the injured bystanders. He testified that the first shooter was the man who stepped into the street and said, “Don’t move” (Savalanpour). A second man then drew a gun and began firing. The second shooter ducked, ran away, and fired “wildly” behind himself without aiming. Huggan believed that the bullet that struck him came from the second shooter rather than from Savalanpour. However, Huggan could not identify the second shooter.

Security-camera footage captured the incident, but the quality was poor. The video showed Savalanpour moving toward the crowd and later running across the street while holding a handgun. It also depicted a man resembling Stephens standing near the group and then running away after the shooting began. The video did not clearly show Stephens holding a gun or firing.

Police recovered eight 9-millimetre cartridge casings. Evidence indicated that at least two firearms had been used, but several bullet fragments were found whose calibre could not be determined. The evidence suggested that the bystanders who were shot were likely struck by bullets fired by the second shooter.

The Crown alleged that Stephens was the second shooter. The case against him largely rested on circumstantial evidence. He was with Group 2 when the shooting occurred. A witness later saw a man carrying a handgun run up William Street toward May Alley, where Stephens’ vehicle had been parked. Stephens was wearing a blue hoodie, and the witness described the fleeing gunman as wearing a blue top.

Months later, police intercepted a telephone call in which Stephens instructed his girlfriend to retrieve items from his house after police searched his cousin’s residence. When police arrested the girlfriend, they found a .32-calibre revolver belonging to Stephens, ammunition and a Glock magazine containing 9-millimetre rounds. Although the revolver could not have fired the recovered 9-millimetre casings, experts could not rule out the possibility that it fired one or more of the unidentified bullet fragments.

The trial judge identified several problems. The video did not clearly show Stephens holding anything. The eyewitness described the second shooter as emerging from the storefront “cubby,” whereas Stephens appeared to be standing outside it. The witness who saw a man running with a gun described a “long baggy T-shirt,” not the blue hoodie Stephens wore. The judge concluded that the evidence fell well short of proving that Stephens was one of the shooters.

Stephens testified that he and his companions had travelled from Toronto to attend an after-hours party in the Niagara area. They were waiting outside the nightclub when Savalanpour approached and pointed a gun at their group. As soon as shots were fired, he ran. After reaching his vehicle, he discovered he had been shot in the leg and ankle. He did not seek hospital treatment because the injuries were not severe, and his companions wished to avoid police involvement. He admitted owning the .32-calibre revolver seized months later but denied bringing it to St. Catharines or using it during the shooting.

The central factual issue was whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish that Stephens was the unidentified second shooter, or at least criminally responsible as a participant in the events that led to the aggravated assaults suffered by the wounded bystanders. The trial judge found the evidence insufficient to prove he was a shooter but allowed the aggravated assault counts to proceed to the jury on theories of principal or secondary liability.

On appeal, Stephens first argued that Crown counsel’s opening address was improper and so prejudicial that the trial judge should have declared a mistrial. The Court of Appeal agreed that the prosecutor had gone too far. The Crown improperly expressed personal opinions about what the evidence would show and invited the jury to draw inferences during the opening address rather than waiting until closing submissions. The Crown also suggested that the jury would see Stephens holding a firearm in the video evidence. The prosecutor implied that eyewitness Huggan would identify Stephens as the second shooter and described as an “irresistible inference” the proposition that the revolver found months later had been used in the shooting.

However, the court emphasized that a mistrial is an extraordinary remedy and that appellate courts owe substantial deference to a trial judge’s decision not to grant one (R. v. Clause, 2016 ONCA 859).

The trial judge immediately corrected the problem by instructing jurors to ignore any opinions, inferences or argumentative comments made by Crown counsel and to focus solely on the evidence they would hear.

The Court of Appeal held that the corrective instruction was clear and forceful. Jurors are presumed to follow such instructions. Any misunderstanding about Huggan’s evidence disappeared once he testified and failed to identify Stephens. The Crown’s “jigsaw puzzle” analogy did not diminish the burden of proof, and the jury later received proper and complete instructions on reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the court found no miscarriage of justice and no basis to order a new trial.

Stephens next argued that once the trial judge found there was insufficient evidence that he personally possessed or fired a gun, the judge should also have directed acquittals on the two aggravated assault charges. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument.

The trial judge had already directed acquittals on the firearms offences because the evidence that Stephens was a shooter was weak. However, the aggravated assault charges could still proceed if Stephens was liable as a secondary party.

The court explained that the Crown did not have to prove that Stephens foresaw a shooting. Rather, it only had to prove that he intentionally aided or participated in a planned assault and that bodily harm was an objectively foreseeable consequence of that unlawful venture. The court held that there was evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that Stephens and other members of Group 2 travelled from Toronto to St. Catharines to confront Savalanpour. Savalanpour and at least some members of Group 2 were enemies. The group assembled outside Karma Nightclub, waiting for him. Stephens knowingly assisted the venture by travelling with and transporting group members.

The Court of Appeal emphasized that when people join together to commit a violent assault, they can be criminally responsible for resulting bodily harm, even if they neither possess a weapon nor foresee the precise manner in which the assault unfolds. Because those inferences were reasonably available on the evidence, the aggravated assault charges were properly left to the jury.

Stephens’ final argument was that the jury should have been instructed on self-defence. The Court of Appeal carefully examined this issue because the evidence suggested that Savalanpour fired first. The court acknowledged that this fact could satisfy the first element of self-defence, i.e., that the second shooter reasonably believed force was being used against him.

However, the court found no air of reality to the remaining elements of self-defence. The key issue was the evidence regarding the second shooter’s conduct. According to eyewitness Huggan, the second shooter drew a gun after Savalanpour began shooting, ran away while firing behind himself, fired “wildly” and indiscriminately, and made no effort to avoid hitting innocent bystanders. Several bystanders, nowhere near Savalanpour, were struck. The Court of Appeal held that no reasonable jury could conclude that such conduct constituted a reasonable use of defensive force (R. v. Woodcock, 2015 ONCA 535).

Furthermore, under the Crown’s theory of secondary-party liability, the jury would first have to find that Stephens and the others had come to the nightclub intending a violent confrontation with Savalanpour. Such a finding would strongly undermine any suggestion that the second shooter acted purely in self-defence. The court therefore held that the trial judge properly exercised his gatekeeping function by refusing to leave the issue of self-defence to the jury (R. v. Pappas, 2013 SCC 56).

As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and Stephens’ convictions were upheld.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). His most recent book, Acts of Darkness, (Durvile & UpRoute) was shortlisted as one of five nominees for the Crime Writers of Canada’s Brass Knuckles Award for Best Nonfiction Crime Book. Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.