Toronto, ON – The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld the convictions of a Toronto man found guilty of attempting to murder his former girlfriend in a carefully planned crossbow attack, rejecting his claims of legal and factual errors at trial.
The case of R. v. Jaggernauth, 2025 ONCA 579 (CanLII) arose from a violent incident on November 7, 2018, when Marlene Pimenta was shot with a concealed crossbow after opening her front door to a man posing as a delivery driver. The attack, captured on security video, left her with life-altering injuries.
Pimenta’s account of the attack became a focus at trial. In her first police interview on November 19, 2018, while still medicated and recovering from surgery, she recalled an earlier pellet gun incident in which the shooter said “this is from Roger.” This turned out to be a false memory. By her second interview eight days later, she clarified that she was confused in the first account but maintained she clearly remembered the assailant asking if she was “Marlene” before shooting her. The trial judge ultimately rejected the “this is from Roger” statement as unreliable but accepted the identification question as credible evidence that the attack was targeted.
Police focused on Ms. Pimenta’s former partner, Roger Jaggernauth, as a suspect. The Crown alleged he arranged for a hitman to kill her after their relationship ended in May 2018 and a dispute over $350,000 she had advanced to him turned into a legal battle.
Court records revealed that after the May 2018 breakup, Jaggernauth’s behaviour escalated. He had an acquaintance follow the moving truck to learn Pimenta’s new address, then began showing up at her home uninvited. He sent a constant stream of calls and texts, kept notes on her movements, and by July had installed a GPS tracking device on her car. On two occasions she called police about his presence, prompting formal warnings in August that he could be charged with criminal harassment. Meanwhile, she retained counsel, registered a caution against his home, and in October 2018 secured a certificate of pending litigation on the property, heightening the financial pressure on him.
Following a 21-month investigation, Mr. Jaggernauth was arrested and charged with attempted murder and counselling to commit murder. No direct evidence linked him to the unidentified assailant. Instead, the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony that he had sought help in finding someone to “take out” Ms. Pimenta.
Eakin’s testimony placed their conversation between May and November 2018, with phone records showing two possible long calls in June and September. Although Eakin initially insisted the appellant had called him, the judge found it plausible it could have been a return call in their habit of “phone tag.” The judge considered the September date more likely, noting this was when the property dispute and his anger were near their peak. Eakin, who had past biker gang connections, said the request was serious enough for him to hang up immediately, fearing police monitoring.
At trial in 2023, Superior Court Justice Jennifer Woollcombe found that the attack was targeted, that Mr. Jaggernauth had a compelling motive to kill Ms. Pimenta, and that he took steps to solicit a hitman. She placed particular weight on the testimony of an old friend, Paul Eakin, a former member of an outlaw biker club, who recounted a phone call in which the appellant asked if he knew anyone who could kill his “ex.” Another witness, the appellant’s manager, testified that he said at work he wanted to kill her.
The trial judge also considered his conduct after the attack but before police told him of it on November 22, 2018. Surveillance officers observed behaviour they said was consistent with trying to avoid detection, such as driving below the speed limit in separate vehicles with his girlfriend, turning off his headlights before entering her alley, and inspecting a police car parked nearby.
Mr. Jaggernauth appealed, arguing that the trial judge misinterpreted Mr. Eakin’s testimony, wrongly relied on Ms. Pimenta’s evidence that the shooter confirmed her identity, improperly accepted police opinion evidence about his post-attack behaviour, failed to consider other possible explanations for his actions, and delivered verdicts that were unreasonable given the absence of direct evidence connecting him to the shooter.
Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Justice Katherine van Rensburg rejected all grounds of appeal. The court found that the trial judge had carefully assessed the witnesses’ testimony in context and reasonably concluded that the appellant’s request to Mr. Eakin was a serious attempt to hire a killer, not mere drunken rambling. It upheld the finding that the attack was targeted, noting that even without the identification question, the circumstances — a crossbow hidden in a package, the location, and the lack of any other criminal motive — pointed to deliberate planning.
On the after-the-fact conduct, the court said the trial judge had not improperly relied on police opinion evidence, but rather drew her own conclusions from the facts. It agreed she was entitled to reject the alternative explanations as speculative, given the pattern of behaviour observed.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the verdicts were reasonable, stressing that while the case was circumstantial, the cumulative effect of the evidence excluded other reasonable inferences. The appeal was dismissed, leaving in place Mr. Jaggernauth’s convictions for attempted murder and counselling to commit murder.
