Walbourne defense seeks clarity: “This is uncharted”
| This article is part of an ongoing series documenting the criminal trials of former high-ranking members of the Thunder Bay Police Service. Here’s what we know so far: Trial of TPBS lawyer Holly Walbourne • April 13: Background/Morriseau offers first testimony The trial of TBPS police chief Sylvie Hauth is scheduled for May 5 |
The trial of former Thunder Bay Police Service lawyer Holly Walbourne hit a speed bump Tuesday morning.
On Monday night, the prosecution was asked to specifically identify the Actus Reus (guilty act) that they are attempting to prove against Walbourne and former police chief Sylvie Hauth (whose trial was delayed due to medical reasons).
According to the defense, the prosecution needs to prove that Hauth and Walbourne were unaware of a criminal investigation into Georjann Morriseau prior to December 9, 2020, and that they were unaware of a criminal code production order of Morriseau’s cell phone prior to that same date.
This is regarding “The Home Sense Investigation” into Morriseau.
A key piece of evidence is Sylvie Hauth’s two memos to the police board regarding the investigation into Morriseau. Both memos were written in October 2021, around three months after Morriseau had been cleared of all charges by the OPP.
The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed these memos and alleged that they “contained a number of false statements which would lead the reasonable reader to conclude that she (Sylvie Hauth) had no knowledge that Deputy Chief Ryan Hughes had initiated a criminal investigation against Chair Morriseau until December 9, 2020” in an April 2024 summary report.
The prosecution was asked to highlight key passages from those memos that were lies or misrepresentations to determine the Actus Reus. The defense argues what they highlighted was far too broad.
“I stopped counting at 27 passages where they wanted to reserve the right to ask questions should Ms. Walbourne testify,” said defense lawyer Samara Secter. “That was roughly halfway through (…) we simply can’t understand what the Crown is alleging is the misleading statement or the misrepresentation.”
The prosecution responded, saying that they are trying to give the defense some notice while leaving flexibility for changing the Actus Reus after Deputy Chief Ryan Hughes’ testimony. The Crown says a November 30, 2020 meeting between Hughes, Walbourne and Hauth is a key event in the case, and therefore Hughes’ upcoming testimony about what was said about the Morriseau investigation within that meeting is integral to identifying Walbourne and Hauth’s wrongdoings.
“To be honest, I’ve never had this issue come up in any case I’ve ever done,” said Justice Robert Goldstein. “This is sort of uncharted to a certain extent, for me anyway.”
Goldstein ordered the prosecution to “go back to the drawing board” and provide the statements they claim are false within Hauth’s memo. He reminded them that he has to prove misconduct beyond reasonable doubt.
The court adjourned to allow the prosecution time to clarify their case.
This is an ongoing story. Updates will be provided when available.
