Deputy Chief’s testimony builds timeline of events in Walbourne trial

It’s time to get into the meat and potatoes of the Holly Walbourne trial.

Deputy Chief Ryan Hughes’ returned to the stand Wednesday morning to finish his testimony. Hughes is a key figure in this case. He initiated the internal investigation into police board chair Georjann Morriseau that sparked the misconduct cases against Holly Walbourne and former police chief Sylvie Hauth.

Hughes’ personal notebook, teased Tuesday afternoon in a surprise admission to the court, will likely be a non-factor in this case. Many of the notes were undated, not consecutively numbered, and personal in nature, and Thunder Bay police policy requires officers to maintain only one notebook at a time.

On Wednesday, the prosecution presented a series of emails exchanged between Hughes, Walbourne and Hauth in November and December 2020 concerning “The HomeSense Investigation” into Morriseau. During this period, the matter was elevated to a criminal investigation and later transferred to the OPP (the OPP cleared Morriseau of all charges in August 2021).

On Tuesday, the prosecution confirmed they are looking to prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

• Holly Walbourne was unaware of a criminal investigation into Georjann Morriseau and a criminal code production order of her phone prior to December 9, 2020.

And,

• Holly Walbourne lied or intentionally misled a Ontario Civilian Police Commission officer about her knowledge during their two meetings regarding the case in March and May of 2022.

And/or

• Holly Walbourne and/or Sylvie Hauth lied or intentionally misled the police board about their knowledge in two memoranda to the board in October of 2021.

This is in regards to the HomeSense investigation.

Through the emails and reports shared with the court, we can build a timeline of correspondence between Hughes, Walbourne and Hauth. It is important to note that Hughes was on medical leave at this time. He said he was not checking his emails every day, and was communicating over the phone while working from home.

This is not a complete timeline of events, as evidence is still being presented to the court. Updates will be provided when available. Comments and discussions not documented in emails are drawn from Hughes’ testimony and should not be treated as independently verified facts.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

November 10 – Detective Jason Rybak discloses to Hughes that his name came up in the HomeSense investigation. Hughes testified that at this time he suspected but could not confirm that Georjann Morriseau gave Rybak that information. He said he spoke with Holly Walbourne afterwards, and the possibility of a formal investigation arises.

November 19, approx. 9 am – Holly Walbourne emails Hughes and Hauth informing them that Morriseau has stopped responding to the officer investigating the HomeSense incident. (It’s important to note that Morriseau was not being investigated as a suspect at this time, just a witness). In the email, Walbourne describes the actions as a “willful obstruction of the investigation” and says she intends to draft a letter to the board.

Hughes said he interpreted this as encouragement to open a criminal case into Morriseau. The defence asserts that Walbourne did not direct Hughes to initiate a criminal investigation in this email, nor does she have the power to.

November 19, approx. 11 am – Hughes testified that he called Rybak after receiving Walbourne’s email, who “uncomfortably” confirmed that Morriseau told him his name was in the Homesense investigation.

November 23, 10:04 am – Hughes opens a case file on the situation, triggering a criminal investigation into Morriseau. Access to the file is limited to himself and Hauth. Hughes emails Sylvie Hauth, briefing her on this and Rybak’s admission. He does not include Walbourne on this email. He testified that this was because there were “talkers in the building.”

November 23, 10:10 am – Hauth writes back: “10-4. Thanks for the update. The plot thickens…”

Hughes testified that he perceived at this time that he had authorization to go ahead with the criminal investigation into Morriseau.

Hughes said that at the time, he did not recognize an issue with the Thunder Bay Police Service criminally investigating its own board chair. He testified that he has since changed his mind on that position.

November 25 – Hughes adds Detective Dan Irwin to the case file, instructing him to interview Rybak as the lead investigator. Hughes confirmed on the stand that the criminal investigation into Morriseau is now “fully up and running” at this point.

November 27 – Hughes says he instructed Rybak to request a production order to connect Rybak and Morriseau’s phones.

November 30 – This brings us to the phone conversation between Hughes, Hauth and Walbourne that was identified as a key piece of evidence in the trial on Tuesday.

Hughes testified the call lasted about 15 minutes, per his memory. He said the call was to brief them on his two phone calls with Rybak, an interview conducted by the investigator he put in charge of the investigation, and his request for a production order into Morriseau’s phone.

He said neither Hauth nor Walbourn discouraged him from continuing with the production order.

December 1 – A production order for Morriseau’s phone is granted. Hughes testified that he learned this at a later time, and did not notify Hauth or Walbourne.

December 9 – This is when Walbourn says she first knew of the criminal investigation into Morriseau and that a production order was granted for Morriseau’s phone. Hughes said he has no notes from December 9.

December 14 – Hughes returns to the office from medical leave. He testified that he learned that morning the investigation had been transferred to the OPP, but said he does not recall being told a reason for the transfer. He said that he does not recall speaking with Walbourne or Hauth about the Morriseau investigation between the 1st and the 14th.

The defence presented records that Hughes and Walbourne had phone calls on November 30 (an hour after the meeting between the two of them and Hauth), December 1, December 4 (twice), and December 10. Hughes says he has no notes and no recollection of these calls.

December 18 – Hughes sends an email to Sylvie Hauth “clarifying her question today about what was going on with (him).” In the email, he responded to Hauth’s assertion the day before that he had not kept her properly informed about the Morriseau investigation, pointing to his Nov. 23 email and sharing his request for a production order as evidence that he had done so.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hughes testified that after reading Hauth’s memo to the board on October 8, 2021, he told Hauth that he knew Walbourne had written the memo, he felt like it wasn’t accurate, and Walbourne had “thrown (him) under the bus” regarding the Morriseau investigation.

Hughes said that Hauth responded that “it had to be done”, and he needed to explain himself to the board. Hughes sent her an email on Oct. 14 outlining their correspondence from November and December 2020, arguing it showed her initial memo was inaccurate.

On January 20, 2022, Hughes was suspended from the force for around 12 months. This stems from an investigation by the Toronto Police Service into complaints made by Holly Walbourne and Sgt. Michael Dimini concerning matters unrelated to Georjann Morriseau or the police board.

The OCPC concluded that Hughes could have been disciplined for his role in the investigation.

None of the allegations against Walbourne or Hauth have been proven in court.

This is an ongoing story. Updates will be provided when available.