opp

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.

Former Thunder Bay Police Chief Sylvie Hauth and her legal counsel Holly Walbourne have been charged with obstructing a peace officer, breach of trust, and multiple counts of obstruction of justice.

Walbourne is currently on trial. She plead not guilty to all charges on Monday. The two were set to be tried together, but medical issues forced the trials to be separated and delayed Hauth’s proceedings to May 5.

Hauth and Walbourne are accused of downplaying their involvement in an internal “HomeSense Investigation” into Morriseau after the provincial police board took over the case.

The HomeSense Investigation

In the summer of 2020, the Thunder Bay Police Service was investigating a potential leak of confidential information to civilian reporter Brian Webster, who ran the Facebook page The Courthouse Inside Edition.

That summer, then-TBPS board chair Georjann Morriseau was shopping at HomeSense when a man wearing a COVID mask approached her. She testified on April 13, 2026 that he recognized her as board chair and identified himself as an officer, but she did not recognize him. He told her officers were “gossiping” about a text from Webster to a police-issued cell phone.

The text read:

“Hey Mike, I see they are thanking members of the Thunder Bay Police in their bust announcement. Any anonymous info about what hardworking TBPS officers did?”

The police phone that received the text from Brian Webster was confirmed to belong to Constable Michael Dimini, who was still on the force but had left the unit five months earlier. Dimini was later cleared of charges regarding the leak. In February 2026, Dimini was found guilty on separate breach of trust and obstruction of justice charges stemming from unlawful residential searches and arrests in November 2020.

Morriseau spoke to Deputy Chief Ryan Hughes about her HomeSense conversation, but she could not identify the man.

Hughes took this very seriously. An investigation into the Webster text was in progress, and Hughes said he was wary of “gossip” about internal business being shared with Morriseau, who did not need to be informed.

Several members of the force interviewed Morriseau about the HomeSense incident, including Holly Walbourne, who travelled to Morriseau’s house to speak with her on the subject. During these interviews, police raised the names of multiple officers in an effort to identify the masked man, but Morriseau could not identify him.

Morriseau testified that investigators treated her as though they believed she was lying. She said she felt bombarded with questions that left her “rather scared and frustrated”. At this point, Morriseau was still a witness in the investigation.

“I think once the meeting at my house (with Walbourne) took place, I was feeling more and more that there’s something else happening in the background here in terms of why I am continually being interrogated,” Morriseau testified on April 13, 2026. “I felt like I had to watch my back everywhere I turn.”

One of the officers suggested as the masked HomeSense man was Detective Jason Rybak. In November 2020, Rybak told Ryan Hughes that he was informed his name came up in an internal investigation. Shortly after, he “uncomfortably” revealed Morriseau gave him that information, according to Hughes’ testimony on April 15, 2026.

Because of this admission, Hughes launched a criminal investigation into Morriseau for breach of trust on November 23, 2020.

In December of 2020, then-police chief Sylvie Hauth decided to transfer the investigation to the OPP.

In August of 2021, the OPP cleared Morriseau of all wrongdoing. They concluded there was no basis to lay criminal charges.

Hauth’s memoranda

In October of 2021, Sylvie Hauth presented a memo to the police board regarding the OPP investigation into the Morriseau case. Morriseau made a complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) alleging discrimination based on her race as an Indigenous woman.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commision (OCPC) looked into Hauth’s Memorandum. In June of 2022, they alleged in their Notice of Particulars that “(Hauth’s) report contained a number of false statements which would lead the reasonable reader to conclude that she had no knowledge that DC Hughes had initiated a criminal investigation against Chair Morriseau until December 9, 2020. That memo was distributed to the Board members on October 12, 2021 and it was anticipated they could rely upon it for the truth of its contents.”

Hauth also drafted a second memo a week after the first, in which the OCPC alleged she continued to mislead on the date she was informed of the Rybak interview and about her knowledge that a Production Order against Morriseau was imminent, not a mere possibility.

The full OCPC final summary report can be found here.

The aftermath

The OCPC put in place an administrator to oversee the board in April of 2022. Many of the board members resigned shortly thereafter.

Later that year, the OCPC brought misconduct charges against Sylvie Hauth under the Police Services Act, suspending her for 12 months. Hauth formally resigned as police chief in 2023.

Holly Walbourne resigned as TBPS legal council in 2023.

Morriseau has also left the force and serves as Commissioner of the First Nation Tax Commission.

The present

Holly Walbourne is currently on trial for obstructing a peace officer, breach of trust, and two counts of obstruction of justice. The trial is expected to last around three weeks, which means a verdict should be determined by May 1.

Sylvie Hauth is facing charges of obstructing a public or peace officer, breach of trust and two counts of obstruction of justice. Her trial is set for May 5.

The trial of former Thunder Bay Police Service lawyer Holly Walbourne took a dramatic turn Tuesday afternoon as Deputy Chief Ryan Hughes took the stand.

Walbourne and former police chief Sylvie Hauth have been indicted over their actions during a 2020 internal investigation into former police board chair Georjann Morriseau. Hauth had her case postponed due to medical reasons.

As Deputy Chief, Hughes was Hauth’s second in command. He testified that his working relationship with Hauth “deteriorated” and later “fell apart” between 2020 and 2021, and cited the Morriseau investigation as a primary factor.

A copy of Hughes’ official memo book during that time period was made available to both the defense and the prosecution. However, Hughes surprised the court by mentioning a personal notebook that he kept private.

“I thought my notebooks would be gone through,” Hughes testified. “There was a lot of stuff going on in 2020 and 2021 where I thought, or I felt like I was being targeted by senior administration (…) I did make a few notes, not in my memo book, about stuff that happened at the service, that was told, or commented to me.”

Hughes said there were under six pages in that notebook, and it’s currently kept in his home. He said the notes concern Holly Walbourne.

He will bring this personal notebook to court tomorrow, unaltered.

Later in his testimony, Hughes confirmed that Detective Jason Rybak called him in November of 2020 with concerns about being involved in “The HomeSense Investigation.” Hughes said he was suspicious that Georjann Morriseau leaked this information to Rybak, but could not confirm these suspicions.

Hughes testified that he had a friendly relationship with Holly Walbourne at the time, and he would “run stuff by her frequently.” He discussed this matter over the phone with Walbourne, and the potential of a criminal investigation was raised without mention of conflict of interest. Hughes said he did not take notes on this call at the time, and said that was a mistake.

In an email from Holly Walbourne to Sylvie Hauth and Ryan Hughes on November 19, 2020, Walbourne wrote that after speaking with the officer conducting the Home Sense Investigation, she believed Georjann Morriseau was willfully obstructing their investigation. The investigator had called Morriseau three times and left a message with no response, and he believed she had more information she wasn’t providing.

Hughes said he called Rybak after reading this email, and that is when Rybak confirmed Morriseau had told him his name was mentioned in the investigation.

The court then adjourned for the day. Hughes will take the stand again Wednesday morning.

Hughes has yet to testify about the November 30, 2020 meeting between himself, Sylvie Hauth and Hollie Walbourne that the prosecution says is integral to the case.

The trial of former Thunder Bay Police Service legal counsel 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.

According to the defense, the prosecution needs to prove:

• 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 regarding “The HomeSense Investigation” into Morriseau.

Both of Sylvie Hauth’s memos to the police board were written in October 2021, around three months after Morriseau had been cleared of all charges by the OPP. An audio recording of Holly Walbourne’s meetings with the OCPC officer will be played to the court later this week.

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 Nicola Langille. “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.