COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Zarnett, Coroza and Copeland JJ.A.
BETWEEN
His Majesty the King
Respondent
(Responding Party/Responding Party)
and
Richard Isaac
Appellant
(Moving Party/Responding Party)
Jack Gemmell, for the moving party (M57016)/responding party (M57155), Richard Isaac
Andrew Hotke, for the responding party (M57016 & M57155), His Majesty the King
Scott Hutchison, for the responding party (M57016 & M57155), Toronto Police Service
Jason Kirsh, for the responding party (M57016 & M57155), Ontario Provincial Police
Myles Anevich, for the moving party/proposed intervener (M57155), Paul Worden
Heard: June 29, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The appellant seeks production of records from the Toronto Police Service (the “TPS”) and the Ontario Provincial Police (the “OPP”), pursuant to s. 683(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. The appellant argues that the records may assist him in preparing a possible fresh evidence motion in the appeal of his conviction for second-degree murder. The records relate to misconduct by former TPS Homicide Detective Paul Worden, who was the officer in charge of the investigation that led to the charges against the appellant. Mr. Worden’s admitted misconduct includes removing opiate drugs from the scenes of at least two homicide investigations, illegally accessing TPS evidence lockers to remove opiate drugs in a number of other investigations, and altering records to hide his activities. Mr. Worden has not admitted misconduct in this investigation. Some of the records sought by the appellant relate directly to the homicide investigation that led to his conviction; some relate to other unrelated investigations. We outline the specific areas of records sought by the appellant below.
2The OPP takes no position on production to the court to review the records, and specific positions (described below) on whether they should be produced to the appellant following court review. The Crown and the TPS oppose the production application. In very general terms, the Crown and the TPS take the position that the appellant has been given sufficient disclosure as it relates to Mr. Worden’s involvement in the homicide investigation that led to his conviction, as well about his misconduct, and that the request for further records is based on speculation that the misconduct could extend to the appellant’s case.
3Mr. Worden seeks leave to intervene on the merits of the production motion and in order to assert a privacy interest in the records sought.
4The panel has decided to proceed in two steps on this motion, given the potential privacy interests at issue (not limited to those of Mr. Worden), as well as the potential application of solicitor-client or public interest privilege. This decision explains why the panel has decided (i) to grant Mr. Worden’s intervention limited to his privacy interest, and (ii) to review some of the records sought by the appellant in order to decide what, if any, records will be produced to him and on what terms. In due course, a second decision will be issued after the panel has reviewed the records outlined in this decision.
Factual background and records sought
5The appellant is appealing his October 2020 conviction for the second-degree murder of Victoria Selby-Readman, as well as his sentence. Ms. Selby-Readman had been the appellant’s roommate for a short time. She was found beaten to death on June 12, 2018, her body decomposing.
6Mr. Worden, then a TPS Homicide investigator, was the officer in charge of the investigation into Ms. Selby-Readman’s death. He did not testify at the appellant’s trial.
7The case against the appellant was circumstantial. The central issue at trial was the appellant’s identity as the perpetrator of the murder. The Crown’s evidence bearing on identity included:
- Evidence from Ms. Selby-Readman’s father to the following effect. On June 8 at 5:06 p.m., she messaged her father and described conflict with the appellant. On June 9 at 4:03 p.m., her father messaged Ms. Selby-Readman to see how she was. He received a response, purportedly from her, painting the appellant in a positive light and describing a reconciliation. On June 12, her father decided to visit to check on her, not having heard from her since the June 9 messages, despite the fact that he had sent her additional messages. Inside the apartment, he found her badly beaten and decomposing body.
- Security camera footage at the apartment showed Ms. Selby-Readman heading towards the apartment on June 8 at 5:55 p.m., the last time she was seen alive. The appellant was seen leaving the apartment the same day at 6:34 p.m. and returning at 7:34 p.m. He was not seen on camera again until June 9 at 2:07 p.m.
- On June 11, the appellant phoned his father and arranged to come live with him, telling his father he could no longer live at the apartment. Before the appellant left the apartment, he took multiple bags out of the apartment.
- The appellant was arrested on June 16 at his father’s home. Inside the home, police found a journal in which the appellant denied involvement in Ms. Selby-Readman’s death. According to the journal entry, he left the apartment on June 9 to buy alcohol. When he returned, he discovered that Ms. Selby-Readman had been brutally attacked. Rather than call an ambulance or police, he stayed in the apartment until June 11, when his father picked him up.
- DNA matching the appellant’s was discovered underneath Ms. Selby-Readman’s fingernails. When the appellant was arrested, he had a noticeable scratch on his arm.
8In January 2021, approximately one month after the appellant was sentenced, members of the TPS Property and Video Evidence Management Unit became aware of unauthorized access to police evidence lockers by Mr. Worden. They reported this information to TPS Professional Standards, who immediately started an investigation. Mr. Worden was suspended from duty. He later resigned from the TPS, but was never criminally charged.
9In the course of the TPS investigation into Mr. Worden’s conduct, 32 suspicious transactions across various TPS divisions were identified. All related to Mr. Worden removing opiates from evidence lockers.
10Mr. Worden provided two compelled statements to TPS Professional Standards investigators, one on January 29, 2021, the second on June 3, 2021.
11A summary of the nature of the results of the TPS and OPP investigations into misconduct by Mr. Worden suffices for purposes of this motion.
12Mr. Worden admitted to having a longstanding addiction to prescription opioids stemming from a string of injuries and surgeries. As his addiction progressed, his prescribed medications were insufficient. He began stealing prescription medication in the course of his work as a police officer.
13He admitted stealing opiate drugs from the scenes of two homicides he investigated, one in 2009 and the other in 2020. Mr. Worden said in the interviews that he could not specifically recall other homicide investigations in which he had removed drugs from the scene, but did not rule out that he had done so in other homicide or suspicious death investigations.
14Mr. Worden also admitted to approximately 20 occasions, between 2018 and 2020, when he improperly accessed TPS evidence lockers and stole opiate drugs from them, altering the records about the drugs he took and his access to the lockers in order to hide his misconduct. He said he used his access to the TPS’s Division Locker Management System (“DLMS”) to identify cases where opiate drugs from police investigations had been arranged to be couriered for destruction.
15The OPP subsequently investigated the TPS’s handling of evidence and its decision not to criminally charge Mr. Worden. The record on this application shows that the OPP investigation included looking at whether Mr. Worden engaged in misconduct in relation to the Selby-Readman homicide investigation.
16Both the TPS and the OPP investigations concluded there was no evidence of misconduct by Mr. Worden in relation to the Selby-Readman homicide investigation.
17The Crown provided the appellant with disclosure of a McNeil1 report regarding Mr. Worden and transcripts of the two compelled interviews of Mr. Worden by TPS Professional Standards investigators. The Crown has declined to provide any additional disclosure regarding the TPS and OPP investigations into Mr. Worden’s misconduct. Further, the Crown takes the position that any additional records in the hands of the TPS and the OPP are third-party records and not in the possession of the Crown.
Mr. Worden’s request for intervener status
18Mr. Worden seeks standing in the appellant’s motion on the basis that, as the subject of the records at issue, he has a privacy interest in the records. In addition to hearing Mr. Worden’s submissions on standing, we heard his submissions on the merits of the appellant’s motion and reserved judgment on whether to grant standing.
19The Crown and the police services do not oppose Mr. Worden being granted standing. However, the Crown and the TPS take the position that his standing should be limited to submissions about his asserted privacy interest in the records sought. They argue that it is the Crown’s role to address issues of relevance to the appeal and how the public interest should be balanced in the court’s consideration of whether to order production of any records.
20Although the appellant initially opposed Mr. Worden being granted intervener status, at the hearing of the motion, he took a position similar to the Crown and the police: Mr. Worden should be permitted to make submissions asserting a privacy interest in the records, but he should not be permitted to make submissions on the relevance of the records to the appeal.
21We agree with the position of the appellant, the Crown, and the TPS. Mr. Worden is granted intervener status to advance arguments limited to his asserted privacy interest in the records at issue. He is not granted intervener status to make submissions on either the relevance of the records to the appellant’s appeal or on the interests of justice under s. 683. The latter issues are properly addressed by the Crown in its minister of justice role: Edmonton (Police Service) v. McKee, 2026 SCC 24, at paras. 134-37. Mr. Worden limited his oral submissions to his asserted privacy interest in the records at issue. We disregard the portions of his written submissions that address other issues.
22Before leaving this issue, we add one caveat. Although we accept that Mr. Worden may have some level of privacy interest in the records because they relate to his conduct, we do not want to overstate the nature of his privacy interest, particularly prior to reviewing the records at issue. In general terms, the subject matter of the records is Mr. Worden’s unlawful and unprofessional conduct in his role as an officer of the TPS. His public role as a police officer diminishes his privacy interest in activities in the course of his work.
23However, it is possible the records contain particular documents with a higher privacy interest. At this stage, we simply flag this issue. It may have relevance in the court’s consideration of the balance between potential probative value and privacy in relation to the records the court reviews.
The Appellant’s Production Request
1. Applicable law
24Pursuant to s. 683(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, this court may order the production of “any writing, exhibit or other thing connected with the proceedings” if the court “considers it in the interests of justice” to do so. In R. v. Trotta (2004), 2004 CanLII 60014 (ON CA), 23 C.R. (6th) 261 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 25, this court held that a two-part test is to be applied where a party seeks production of records in aid of a fresh evidence motion. The applicant must demonstrate that:
- There is a reasonable possibility that the production of the records could assist on the motion to produce fresh evidence; and
- There is a reasonable possibility that the records at issue may be received as fresh evidence on appeal.
25In R. v. Jaser, 2023 ONCA 24, at paras. 17 and 30, this court modified the test enunciated in Trotta to account for the privacy interests of a third party in records for which production is sought, incorporating the factors relevant to a third-party records motion. Where third-party privacy interests are engaged, a court considering a production order under s. 683 must weigh the potential probative value of the evidence sought along with any third-party privacy interests in assessing whether it is in the interests of justice to order production. In conducting this weighing, the court should also consider other tailored means of protecting privacy interests, such as redactions or conditions on disclosure.
26Because there are privacy interests of third parties potentially affected by the records at issue – of Mr. Worden and possibly others – we approach the disposition of this motion in two stages. First, we consider whether the appellant has met the Trotta test for purposes of the court reviewing the records sought or some portion of them. That is the subject of this decision.
27Second, since as described below we have decided to review a portion of the records, we will review them, pursuant to the principles from Jaser, in order to determine whether production of any records should be made and how any privacy interests should be balanced in assessing the interests of justice, including by redactions and/or conditions on release. The result of that review will be addressed in a subsequent decision.
2. Request for Toronto Police Service locker access records for this investigation
28The first category of records (the “locker access records”) sought by the appellant is:
All records concerning access to the items and video evidence seized by TPS officers in the course of the investigation into the murder of Victoria Selby-Readman and into Richard Isaac’s alleged involvement in her death by the TPS, including, but not limited to:
Divisional Locker Management System (DLMS) records for the officers who accessed these items or video evidence;
Property and Video Evidence Management Unit (PVEMU) records relating to the storage and access to the items and video evidence seized; and
Any other records relating to the items and video evidence seized.
29The appellant argues that the results of the investigations of Mr. Worden’s misconduct outlined above raise concerns about the integrity of the investigation in the Selby-Readman homicide, including in relation to the chain of continuity of evidence and exhibits. He argues that the locker access records bear directly on the integrity of the chain of continuity of evidence and exhibits in the Selby-Readman homicide investigation.
30As noted above, Mr. Worden did not testify at the appellant’s trial. As a result, the appellant’s claims of relevance and probative value for the records sought are based on issues related to the integrity of the Selby-Readman homicide investigation, in particular, the handling of evidence and exhibits. Because Mr. Worden was not a witness, potential routes of relevance and probative value for the records based on testimonial credibility or reliability are not argued: see, for example, McKee, at para. 94(a).
31The Crown and the TPS oppose production of the locker access records in relation to the Selby-Readman homicide investigation on the basis that the Trotta test cannot be met because the TPS has reviewed the locker records, and the Crown has disclosed to the appellant that the review showed that Mr. Worden did not access the evidence locker in this investigation. They submit that, given the disclosure that the TPS review of the locker records showed that Mr. Worden did not access the evidence locker in this case, the court would have to disbelieve the TPS or find that they were wrong in the results of their investigation to find the Trotta test satisfied in relation to the locker access records.
32Respectfully, this is the wrong frame through which to assess whether there is a reasonable possibility that a production order for records held by police could assist the appellant on a motion to adduce fresh evidence, and whether such records could be admissible as fresh evidence on the appeal.
33The appropriate frame to consider this issue is whether the evidence on the application establishes case-specific relevance and probative value for the type of records at issue, such that they could reasonably assist in a fresh evidence motion and be admissible as fresh evidence. Records bearing on the integrity of the investigation that underlies the appeal – whether Mr. Worden’s acts of misconduct extended to the Selby-Readman homicide investigation – meet that threshold.
34In the normal course, records for police evidence lockers are unlikely to have relevance and probative value, and on appeal would be unlikely to meet the Trotta test for production. This is because, in the absence of any factual foundation for a reasonable possibility of there having been tampering with the contents of an evidence locker or records related to access to the locker, there would not be a reasonable possibility that the records could assist in a fresh evidence motion or be admissible as fresh evidence.
35By contrast, in this case, it is undisputed that Mr. Worden, the officer in charge of the Selby-Readman murder investigation, has a history of tampering with items in police evidence lockers by stealing opiate drugs from the lockers and altering records to cover up his entry and theft. Given this factual basis, the locker access records are capable of answering the question of whether Mr. Worden’s improper access to evidence lockers, tampering with evidence, and altering records to cover his tracks extended to the investigation in this case. That provides a basis of relevance and probative value of the locker access records and the reasonable possibility that disclosure of the records could assist the appellant in developing fresh evidence and furnish evidence capable of being tendered as fresh evidence in the appeal.
36This is not a question of disbelieving the TPS’s assertion that their review of the locker access records showed that Mr. Worden did not access the locker in this investigation. Rather, the Trotta threshold is established by the nature of the records and the evidence that Mr. Worden has a history of improperly accessing evidence lockers, stealing from them/tampering with evidence, and altering records in relation to his entry. There is a reasonable possibility that the locker access records for this investigation could shed light on whether Mr. Worden improperly accessed the locker in the investigation in this case.
37It was entirely appropriate for the TPS, in its own investigation, to reach conclusions about whether Mr. Worden accessed the evidence locker in the investigation underlying this appeal. Those conclusions do not bind the appellant, as it is not the TPS’s role, once subject matter relevance for the evidence is established, to screen for whether the evidence is, in fact, helpful to the appellant’s position on appeal.
38Although Mr. Gemmell did not pursue in oral submissions the request for records relating to Mr. Worden’s access to other evidence lockers in unrelated investigations, we address it briefly. The appellant’s claim of relevance and probative value of the locker access records is based on the question of whether the integrity of the evidence and exhibits in this homicide investigation were tainted by Mr. Worden’s conduct in this particular investigation. Records relating to evidence lockers in other investigations would not shed light on the integrity of this particular investigation. Although Mr. Worden’s misconduct in other investigations could be relevant to his credibility had he been a witness in the appellant’s trial, because he was not, that consideration cannot form the basis of a production order in this appeal.
39We order production to the court for review of the TPS evidence locker access records regarding the investigation that led to the appellant’s conviction. More specific direction is provided at the end of these reasons.
40Mr. Hutchison, for the TPS, advised during the hearing that it was his understanding that video records in relation to access to evidence lockers in the time frame of the investigation of this case are no longer in existence because the standard retention periods for such records have elapsed. He advised that he would look into this further and advise if he learned anything different. The court requests Mr. Hutchison’s confirmation regarding whether the video records still exist or have been destroyed in accordance with standard retention periods.
3. Request for Toronto Police Service records of the investigation into misconduct by Mr. Worden
41The second category of records that the appellant seeks from the TPS is:
The records and reports of the TPS investigation of former Detective Paul Worden’s illegal activities and how they may have affected the investigation into the murder of Ms. Readman.
42The appellant argues that the results of the investigations of Mr. Worden’s misconduct outlined above raise concerns about the integrity of the investigation in the Selby-Readman homicide, including in relation to the chain of continuity of evidence and exhibits. In oral submissions, Mr. Gemmell did not pursue the issue of investigations by the TPS in relation to access by Mr. Worden to evidence lockers in all other investigations, but rather, focused on records relating to two unrelated homicide investigations in which Mr. Worden admitted tampering with the crime scene by removing opiate drugs from the scene. He submits that Mr. Worden’s statements acknowledge that he may have taken opiate drugs from other homicide or suspicious death scenes, but could not specifically remember. This raises the reasonable possibility that Mr. Worden tampered with the scene in the Selby-Readman homicide investigation.
43The Crown and the TPS argue, as with the first category of records, that the TPS investigation into Mr. Worden’s misconduct concluded that there was no impact on the Selby-Readman homicide investigation, and on that basis the appellant cannot meet the Trotta test. They also argue that based on the investigations done, Mr. Worden’s misconduct only related to theft of opiate drugs (and related record-alteration) and there is no evidence that there were any opiate drugs at the scene of the Selby-Readman murder. The only drugs found at the scene was a small quantity of marijuana. The Crown also argues that the appellant has been given significant disclosure already about Mr. Worden’s misconduct, in particular, the McNeil report and the two police interviews of Mr. Worden.
44Both the Crown and the TPS argue, in the alternative, that if the panel finds the Trotta test is satisfied for any records, they should first be produced to the court for review, in accordance with Jaser. In that review the court can consider privacy and other interests in assessing what, if anything, should be disclosed. This stage of the review may involve possible notice to other third parties whose privacy interests may be affected, as well as tailoring disclosure through redaction and/or conditions on disclosure.
45We explain our reasons in relation to these records by addressing first, records in relation to the TPS investigation of Mr. Worden’s conduct in the Selby-Readman homicide investigation, and second, records in relation to other unrelated criminal investigations.
a. Records of Mr. Worden’s conduct in the Selby-Readman homicide investigation
46The appellant has satisfied the Trotta threshold for the panel to review the records about the portions of the TPS investigation that looked into the question of whether Mr. Worden did anything in the Selby-Readman homicide investigation that compromised the integrity of the investigation or the evidence and exhibits.
47Our reasoning is similar to the reasoning above with respect to the locker access records. As we explained in relation to the locker access records, there is an evidentiary basis that Mr. Worden engaged in misconduct in relation to investigations that included removing opiate drugs from evidence lockers, altering records to hide his misconduct, and in two cases, removing opiates from the scene in homicide investigations.
48We note that the evidentiary basis for these issues was sufficient to lead both the TPS and the OPP to investigate Mr. Worden’s conduct as it related to the integrity of criminal investigations he was involved in, including the Selby-Readman homicide investigation.
49The issues raised regarding Mr. Worden’s conduct in criminal investigations is sufficient for the court to review the portions of the TPS investigative record relating to Mr. Worden’s conduct in the Selby-Readman homicide investigation. There is a reasonable possibility that the records of that investigation could assist the appellant in a fresh evidence motion and could be admissible as fresh evidence.
50As with the locker records, the fact that the TPS concluded, based on their investigation, that the integrity of the Selby-Readman homicide investigation was not compromised does not remove the relevance and probative value of these records.
51We direct the TPS to produce to the court for review the portions of its investigation into misconduct by Mr. Worden that relate to the Selby-Readman homicide investigation. More specific direction is provided at the end of these reasons.
b. Records of Mr. Worden’s conduct in other criminal investigations
52We reach a different conclusion regarding the portions of the TPS investigation relating to Mr. Worden’s conduct in unrelated criminal investigations. We are not persuaded that the appellant has established a reasonable possibility that records relating to Mr. Worden removing items from the scene in two unrelated homicide investigations could assist him in developing a fresh evidence motion in this appeal or be admissible as fresh evidence in this appeal. The request is speculative because there is no evidentiary basis for the appellant’s claim that Mr. Worden had the opportunity to tamper with the scene in the Selby-Readman homicide investigation.
53The appellant’s motion material included, for the first time, a request for production of the log of who accessed the Selby-Readman homicide scene while it was under TPS control. In response to the motion being filed, the Crown disclosed the crime scene log.
54A copy of the log was provided to the court at the hearing of the motion. It is a four-page document. It lists the name and badge number of every officer and civilian who entered the scene of the homicide, the date and time each person entered and left the scene, and the reason for entry. The dates of entries run from June 12, 2018 at 19:07, the date the investigation commenced, to June 18, 2018 at 18:00.
55A review of the log shows that between June 12 and 18, 2018, various identified officers, as well as a coroner and two civilians for body removal, entered the scene. There are many entries for scene security. There are entries for forensic officers collecting evidence at the scene on three separate days, for a total of approximately 24 hours of forensic investigation. The only entry by Mr. Worden is the very last entry in the log, on June 18 from 17:47 to 18:00.
56In short, the logs show that Mr. Worden’s only entry to the scene of the homicide was the last entry on the log, after six days of investigation at the scene, including forensic investigation at the scene for many hours on three separate days, and removal of the body on the first day of the investigation. It is clear that the substance of the investigation at the scene of the homicide was completed before Mr. Worden set foot in the scene.
57Given the presence of scene security and the fact that it is clear that the substance of the scene investigation was completed prior to the sixth day, we are not satisfied that there is a reasonable possibility that the appellant could show tampering at the scene by Mr. Worden that could have an impact on his appeal.
58There is no factual basis beyond speculation to suggest Mr. Worden tampered with evidence at the scene of the murder in this investigation. Therefore, records of investigation of other homicide cases where Mr. Worden did tamper with the scene by removing opioids are not capable of meeting the Trotta test. There is no reasonable possibility that such records could support a fresh evidence application with the aim of showing tampering at the scene in the homicide investigation that led to the appellant’s conviction.
59As a result, we will not review records of the TPS investigation in relation to Mr. Worden’s conduct in other unrelated investigations.
2. Request for Ontario Provincial Police records regarding the investigation of misconduct by Mr. Worden
60The appellant seeks the same types of records from the OPP as the second category of TPS records sought above:
The records and reports of the OPP investigation into former Detective Paul Worden’s illegal activities and how they may have affected the investigation of the cases he was involved with, including the investigation into the murder [of Ms. Selby-Readman].
61We do not summarize the appellant’s argument because it is the same as for the second category of TPS records sought.
62The Crown’s position is also essentially the same as its position in response to the second category of TPS records sought.
63The OPP takes no position on whether these records should be produced to the court for review. The OPP submits that to the extent that many of its records originate with the TPS, the TPS should be treated as the record-holder. The OPP also submits that if the court decides that some production of records should be made, the court should consider third-party privacy interests and redact the disclosed records as appropriate. In addition, the OPP identified an area over which it claims solicitor-client privilege.
64We reach the same conclusions for the OPP records as for the second category of TPS records discussed above, for the same reasons.
65We order production to the court of the portions of the OPP investigation relating to Mr. Worden’s conduct in the Selby-Readman homicide investigation.
66There is an evidentiary basis that Mr. Worden engaged in misconduct in relation to investigations that included removing opiate drugs from evidence lockers, altering records in relation to removed evidence and in relation to access to evidence lockers to hide his misconduct, and in two cases removed opiates from the scene in homicide investigations.
67The issues raised by the record regarding Mr. Worden’s conduct in criminal investigations are sufficient for the court to review the records of the OPP relating to Mr. Worden’s conduct in the Selby-Readman homicide investigation. There is a reasonable possibility that the records of that investigation could assist the appellant in a fresh evidence motion and could be admissible as fresh evidence.
68We direct the OPP to produce to the court for review the portions of its investigation into misconduct by Mr. Worden that relate to the investigation of the Selby-Readman homicide. More specific direction is provided at the end of these reasons.
69During the hearing, we were provided with a document disclosed to Mr. Gemmell after the motion was filed which is a one-page summary, dated June 22, 2021, of the OPP’s “Investigation review” as it related to Mr. Worden’s conduct in the appellant’s case. The summary lists seven witnesses interviewed, including the appellant, and the OPP’s conclusion: “No evidence of any exhibits removed or missing from the vault in this matter.” It appears that this document summarizes the scope of the OPP investigation of Mr. Worden’s conduct as it relates to the Selby-Readman homicide investigation. For clarity, the investigation underlying this summary is included in the order that the OPP produce to the court the portions of its investigation into misconduct by Mr. Worden that relate to the investigation of the Selby-Readman homicide.
70However, the request for records relating to the OPP investigation about Mr. Worden’s conduct in relation to evidence at the scene in other homicide investigations is speculative in the absence of any factual basis for the assertion that he may have tampered with evidence at the scene in the Selby-Readman homicide.
71As a result, we will not review records of the OPP investigation in relation to Mr. Worden’s conduct in other unrelated investigations.
Disposition
72Mr. Worden’s motion for leave to intervene is granted, limited to making submissions on the issue of his privacy interest in the records sought.
73The panel will review the following records and proceed to the assessment discussed in Jaser, at paras. 17 and 30:
(1) All records concerning access to the items and video evidence seized by TPS officers in the course of the Selby-Readman homicide investigation, including, but not limited to:
(a) Divisional Locker Management System (DLMS) records for the officers who accessed these items or video evidence;
(b) Property and Video Evidence Management Unit (PVEMU) records relating to the storage and access to the items and video evidence seized (if not previously destroyed according to record retention policies); and
(c) Any other records relating to the items and video evidence seized.
(2) Records of the TPS investigation into misconduct by Mr. Worden as it relates to the Selby-Readman homicide investigation.
(3) Records of the OPP investigation into misconduct by Mr. Worden as it relates to the Selby-Readman homicide investigation. This direction includes, but is not limited to, the investigation underlying the June 22, 2021 one-page “Investigation review” summary provided to the panel during the hearing of the motion.
74In its review of the outlined records, the panel will determine whether any records should be produced to the appellant, including whether any records should be subject to redactions or conditions on release.
75The panel has already heard submissions from Mr. Worden about his asserted privacy interest. If, in the court’s review of the records, there appear to be privacy interests of other third parties involved, or issues such as public interest or solicitor-client privilege, the panel will provide direction as required for any notification of third parties or submissions on these issues.
76Pursuant to a direction of the court made at the hearing of the motion, the TPS and OPP have filed under seal certain records relating to the production request. If those filings do not include all the records ordered produced for the panel’s review above, the TPS and/or OPP should supplement their filing accordingly.
“B. Zarnett J.A.”
“S. Coroza J.A.”
“J. Copeland J.A.”
Footnotes
- R. v. McNeil, 2009 SCC 3, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 66.