Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-07-25
Docket: M56120 (COA-24-CR-0580)
Judge: Peter Lauwers (Motion Judge)

Between:

His Majesty the King
Respondent

and

Connor Davison Gibson
Appellant (Moving Party)

Appearances:
Stephen Whitzman, for the appellant/moving party
Jeremy D. Tatum, for the respondent

Heard: 2025-07-17

Endorsement

[1] This is a motion under s. 683(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, and r. 12(8) of the Criminal Appeal Rules, for an order directing that the wooden board that was used to cause the deceased’s death and entered as Exhibit 26 at trial, and the audio of the appellant’s 911 call recording, be sent by the Registrar of the Superior Court of Justice in Brantford to the Registrar of this court and produced by the Registrar on the argument of the appeal if so requested by the hearing panel.

[2] Rule 12(8) directs that such exhibits are not to be sent to the Registrar of this court unless so ordered by a judge. Section 683(1)(a) allows this court to order the production of any exhibit or thing connected with the proceedings where it is in the interests of justice.

[3] The Crown opposes the request on the basis that there are 14 photographs of the board reproduced in the Appeal Book from different angles with measuring tapes in the setting. It is unnecessary for the panel to see the actual board.

[4] The appeal counsel responds that the central issue in the case and on the appeal is that of proportionality of the appellant’s response in striking the deceased with the board. He asserts that the weight and density of the board will assist the panel in considering the reasonableness of the verdict. The board was in the jury room during the jury’s deliberations, as were the photographs.

[5] Appeal counsel states that the bare transcript of the 911 call that is in the Appeal Book does not convey the full sense of the appellant’s emotions that would be revealed by hearing the audio.

[6] Although this court might be engaged in a limited reweighing of the evidence in the context of an argument that the verdict was unreasonable, I do not see how the board itself, or the actual recording of the appellant’s 911 call would add anything meaningful to the panel’s deliberations. I dismiss the motion but observe that the panel has its own authority under r. 12(8) and s. 683(1)(a) to require these exhibits to be produced.

“P. Lauwers J.A.”