ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2026 02 20

COURT FILE No.: Thunder Bay, North West Region 998 23 4210 2957

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

Michael Thomas Victor Dimini

Before Justice Michael Block

Evidence Heard: May 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 2025 and June 2, 3, 5, 2025

Submissions: November 13, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on February 20, 2026

Vlatko Karadzic ................................................................................... counsel for the Crown

Mark Ertel and Michelle O’Doherty ............... counsel for the accused Michael Dimini

Block J.:

Overview

[ 1 ] On November 24, 2020 Michael Dimini was on duty as the patrol sergeant for the north zone of Thunder Bay. That evening the defendant attended what was anticipated to be a “Keep the Peace/Stand-By” call in the south zone of Thunder Bay. Following an investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police into his conduct during that attendance, he was charged with breach of trust, contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code , and obstruct justice by making a false statement, contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Code. This is the judgment of the Court.

[ 2 ] Approximately one day prior to the events in question the father of the defendant’s common-law partner, Mr Clody Marson, was the victim of a break and enter in which some tools and a television were stolen from his garage. Mr Marson and his daughter Justene determined that the television was being offered for sale on Facebook Marketplace. They arranged with the vendor, Derek Turner, to attend a residence in south Fort William and buy the television.

[ 3 ] The Marsons contacted the police and advised them of these arrangements. They were told to meet constables at the location. Four Thunder Bay Police Service officers were dispatched on a Keep the Peace/Stand-by assignment to ensure recovery of the television by Mr Marson without incident. Although his presence was not requested by the Thunder Bay Police Service communications unit, Sergeant Dimini attended this assignment. His actions during and in relation to the incident, particularly the warrantless entry into apartment 14, 230 Frederika St. followed by a search of the premises, the arrest of most of the occupants and their detention for bail are alleged to be unlawful and central to the charge of a breach of trust. In addition, Sergeant Dimini is alleged to have edited an occurrence report written by another officer to insert a fabricated narrative justifying his conduct. That alteration is the core of the allegation of the obstruction of justice charge.

[ 4 ] The Crown called the four constables assigned to the attendance and a sergeant who spoke to the defendant afterwards. In addition, the lessee of the Frederika street apartment, Ms Cassandra Stachiw, Clody Marson and several dispatchers for the Thunder Bay Police testified.

[ 5 ] In addition to the viva voce evidence, there were two agreed statements of fact. In addition, security videos from 230 Frederika St, police radio transmissions, Occurrence Reports, Supplementary Occurrence Reports, other police and crown documentation, GPS data from the police vehicles involved, hard copies of CAD dispatches, Event Chronologies and telephone records were filed.

[ 6 ] The defendant called no evidence.

Witnesses to the events at 230 Frederika St.

Constable Kelly Walsh

[ 7 ] The first constable attending the Frederika St address was James Kelly Walsh. Now retired, PC Walsh worked for the Thunder Bay Police Service for 33 years ending in July 2021. His work history is impressive. Among other assignments, he worked on the tactical team, the Gang Unit of the CIB and served 16 years in the Intelligence Unit. The last 4 years of his service were spent on the road in uniform.

[ 8 ] PC Walsh supplied a great deal of evidence regarding the organization of the duties of the Thunder Bay Police Service. The city is divided into north and south zones. A typical night shift would employ 20 constables. Each zone would be supervised by a patrol sergeant. On this night the south zone, in which the Frederika St address was located, was supervised by Sergeant Todd Pritoula. The north zone was supervised by the defendant. The watch commander that night was Staff Sergeant Joe Dampier. He commanded both zones.

[ 9 ] While officers were assigned to a particular zone, they would respond to calls in the other zone if circumstances demanded it. Emergency calls, weapons incidents, accidents with injuries and robberies were the kind of circumstances that would cause an officer assigned to one zone to attend the other.

[ 10 ] PC Walsh testified that the patrol sergeants normally supervised in their own zone unless a serious matter such as a weapons call, took place in the other zone. Sometimes a constable would call for a sergeant to attend on a matter. His testimony indicated that different sergeants had different practices and that there was a flexible approach to this discretion.

[ 11 ] PC Walsh told the court that calls for service were normally assigned a priority by communications unless there was an emergency such as a weapons call or an attempted suicide. In those cases, the watch commander or the communications supervisor would assign priority.

[ 12 ] While one or two constables were normally assigned to a Keep the Peace/Stand By, four constables, three with considerable experience, attended this call because the address was known to be associated with the drug trade and Mr Turner was known to be part of the drug subculture and to have an outstanding arrest warrant. He was also associated with the Frederika St address through the lessee, his girlfriend Cassandra Stachiw.

[ 13 ] It was PC Walsh’s view that there was no necessity to call for a sergeant to attend this call and if there had been, Sergeant Pritoula would have been the one called.

[ 14 ] PC Walsh attended at the Frederika St address at approximately 9:29 pm on November 24, 2020. Just prior, he met PC Dunning, PC West and PC Gunn at a pawn shop nearby. The purpose of this brief meeting was to organize the police approach to the address. The evidence was that this is a standard practice to ensure officer safety. PC Gunn, the most junior of the four officers, was assigned to watch the rear of the premises. The meeting was out of sight of the address to avoid prematurely alerting the occupants of the apartment to the police presence.

[ 15 ] PC Walsh testified that police met Clody Marson and his daughter, Justene, as arranged at the location. He knew of their relationship with the defendant and that the defendant was living with another daughter of Mr Marson. That daughter was an employee with the Thunder Bay Police Service.

[ 16 ] On their attendance the police were able to see the staircase of the apartment through a window at the front of the building. PC Walsh saw the girlfriend of Mr Turner, Ms Cassandra Stachiw, ascend the staircase carrying a television. No one saw her enter apartment 14 with the television. The entrance to that apartment could not be seen from outside the apartment building.

[ 17 ] Police radio communications confirmed that Walsh advised dispatch that “someone” was carrying a television in “her hands” on the police radio, though this communication was reported as “their hands “in the Event Chronology typed by the dispatcher. Walsh’s observations were uncontradicted, corroborated by Clody Marson, Ms Stachiw herself and the building security video. The accuracy of these observations was not challenged in cross examination.

[ 18 ] The constables used the entrance buzzer to request entry. Ms Stachiw descended the staircase and met the police. They advised her of the reason for their attendance. Ms Stachiw was the lessee of the apartment. She denied knowledge that the television was stolen, retrieved it from her apartment and transferred it to the police. The transfer of the property to the Marsons took place without incident.

[ 19 ] At no point did any of the police see Mr Turner or any other man in possession of any television outside the unit. The only person seen in possession of a television outside the unit or at any point during the police attendance was Ms Stachiw until the television was transferred by Constable Walsh to the Marsons.

[ 20 ] Police had some conversation with Ms Stachiw. Their curiosity inspired by the existence for an arrest warrant for Mr Turner, they asked her if Mr Turner was in the apartment. They were told that he was not. They asked if they could come in and look around. Ms Stachiw politely refused. She suggested that it would be her pleasure to allow police entry if they returned with a warrant.

[ 21 ] PC Walsh and the other officers initially at the scene accepted the assessment of Ms Stachiw that they had no lawful basis to enter her apartment. They did not believe they had grounds to make any arrests or that the police had any lawful authority to enter the unit. They described the discussion with her as cordial and her conduct as cooperative.

[ 22 ] At this point the swift transfer of the television to its lawful owner was completed. Then, at 9:33 pm, Sergeant Dimini arrived on scene. The undisputed evidence is that he was working that evening as the sergeant for the northern zone of the city. His arrival was a complete surprise to the officers on scene.

[ 23 ] The area of the occurrence was not one for which he had responsibility. No one requested his attendance. At this point there were no unforeseen complications, serious developments or exigent circumstances which suggested the attendance of a sergeant was necessary. This was corroborated by the contemporaneous Event Chronology introduced into evidence.

[ 24 ] PC Walsh testified that Sergeant Dimini told his colleagues on arrival that “they were going in”. He did not discuss his plan for entry with the other officers. He didn’t give his colleagues a rational for entry. His approach to the unit immediately and dramatically changed the character of the interaction with Ms Stachiw. PC Walsh heard a loud argument between the defendant and Ms Stachiw over his command that she stand aside and her insistence that he get a warrant. The defendant told neither his fellow officers nor Ms Stachiw what authority he was relying on to enter the unit without her consent. Sergeant Dimini then aggressively forced his way passed Ms Stachiw and dealt with her objection to his entry in the most profane manner possible.

[ 25 ] Walsh was troubled by the defendant’s involvement as he was aware of his relationship with Mr Marson’s daughter. He believed it inappropriate for the defendant to involve himself in a matter involving a family member.

[ 26 ] PC Walsh believed that there was no lawful authority to enter the unit. There were no grounds to believe that any of the occupants were committing offences. At no point was he advised that there might be other stolen property, such as tools, in the apartment. There was no evidence that anyone besides Ms Stachiw was in the unit. If Turner had been known to be present, Constable Walsh knew that he required a Feeney warrant to enter the unit to arrest him on the outstanding warrant.

[ 27 ] All the police officers present testified that they would not have let Sergeant Dimini go in to the unit unescorted. As Sergeant Dimini outranked all officers present, they appropriately treated his declaration that “they were going in” as a command. In addition, officer safety practices dictated that he must be accompanied entering a suspected drug den.

[ 28 ] Chaos ensued on the entry. Although the four officers dispatched to the call had planned their attendance at the apartment building, there was no discussion amongst the police about entering the unit prior to the defendant leading the charge into it. In particular, Sergeant Dimini had advised none of the other officers of any suspicion that other stolen property could be located in the unit.

[ 29 ] Turner was found hiding under a pile of clothes in a closet. He was arrested along with Ms Stachiw and all but one of the found-ins. Charges were laid for possession of the illegal drugs found in proximity to a couch. Ms Stachiw was arrested for obstruct police, possession of stolen property and other offences. No stolen property was found, though the evidence established that Sergeant Dimini searched for same. All arrestees were held for bail.

[ 30 ] After the arrests PC Walsh asked Sergeant Dimini what he thought the lawful ground for the search and arrests might be. The defendant replied that the entry “might be a Charter breach, but that it’s no big deal”.

[ 31 ] Walsh told the court that he was concerned that he and the other officers were going to be in legal jeopardy for “unlawfully entering and technically assaulting people and we had no authority to be there”. P.C. Walsh did not record the conversation in his notes but did speak about it to the other officers assigned.

[ 32 ] Walsh approached the zone supervisor, Sergeant Todd Pritoula, on that shift and on multiple subsequent occasions. He provided Sergeant Pritoula with his observations and views on the night’s events on Frederika St. He was aware that PC Kerry Dunning told Sergeant Pritoula of his concerns as well. Walsh repeated his concerns to the watch commander, Staff Sergeant Dampier.

[ 33 ] On the next working day PC Walsh was messaged by the crown attorney regarding grounds to enter the unit on Frederika street. In response Constable Walsh indicated that Sgt Dimini would have to explain what grounds may have existed for entry.

[ 34 ] After the incident Walsh read a Supplementary Occurrence Report from Sergeant Dimini advising that police entered the apartment in fresh pursuit of Turner carrying the television into it. Walsh believed that this explanation was a fabrication: Turner was never seen by police outside the unit, with or without the television. The apartment building had a security door which required remote unlocking by occupants and the entrance to unit 14 was not visible from outside the building.

[ 35 ] When asked why he did not advise the crown attorney in his contemporaneous report that this explanation was a fabrication, PC Walsh said that he feared retribution. He did, however, approach Staff Sergeant Dampier again and advise him that Dimini’s report was a fabrication.

[ 36 ] Walsh was not cross examined on his concern for retribution. The failure of the Thunder Bay Police Service to interview any of the four original police attendees in the subsequent internal investigation of Sergeant Dimini in respect of this incident and the impressive speed in which the defendant was exonerated the following month suggest that the service was inclined to favour the interests of the defendant and that Walsh’s concern was reasonable.

[ 37 ] PC Walsh and the other constables who attended Frederika street discussed their views with each other and to their superiors over the next few days. On November 30, 2020 PC Walsh was served notice under the Police Services Act in respect of the Frederika St. incident. In his Duty Report of December 8, 2020, submitted as required by the Thunder Bay Police Service investigation, PC Walsh reported Sergeant Dimini’s admission at the scene regarding the likely Charter breach and its alleged insignificance. He was not interviewed by the Thunder Bay Police Service.

[ 38 ] Constables Dunning and Walsh subsequently spoke with Assistant Crown Attorney, Trevor Jukes. They told him that the defendant report of “fresh pursuit” grounds for entry was a fabrication and that police had no grounds to enter the Frederika St apartment. Walsh was later advised that the charges laid as a result of this entry were withdrawn.

[ 39 ] Walsh was interviewed by the Ontario Provincial Police in March of 2022 regarding this matter. At that time, he provided a written statement, though not required to do so.

[ 40 ] Walsh was cross-examined at some length. He confirmed that Thunder Bay had a serious drug problem at the relevant time and that he knew of Derrick Turner’s involvement in drug trafficking. He had investigated Turner on at least one recent, prior occasion. He was aware of a rumour connecting the Frederika St apartment with the report of a firearm discharge. He confirmed his earlier evidence that a sergeant would not normally attend and assume command in another patrol zone unless the call was serious, such as a weapons call, or their presence was sought.

[ 41 ] Constable Walsh testified that he was unaware of an official Thunder Bay Police Service policy regarding conflict of interest. He was surprised that the defendant attended a call in which his family members were involved.

[ 42 ] He testified that he knew of no report from any source regarding any stolen property at the Frederika St location other than the television.

[ 43 ] PC Walsh made it clear that he thought there was a possibility that Turner was in the apartment and that he would have arrested Turner on the outstanding breach warrant if he had seen him. There was a concern regarding officer safety. He had previously known of Turner’s connection to “persons from southern Ontario”, a coded reference to outsider drug gangs.

[ 44 ] PC Walsh was questioned regarding whether Stachiw had consented to the entry of the police into the common areas of the building. It was his evidence that Stachiw did not object to the police coming into the apartment building and that he did not think the police needed her informed consent to enter the common areas.

[ 45 ] PC Walsh did not put the defendant’s admission that the entry was “probably a Charter breach but that it was no big deal“ in his contemporaneous notes. He did, however, put that episode in his Duty Report submitted December 8, 2020. In the Duty Report Walsh used the expression “words to that effect” to describe Dimini’s admission. At trial he was certain that the quote indicated in the first sentence to this paragraph was an accurate rendition of defendant’s words. In my view, it little matters if “no big deal“ is a perfect quote of the admission or an accurate paraphrase of the defendant’s remarks on the insignificance of the breach. The essential content of this evidence was unshaken, uncontradicted and credible. Walsh’s concern regarding Dimini’s conduct was evident at the time and central to his narrative. It was corroborated by his contemporaneous discussions with his colleagues and his reports to his superiors. It was not suggested to him that he invented the admission or that he was mistaken as to the substance of its content.

[ 46 ] It was clear that PC Walsh’s memory of the extent of his knowledge prior to his attendance at the scene was inexact. I refer particularly to his awareness of the degree of Cassandra Stachiw’s involvement in the sale of the television and his knowledge of whether Turner was the lessee of the apartment.

[ 47 ] These uncertainties had little ultimate significance. PC Walsh’s observations of the female carrying the television at the apartment building, the transfer of the TV to the Marsons, the lack of reasonable grounds to enter the apartment, the mere suspicion that Turner was present and the post-incident admission by the defendant survived thorough cross examination. He responded fairly and credibly in cross-examination. His reliability issues concerned only issues of very limited importance.

[ 48 ] PC Walsh’s evidence established that the four police officers dispatched to the Frederika St apartment knew of Mr Turner’s association to the unit. They met before the attendance at the Keep the Peace/Stand By assignment to discuss the potential security issues involved. They acted on these safety concerns during the transfer of the television. The four police originally dispatched neither required nor sought further assistance regarding the transfer of the television or any perceived exigent circumstance. Two additional officers had been dispatched precisely because of these concerns.

[ 49 ] The four constables and Sergeant Pritoula submitted contemporaneous reports. Of course, justice would have been better served by contemporary interviews with investigators. It was not until the Ontario Provincial Police investigated in 2022 that these officers were formally interviewed. But the accounts of the four attendees are credible and reliable notwithstanding the deficiencies of the Thunder Bay Police Service investigation. These officers all showed a commitment to their duties and had no personal interest in confrontation with the defendant, an officer of superior rank.

[ 50 ] I found Walsh to be an impressive witness, notwithstanding that time had eroded his memory of facts of tertiary significance. I accept his evidence of the conduct of the defendant and his admission. It was clear that he was proud of his long service and committed to the lawful execution of his duties. He freely testified to his discussions of the incident with the other police participants. It was not suggested that he coordinated his evidence with other witnesses. There was no evidence he had any animus toward the defendant. In addition, PC Walsh’s account of a woman carrying the television up the common stairway of the 230 Frederika St. apartment building was corroborated by the building security video from 230 Frederika St. as well as the testimony of Ms Stachiw and Clody Marson. This observation was unchallenged in cross examination. His evidence of the police attendance at the Frederika St. apartment building and the subsequent entry into Cassandra Stachiw’s unit was corroborated by the other constables who attended the premises that evening as well as by Ms Stachiw.

Clody Marson

[ 51 ] Clody Marson was the complainant in the matter of the theft of the television and a variety of small power tools. He reported this theft to the police. His daughter Cody, a cadet with the Thunder Bay Police Service, was living with the defendant at the time. His daughter Justene assisted him in his contacts with the police and at the Frederika St. scene.

[ 52 ] Marson was a reluctant witness. He was indifferent to his legal obligation to give candid evidence. He may have had a genuinely poor recall of these events, but his evidence was marked by an obvious determination to frustrate the examination in chief conducted by crown counsel. He exhibited a powerful bond with the defendant, at one point asserting that the presence of Sergeant Dimini at the scene of the television exchange saved his life. My view is that his regard for the defendant inspired his frequent alleged memory failures during his evidence.

[ 53 ] A few parts of his evidence were cogent and material. He admitted speaking to the defendant and one officer known to him at least once prior to his attendance at 230 Frederika St. He conceded that he hoped to get some preferential attention because of these associations. A significant part of his evidence was his recall of seeing a woman with the television in the common stairway of the 230 Frederika St. apartment building on his attendance and at the same time as Walsh was approaching the building and making the same observation. This was indisputably Cassandra Stachiw, the person seen carrying the television by Constable Walsh and reported as such by radio at the time.

[ 54 ] There was no evidence suggesting that the Marsons discussed the stolen tools with Turner or anyone else associated with the 230 Frederica Street apartment.

Cassandra Stachiw

[ 55 ] Cassandra Stachiw was 34 years old when she gave evidence in this case. She has no criminal record. In November 2020 she rented 230 Frederika St, Unit 14 Thunder Bay. Derek Turner was her boyfriend. He was staying with her at this address at the time of this incident. She characterized her relationship with Turner as abusive. She was addicted to illegal drugs at the time.

[ 56 ] A short time prior to this incident she had been hospitalized for a drug related staph infection. While she was at the hospital Turner brought several men into the apartment. She found that these men were dealing drugs from her apartment.

[ 57 ] A day or so prior to the incident a homeless drug addict named Brian Card came to the apartment and sold Stachiw and Turner a television for $20. Turner discussed selling this TV on Facebook marketplace. Turner arranged with a woman on the telephone to purchase the TV and pick it up at Ms Stachiw’s apartment.

[ 58 ] On the evening of November 24, 2020, the Marsons and the Thunder Bay Police came to the door of the Frederika St apartment building.

[ 59 ] Turner directed Ms Stachiw to deal with the buyers of the TV. As she waited downstairs to meet the buyers she saw a police vehicle nearby. She returned to apartment 14 with the TV and advised Turner. He directed her to go back downstairs and see what was going on. At no point during these events did Turner exit the apartment.

[ 60 ] At the front door of the building Ms Stachiw spoke with police officers, who informed her the television was stolen. She offered to retrieve it. Officers followed her upstairs without asking for permission but she did not object. They remained in the hall while Ms Stachiw retrieved the TV and placed it in the hallway.

[ 61 ] Ms Stachiw and the police had a brief and good-natured dialogue. The officers asked her if she had a problem with the police entering her apartment. She replied that they were welcome to do that if they returned with a search warrant. The television was then handed over to the police.

[ 62 ] Then a police officer Ms Stachiw described as “tall and stocky” arrived. This was clearly Sergeant Dimini. He insisted on entering the apartment without a warrant and without the consent of Ms Stachiw. He told her that they didn’t need a warrant as there could be more stolen property in the apartment and that they would search for this stolen property. Ms Stachiw described his behavior as “very rude” and “not polite in the slightest”.

[ 63 ] Chaos ensued as the other police followed Sergeant Dimini into the apartment. Sergeant Dimini demanded repeatedly that Ms Stachiw inform him of Turner’s whereabouts. She testified that as he searched, he strode through the apartment knocking over pop and alcohol containers, all the while calling her a “whore” and a “cunt”.

[ 64 ] The police found Turner hiding in a closet under a pile of clothing. He was subdued and arrested. They also found illegal drugs. Ms Stachiw, Turner and one other person were then arrested. Ms Stachiw was charged with possession stolen property, possession of controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking and obstruct police. She was held for bail.

[ 65 ] Ms Stachiw testified that the apartment was trashed during the police entry and the defendant’s search.

[ 66 ] The cross-examination of Ms Stachiw was appropriate and thorough. It was clear that Turner was the directing mind behind the scheme to sell the T.V. It was also clear that the apartment had become a drug den by the time of the incident. Her narrative of the entry into the apartment corroborated the testimony of PC Walsh. Stachiw was the person who was outside the unit with the television when the police arrived. Turner directed her to do so. Turner was never outside the apartment shortly before or during the attendance of the police, let alone in flight carrying the television or anything else. The transfer of the television took place without incident. The discussion with Walsh and the initial team of officers was cordial. They respected her refusal to allow access to the apartment. The interaction with the defendant commenced after the transfer. It was hostile and threatening.

[ 67 ] While Ms Stachiw was unable to identify the officers she dealt with, I accept her evidence as accurate. The role of the defendant was obvious from her account and that of other witnesses. I accept her evidence of the state in which her apartment was left, though it conflicts with that of Constable Dunning. Unlike Dunning, she was aware of the state of the apartment before the police arrived. Her account of the state of the apartment after the entry and search was otherwise uncontradicted. It was apparent that she was generally moderate and helpful to counsel in her responses in both chief and cross examination.

Constable Kerry Dunning

[ 68 ] Kerry Dunning is a constable with the Thunder Bay Police Service with 23 years of experience at the time of his testimony. On November 24, 2020, he was dispatched by the Thunder Bay Police Service Communications Centre to attend 230 Frederika St to assist in this matter. Dunning arrived at the area at 9:29 pm. He met briefly with Kelly Walsh, Ian West and Nathan Gunn near a nearby pawn shop to plan their approach to the Frederika St. premises. They were all aware of the potential safety issues of their attendance.

[ 69 ] When he arrived at the Frederika St apartment building he and the other officers met the complainant and his daughter. It seems that he arrived slightly after Kelly Walsh as he didn’t see anyone with a television at the time of arrival. He did see Cassandra Stachiw shortly after arrival when she returned to the entrance and spoke to the officers. His account of her discussion with the officers and the retrieval of the television accorded with the account of PC Walsh.

[ 70 ] Dunning testified that he didn’t believe that there were any lawful grounds to enter the apartment or arrest Ms Stachiw. He also didn’t believe that there were any reasonable grounds to believe that Derek Turner was in the apartment. He testified that if there had been reasonable belief in Turner’s presence, entry for his arrest would have required a Feeney warrant.

[ 71 ] As the television was turned over to PC Walsh Sergeant Dimini came on scene. Dunning was not aware that the defendant would be attending. He was aware of the defendant’s common-law relationship with Marson’s daughter. There was no police radio communication advising of Dimini’s attendance. To Dunning’s knowledge, no one called out for his attendance. The defendant was the north sergeant. If the attendance of a sergeant had been needed, the south sergeant, Todd Pritoula, would have been sought.

[ 72 ] Dunning was concerned that the attendance of Dimini was a conflict of interest given his relationship to the Marson family.

[ 73 ] When the defendant attended the doorway of apartment 14 the pleasant interaction between Ms Stachiw and the police rapidly deteriorated. The defendant berated her, ignored her statement that the police required a warrant and then stated: “get out of my way, we’re coming in”. The defendant offered no rationale for entering the unit.

[ 74 ] Although he was not aware of any grounds to enter the premises, Dunning and the officers followed Dimini into the apartment. Dunning testified that he hoped that the defendant had grounds to enter. He also made it clear that he would not have let the defendant enter the premises alone, given the safety issues associated with these premises or, in fact, any unknown premises.

[ 75 ] Dunning’s narrative of events following entry closely follows that of Walsh. Chaos, tumult, arrests and the discovery of a small amount of suspected contraband drugs. Dunning arrested Stachiw for obstruct police at the request of another officer. He didn’t feel that he had grounds for arrest, nor did he feel he had grounds to enter or search the apartment.

[ 76 ] PC Dunning was assigned by the defendant to prepare the Crown Brief. He was troubled by this assignment as he felt that there was no lawful authority to enter the apartment and that the police actions after entry were illegal. He initially discussed his concerns with Constables Walsh and West that evening and then called Sergeant Pritoula, the south area patrol sergeant. Sergeant Pritoula heard out Constable Dunning and advised him that, as he didn’t outrank the defendant, Dunning should bring his concerns to the watch commander, Staff Sergeant Dampier. Dunning did so, advising Dampier that “we broke into a house”.

[ 77 ] In addition to speaking regarding his concerns about the legality of police conduct on November 24, 2020, with Constables Walsh, West and Sergeant Pritoula, Dunning also spoke with Sergeants Dubuc, Biloski and Staff Sergeant Harrison in the following few days. He was concerned that his complaints might not have been sent to senior police management.

[ 78 ] PC Dunning then dictated the Crown Brief, the Synopsis and the General Occurrence Report for the prosecution of Ms Stachiw. The Crown Brief, Exhibit 8, contained no information relevant to the grounds for the entry of the police into apartment 14, 230 Frederika street. Dunning’s misgivings regarding the legality of the entry were not explicitly mentioned. In his testimony, Dunning explained that, given his complaint to his management, he believed that “the file would be shredded” and Ms Stachiw would be unconditionally released.

[ 79 ] In the aftermath of the November 24, 2020 occurrence, Dunning received an email from a Crown Attorney requesting that he articulate the lawful authority for the police entry into the premises after the television was transferred. The Crown also requested the basis for the decision to hold the detainees for bail as opposed to release on an undertaking.

[ 80 ] Dunning prepared a Supplemental Report in response. With regard to the grounds for entry, Dunning invited the Crown to check with the defendant. In respect of the decision to hold the detainees for bail, he suggested that the crown query Staff Sergeant Dampier. That document was entered as Exhibit 12.

[ 81 ] Following the incident, Dunning received a request for a Return to Justice, requiring that he state the lawful authority for seizure. He responded to the request by advising his sergeant that the information could best be supplied by the defendant.

[ 82 ] A week later Dunning reviewed the defendant’s response. He recalled at trial that this response justified the entry by reference to a “fresh pursuit”. Dunning responded by initiating a call to a Crown Attorney and advising that police “broke into this house and breached this girl’s Charter rights.”

[ 83 ] As stated earlier in this judgment, Dunning later initiated a meeting with another crown counsel, Trevor Jukes, to reiterate his concerns. The charges against the occupants of 230 Frederika St, apartment 14 were subsequently withdrawn by the Crown.

[ 84 ] Dunning was later required to submit a Duty Report in respect of the ensuing Thunder Bay Police Service investigation. However, he was not interviewed by any police service in respect of this matter until his interview in March 2022 by the Ontario Provincial Police.

[ 85 ] At trial, Dunning reviewed the General Occurrence Report he dictated after the November 24, 2020 incident. The General Occurrence Report, Exhibit 10, that he reviewed in court differed significantly from the report he dictated in the aftermath of the occurrence. The document reviewed in court reported, at paragraph four, that

” Sergeant Dimini then advised that police were entering the residenceas [sic] to check for wanted male Derek Turner, who was spotted walking down the staris [sic] with the tv originally”.

[ 86 ] This alteration added a completely different narrative to Dunning’s account. This addition is contrary to his evidence and memory of the events of the attendance at 230 Frederika St on November 24, 2020.

[ 87 ] Dunning’s testimony revealed some confusion about the potential origin of the impugned passage excerpted above. Apart from that apparent confusion I accept his evidence as accurate. It will be seen that exhibit 14, Agreed Statement of Facts #2, appendix D, indicates that the defendant edited the General Occurrence Report authored by Constable Dunning and introduced this passage on November 29, 2020 at 4:49 and 4:50 am. The second entry reflected a correction of a spelling error in the first alteration.

[ 88 ] PC Dunning testified that he never made this observation and that his notes, case synopsis, and the Duty Report prepared for the professional standards investigation did not contain this narrative. I accept his evidence.

Ian West

[ 89 ] Ian West was a constable at the time of this incident and has subsequently become a sergeant. At the time of this incident, he had approximately 19 years of experience with the Thunder Bay Police. He was one of the two officers initially dispatched to the Frederika St. call, the other being Nathan Gunn. He received information that Derek Turner was potentially the vendor of Clody Mason’s television. He was aware that the address was recently associated with criminal activity.

[ 90 ] West was concerned for the safety of the civilians who were attending and requested that two additional units be dispatched. As a result, Constables Walsh and Dunning met West and Gunn at the nearby pawnshop to plan a safe approach to the situation. A forced entry into apartment 14, 230 Frederika St was not contemplated.

[ 91 ] At the location, the police encountered Marson and his daughter Justene. Constable Walsh was apparently first on the scene. As West approached the premises, he became aware that Walsh saw someone going upstairs with the television.

[ 92 ] Within a few seconds West saw Cassandra Stachiw come downstairs to allow the police entry into the apartment building. She told police that the television was upstairs and that she would retrieve it.

[ 93 ] The police followed Stachiw to the entrance of apartment 14. As she opened the door briefly to retrieve the television West spotted what he believed to be the marks of a shotgun discharge on a closet and door frame just inside the apartment. As Walsh took the television downstairs to the Marsons, West had some discussion with Stachiw regarding the provenance of the television. He believed the responses to be exculpatory but followed up with further questions regarding prior possession of the item. He was satisfied with the information provided by Ms Stachiw and described her approach as “very cooperative”. He did not recall her response to whether Turner was in the unit but believed that a Feeney warrant would have been required to arrest him on his outstanding warrant.

[ 94 ] It is fair to say that the indications of a prior shotgun discharge focused West’s attention on potential further steps in relation to the apartment. He appeared to have high regard for Walsh’s prior experience with the intelligence unit and considered him the best person available to consult with respect to the next steps to be taken. Among the options that occurred to West were freezing the premises pending potential further action or simply “letting this go” and reporting back to the intelligence unit. He reasoned that this information might assist intelligence in an application for a search warrant. He did not believe that reasonable and probable grounds or exigent circumstances existed that would justify entry into the apartment.

[ 95 ] The information that the attending officers had at that time, including the evidence of a prior firearm discharge in the unit, could not reasonably have resulted in a successful search warrant application. In the absence of exigent circumstances, there would have no basis to “freeze” the premises; that is, control the movement of persons to or from the apartment. Of course, the new information concerning the evidence of a prior firearm discharge could have been useful information to police contemplating a potential search warrant application, assuming the existence of considerably more compelling information of drug distribution or other ongoing criminal activity at the 230 Frederika St than apparently existed at the time.

[ 96 ] As West went back to consult Walsh, Sergeant Dimini arrived. Walsh deferred to the defendant, the highest-ranking officer now on scene. West quickly ran his view of the options past the defendant. Dimini did not meaningfully respond. Nor did he ask West or any of the other officers what had taken place before his attendance. He simply replied “ok” and went to the doorway to confront Ms Stachiw. Rather than providing any authority for the entry into the residence to Ms Stachiw or anyone else, he just announced that the police were coming in.

[ 97 ] West followed Dimini and the other officers into the unit. In his view the police safety issue overrode other considerations. The arrests, search and seizure of a small amount of suspected narcotics followed. Following the breach of the apartment and the ensuing events, West approached Walsh and asked him if he knew what grounds existed to enter the apartment because he didn’t believe the police had any. Walsh replied ”that would be up to Sergeant Dimini to articulate”.

[ 98 ] At the police station West approached Dimini. Requesting that Dimini take no offence, West told the sergeant that he believed he had placed himself in a conflict by responding to a call initiated by the father of his common-law partner. Dimini responded by saying he did take offence. West questioned the sergeant about his grounds for entry. West recalled Dimini’s answer: “there was stolen property in there and there is stolen property in there and I called someone and everything is good that we did”.

[ 99 ] West had subsequent conversations on this topic later that evening with Walsh and Sergeant Pritoula and, it appears, constables Dunning and Gunn. Some days later he also spoke with Sergeant Carlucci about this matter.

[ 100 ] In examination in chief West was asked whether in his current role as sergeant he would access and edit a report written by a constable without their knowledge or permission. He responded with a categorical, unequivocal denial, stating that the insertion of information unknown to another officer’s report was “not truthful” and “actually an obstruct”. Even in the absence of evidence of an official policy regarding this issue, this evidence is significant in respect of established police service custom. West’s evidence impressed me as candid and accurate.

Nathan Gunn

[ 101 ] At one year of service on or about November 24, 2020, Nathan Gunn was the least experienced Thunder Bay Police Service constable associated with this matter.

[ 102 ] His recall of minor portions of the narrative was compromised by time and by the apparent lack of attention he paid to this matter until the OPP became involved in early 2022. His account was limited by his assignment to the rear of the Frederika St building during the initial interaction at the front door. He incorrectly believed that only one civilian attended. When he attended at the door to apartment 14, he was at the rear of the queue of police. He heard little and recalled less of the exchanges between police and Ms Stachiw. His attention was also focused on potential security issues that might emanate from other residents of the building. Such recall as he had was similar to that of the other police attendees. He did recall that the tone of the initial discussion was normal.

[ 103 ] He didn’t recall any discussion at that time regarding the attendance of a sergeant at the location.

[ 104 ] Gunn saw the television brought out. He saw Sergeant Dimini attend. At that point he did not believe that there were any grounds to arrest anyone or enter the unit.

[ 105 ] Gunn noted that Dimini took over the communication with the female at the door, now known to be Ms Stachiw. While Gunn could not hear much of the exchange between the two, it was clear that Ms Stachiw mentioned a warrant and that the exchange was heated. Sergeant Dimini determined to enter the apartment, and the other police officers followed him inside.

[ 106 ] Following entry, search and arrests Gunn heard Dimini making a telephone call. At that time, he believed this call to be to the Intelligence Unit as there was some conversation regarding potentially freezing the location pending a search of the premises.

[ 107 ] On December 7, 2020, Gunn produced a Duty Report as part of an internal investigation. He refreshed his memory from this report during his testimony. He agreed under cross examination that this assignment wasn’t a standard Keep the Peace /Stand By call. He agreed that the address raised security concerns. He had a mistaken belief that the tenant of the apartment was Derek Turner. Though he had no initial memory of making such a call, he ultimately agreed that he called Staff Sergeant Pritoula requesting his attendance at the location. The apparent reason for this request was a concern that this detail could be one that was drug related in addition to one involving the return of a stolen television.

[ 108 ] While there was no clear evidence of when Gunn called Pritoula, the totality of the evidence suggests that it was made after the apparent shotgun damage inside the apartment was noted by West, as this generated a focused concern in the more senior officers present.

Staff Sergeant Todd Pritoula

[ 109 ] Todd Pritoula testified. Now a staff sergeant, at the time of these events, he was then a sergeant with approximately 20 years on the Thunder Bay Police Service. Sergeant Pritoula did not attend the call at 230 Frederika St but was given reports by the principal police actors in this matter including the defendant.

[ 110 ] He was the sergeant supervising the south patrol zone in Thunder Bay on November 24, 2020. He was sitting in his vehicle, approving reports, when he became aware of this call. He confirmed that this type of assignment would not usually involve the attendance of a sergeant.

[ 111 ] Later that shift he received a call from Constable Gunn requesting his attendance at Frederika St. While Pritoula’s memory of the call was inexact, he did recall the junior constable’s concerns that the location was a drug house. Sergeant Pritoula started driving to that location but aborted his attendance when he became aware that Sergeant Dimini advised that he was present at the call. He testified that he didn’t believe that two sergeants were needed.

[ 112 ] Later that evening he was approached by PC West in the parking lot of the police station. West reported that the attendance on Frederika Street involved a conflict because the complainant was Sergeant Dimini’s father-in-law and West felt that the entry into the premises was illegal. West informed the witness that he spoke to Dimini at the scene regarding his concerns. Pritoula advised West at he should make good notes and report his complaint up the chain of command to Staff Sergeant Joe Dampier. Pritoula also reported his concerns to the Staff Sergeant. Pritoula had similar discussions with Constables Dunning, Walsh and Gunn later that shift.

[ 113 ] About an hour after the discussion with West, Sergeant Dimini approached Sergeant Pritoula and initiated a conversation regarding these events. The defendant was annoyed that Constable West had questioned his authority regarding the events at Frederika Street. Sergeant Pritoula asked the defendant to recount the events.

[ 114 ] Sergeant Dimini responded that he went to the call because he heard officers “booking off”, or indicating their attendance on a call, and went to assist. Dimini recounted that “they” saw a man run into the apartment with a television. Police then entered the apartment in “fresh pursuit”. Dimini also said that they entered to prevent the destruction of evidence, namely, tools that were stolen at the same time as the television. With considerable skepticism, Pritoula questioned Dimini on his hunch that the stolen tools could be located at the Frederika St premises and on his contention that these items were in danger of destruction. Dimini didn’t disclose the familial relationship with the complainant or that the television had been returned prior to his arrival in this discussion.

[ 115 ] Sergeant Pritoula made notes of these conversations on December 1, 2020. He was also not contacted or interviewed in connection with the Thunder Bay Police Service investigation in this matter.

[ 116 ] The witness was then questioned regarding the submission of occurrence reports, supplemental reports, notes and other documentation entered in the Niche records management system used by the police service. In brief, after a call for service, officers are required to scan their notes into the database. They are then required to dictate Occurrence Reports or Supplementary Occurrence Reports for transcription. Once a constable dictates their report and it is transcribed, they cannot change the content. Sergeants are notified by the system of the existence of an occurrence report once it had been created. Sergeants and higher ranks have access to the content of the report on their computer screen. They can send the report back to the writer for correction or elaboration. They also have the authority to edit the reports. Access and edits to reports are logged by the system. Sergeant Pritoula emphasized that he would usually edit a report in the officer’s presence. He emphasized that he would never change a report submitted by an officer without their approval.

[ 117 ] Sergeant Pritoula was cross examined with vigour, specifically in regard to the accuracy of his notes and the timing of alleged insertions into his notes. The core of his evidence, the statement to him by the defendant on November 24, 2020, the contemporaneous complaints by the constables who attended the controversial assignment and his evidence regarding the entry and editing of reports entered into the Niche system was unshaken.

Evidence of police communications staff

[ 118 ] Ricky Parmater, David Bruce and Samantha Hotrum testified. All were working that night as dispatchers in the communications unit of the Thunder Bay Police Service. Mr Bruce had 14 years’ experience with the unit. Ms Parmater had been a dispatcher for approximately 8 years and Ms Hotrum was relatively inexperienced.

[ 119 ] Ms Parmater testified about the procedures in place for dispatching police personnel to calls for service. She indicated that Keep the Peace/Stand-By calls were not high priority, generally involving the dispatch of two officers. They do not normally involve the dispatch of a sergeant. She had a specific memory of this incident because Sergeant Dimini’s assignment of himself to the call was the subject of discussion in the communications room. She struck me as having an excellent recall of the evening’s events.

[ 120 ] The witness and other personnel in communications were aware that the defendant was in a personal relationship with the complainant’s daughter. Their perception was that his attendance on the call was a conflict of interest. It was clear that the defendant had not been tasked by communications to attend the call. There was no evidence that any other officers had asked for his attendance.

[ 121 ] Ms Parmater typed an entry in the Event Chronology that a police officer, certainly PC Walsh, reported that “someone went up the stairs with a television in their hands”. In fact, it is clear from the audio of the police radio transmission that Walsh reported that “someone went up the stairs with a television in her hands”.

[ 122 ] It should be noted that these entries are made as information is received from police radio transmissions and are intended as ready information for officers accessing the mobile data terminals in their vehicle as they attend calls. Perfect accuracy is not to be expected in these circumstances.

The GPS Evidence

[ 123 ] The GPS evidence tells us that the defendant arrived within a few hundred metres of 230 Frederika St at 9:17 pm and remained nearby until 9:33 PM, when he entered the address. He didn’t advise communications that he was present at the call until 9:38 pm. There was no direct evidence explaining why the defendant arrived in the immediate vicinity of the scene well before the officers assigned to it and waited until the assignment was complete before involving himself. This unexplained conduct negates any reasonable possibility that he turned up because of some emergency or that an unforeseen exigency drew him from his assigned zone to assist the officers present. This conduct suggests an intention to participate in events at 230 Frederika St independent of the success of the peaceful transfer of the television and to conceal that intention until the last possible moment before he attended and assumed direction.

The Phone Records

[ 124 ] Well over 100 text and telephone communications between the defendant and the members of the Marson family and amongst Clody Marson and the two daughters concerned were made between 1:11pm and 8:00pm on November 24, 2020.

[ 125 ] Clody Marson filed his online theft report with the assistance of his daughter Justene at 1:32 pm on November 24, 2020. Sometime later that day, Justene Marson located the television on Facebook Marketplace. It appears that this information and the involvement of Derek Turner in the sale was communicated to the defendant before 7:15pm. At that time the defendant sought information regarding Turner on his police computer.

[ 126 ] Following that call Mr Marson made the first call to police at 7:40pm. He discussed with dispatch the prospect of a Keep the Peace/Stand-By attendance. Before his second call to police at 8:00 pm, in which he actually requested the police attendance at the scene of the proposed “purchase” of the television, Sergeant Pritoula overheard the defendant speaking on the telephone as he gave advice regarding reporting a stolen television. This would likely be the second conversation the defendant had with Marson recorded in the telephone records produced at trial. This is also confirmed by the GPS evidence which indicates that at the time of this call both Pritoula and the defendant were at the police station.

[ 127 ] It is clear from the timing of the texts and calls, evident from the report of Clody Marson’s complaint in an Event Chronology and the timing of the defendant’s query regarding Derek Turner on his police computer that the defendant was both receiving information from the Marsons about the extent of the theft and giving information regarding the outstanding warrant for Turner. He was also providing advice to Clody Marson regarding how to approach the police.

[ 128 ] Of course, there is nothing illegal in a police official giving advice to an in-law. The significance of this evidence of the defendant’s focused interest in the recovery of items stolen in the burglary of his father-in-law is that it closely precedes his attendance at 230 Frederika St and the unlawful acts he committed there. The evidence also indicates the source of the defendant’s interest in the recovery of stolen tools, which he believed might be in the premises. This information was apparently unknown to the other police in attendance. The defendant questioned Ms Stachiw about the tools on entry into the premises and Mr Marson gave evidence that he hoped to recover the tools at the time of the police attendance. The defendant’s interest in the tools was communicated in his justification for the entry to Constable West in the immediate aftermath of the entry search and arrests. It was also one of the subjects of the subsequent argument with Pritoula.

[ 129 ] It is common ground that at the time of these events the Thunder Bay Police Service had no formal policy regarding conflict of interest. That said, the concern of both the civilian staff in the communication unit and the defendant’s colleagues at the scene that his involvement was improper is nonetheless relevant. That perception reflected appropriate concern that police power should not be used for personal ends. However unsettling, the defendant’s attendance at the scene would not have amounted to criminal conduct if he had simply observed events.

The Defendant’s post-incident intra-police communications

[ 130 ] The defendant’s comments to Walsh and West after the entry are admissions of wrongdoing. Neither fresh pursuit nor exigent circumstances were mentioned in those discussions. The discussion with Sergeant Pritoula later that shift contains the first mention of “fresh pursuit” or the alleged potential destruction of evidence as a justification for the entry into Ms Stachiw’s apartment and the subsequent search and arrests.

[ 131 ] The internal police interest in the grounds for search continued into the next week. On November 29, 2020, Staff Sergeant Carlucci sent the defendant a task which he opened on his computer at 4:45am. The task indicated that Carlucci had yet to see a report indicating Turner was observed with the television unless one had yet to be dictated. The defendant had the option of creating an additional Supplementary Occurrence Report containing his narrative of fresh pursuit. Instead, the electronic records, entered on consent as appendices to Exhibit 14, indicate that the defendant immediately accessed Dunning’s locked and approved General Occurrence report at 4:46am. He then edited the report at 4:49 and 4:50 as indicated above. He neither consulted Dunning before this act nor advised him of it afterwards. This subterfuge was clearly an attempt by the defendant to make his concoction appear to be Dunning’s narrative.

[ 132 ] The defendant was then asked to complete a Report for Justice which requested his grounds for entry. He submitted a Supplementary report which passed the issue back to Constable Dunning. He did not supply the grounds or meaningfully respond.

Discussion of the Evidence

[ 133 ] A focus of the cross examination of the police attendees was the potential danger involved in the call. All police officers on the call understood that they were dealing with an address flagged for drug-related criminality and potential danger. All knew that the man involved in the sale, Turner, had a reputation for drug dealing and was known to associate with drug dealers from southern Ontario.

[ 134 ] These known dangers were the reason why four officers, Walsh, Dunning, West and Gunn attended this call, rather than the usual one to two officers assigned to Keep the Peace/Stand By assignments. The first three of these officers had a large amount of experience on the streets of Thunder Bay. They had a total of approximately 70 years of experience. They didn’t call for the attendance of a sergeant because of a police safety or any other exigent circumstances issue.

[ 135 ] There is no evidence that anything remotely resembling exigent circumstances existed. By the time the defendant arrived on scene the television had been transferred. While the attending constables were appropriately curious about the potential presence of Turner, they correctly concluded that nothing close to reasonable and probable grounds for a search of the premises existed. They were all aware that a Feneey warrant would have been required if they had reasonable and probable grounds that Turner was actually present. None of them knew of the existence of the stolen tools let alone any suspicion that these items might be in the apartment. West was concerned that the evidence of a prior firearm discharge be communicated to the intelligence unit, but there was no suggestion that this observation generated reasonable and probable grounds for a search.

[ 136 ] There were no reasonable and probable grounds to believe that stolen tools were located in the apartment. The defendant simply assumed that they might be in the same premises as the television. As Sergeant Pritoula pointed out to the defendant subsequently, the tools were likely to have been dispersed widely in the day or so since the theft. There was no evidence that sale of the stolen tools had been discussed by the Marsons with Turner or anyone else at 230 Frederika St. Unlike easily disposed contraband narcotics, the destruction of tools is not generally considered to be an urgent concern.

[ 137 ] There is no evidence that the defendant had any belief in the existence of any exigent circumstances or reasonable and probable grounds. He certainly didn’t attend the immediate area to deal with any perceived emergency or perceived imminent danger. The uncontradicted evidence is that he arrived in the area about 12 to 13 minutes before his colleagues and waited out of sight before arriving at 230 Frederika after the purpose of the call had been completed. While it can be acceptable practice for sergeants to attend outside of their assigned zone to assist on serious matters, the defendant attended on a non-urgent matter for a lengthy period of time while responsible for supervision in the northern zone of Thunder Bay. One might have expected that he would advise dispatch of his location in these circumstances. A compelling available inference is that the defendant deliberately avoided making his presence known while waiting to see the result of the legitimate police attendance. This was not the only effort at concealment he made that evening.

[ 138 ] When the defendant did attend, he made no effort to ask any of the officers about their observations or whether they had grounds for entry into the apartment. He didn’t ask any questions regarding events prior to his appearance. He was also aware that the television had been transferred to its owner. He was indifferent to the information communicated by West. This behaviour strongly suggests that the defendant was indifferent to the fulfillment of the lawful purpose of the detail and that he had a further purpose in mind.

[ 139 ] The evidence strongly contradicts the defendant’s assertion that there is a reasonable alternate inference available to the court: to wit, the entry into 230 Frederika St., apartment 14 was justified as a fresh pursuit of Derek Turner carrying a stolen television into the apartment. This contention was based on the defendant’s prior knowledge that Turner had arranged the sale and on the likelihood that the defendant accessed the Event Chronology in which the person carrying the television was referenced in gender neutral terms.

[ 140 ] While the defendant was nearby, he certainly didn’t see anyone carrying the television. The entry to apartment 14 was based exclusively on the hunch that Turner was present. Any confusion caused by the use of gender-neutral terms in the cursory text communication contained in the Event Chronology could not possibly be a reasonable justification for the entry.

[ 141 ] The uncontradicted evidence was that no male was seen outside the apartment carrying a television by the defendant or anyone else at the relevant time. The defendant would have known on arrival at the address that the television had been acquired without incident as he passed P.C. Walsh carrying it to Mr Marson. A reasonable officer, acting lawfully, would have noted the successful completion of the police purpose and left to return to his duties in the North Zone of the city. Any reasonable officer contemplating a warrantless search of a private home would have spoken to his colleagues regarding their observations before his arrival. He might well have responded to PC West’s concerns and considered potential next steps with the senior officers present. The defendant didn’t take any of these steps because he had already determined his course of action.

[ 142 ] The defendant’s admission to police constable Walsh, immediately on leaving the apartment, that he was aware the entry might be a Charter breach indicates actual contemporaneous knowledge of the illegality of his conduct and negates any alleged belief in the propriety or necessity of the entry. His comment that the breach was “no big deal” indicates both a sublime indifference to the constitutional rights of the lessee and the occupants and a brazen confidence that the unlawful entry, search and arrests would have no consequences.

[ 143 ] Walsh’s discussion with Dimini may have been the first, but it was not the last expression of concern for the legality of his conduct brought to Dimini on the night of the incident. As we know, West reproached him later that shift. The defendant’s insistence on the presence of the stolen tools and his assurance that he had sought direction for the entry indicate both his hunch that the tools were to be found at the Frederika St premises and his ready use of falsehoods to justify his conduct.

[ 144 ] The defendant told Sergeant Pritoula that he led the entry in fresh pursuit of a man carrying the stolen television. This was the first glimmer of the fabrication he later embedded in the occurrence report prepared by Constable Dunning. By the time of this discussion with Pritoula, Dimini would have been aware that the constables initially on the Frederika St assignment were not going to bury their concerns.

[ 145 ] The defendant avoided communicating grounds to the Crown because he was aware that there were no lawful grounds. Instead, he worked the fabrication of grounds forecast in his earlier discussion with Sergeant Pritoula into his illicit rendering of Dunning’s occurrence report.

[ 146 ] The defendant edited the occurrence report originally submitted by Constable Dunning immediately after a request by a colleague for a statement of Dimini’s grounds for search. This action was a recognition that the absence of grounds might have legal or employment consequences for the defendant. That act is both the Actus Reus of the obstruct justice charge and evidence of post offence conduct in the breach of trust charge. It is evidence that the defendant was aware that his conduct in leading the entry, the search and the arrests on the evening of November 24, 2020, could not be legally justified without concoction.

[ 147 ] The evidence indicates that this conduct had two concurrent purposes. The first was to see if Clody Marson’s stolen tools could be found at apartment 14, 230 Frederika St. The second was to exact extra-legal sanction on anyone the defendant believed to be potentially connected to the sale of Marson’s stolen property.

[ 148 ] In considering the evidence, I bear in mind the requirement that where the case against an accused is circumstantial, the guilt of the defendant must be the only reasonable conclusion available on the evidence. I have considered the argument advanced by able counsel for the defendant that he might well have believed in the existence of grounds to justify entry. There is no evidence to support this speculative explanation of the evidence led by the Crown. Neither are there any gaps in the evidence that could support this speculation. The reasons of Tulloch, CJO in His Majesty the King v Yizhak 2026 ONCA 100 at paragraph 19 , are apt:

The appellant’s argument, particularly as refined orally, asks this court to treat speculative possibilities as reasonable inferences. That is precisely what Villaroman instructs courts not to do. Plausibility must be assessed against the whole of the evidence and grounded in logic and common sense. It is not enough that a theory is imaginatively conceivable.

Findings of Fact

[ 149 ] I find the following facts proven beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony I have heard and the exhibits in evidence :

• The defendant surreptitiously assigned himself to the Frederika St call. His assistance was unnecessary and unrequested. He did so because of his personal connection to the complainant.

• The defendant sought missing tools, a purpose that remained unrevealed to his colleagues at the scene before the entry.

• The defendant entered the premises without exigent circumstances, without warrant and without reasonable and probable grounds. He then searched the apartment, seized items and directed the arrest of several of the occupants, who were then held for bail. The continuation of militantly illegal police conduct after the tools were not located in the apartment indicates that a further purpose was the infliction of punishment on persons suspected of connection with the sale of property stolen from the defendant’s partner’s father.

• The defendant admitted the illegality of his conduct to PC Walsh.

• The defendant subsequently concocted a fabrication that the entry into 230 Frederika St, apartment 14 was in “fresh pursuit” of a wanted man, Derek Turner, seen entering the apartment in apparent flight from the police. There was no factual basis for this narrative.

• The defendant later surreptitiously edited an official police record, the Occurrence Report authored by Constable Dunning, by inserting the above-noted fabrication. He did this in order into provide a bogus justification for his conduct to Thunder Bay Police Service management.

The Law: Breach of Trust

[ 150 ] In R v. Boulanger , [2006] S.C.J. 32 , the Supreme Court defined the offence of breach of trust. The Crown is required to prove five elements beyond reasonable doubt:

1. The accused is an official.

2. The accused was acting in connection with the duties of their office.

3. The accused breached the standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of them by the nature of their office,

Element 4 of the test pronounced by the Court for determination of the Actus Reus was stated thus at paragraph 54:

“the public official’s conduct must represent a “marked” departure from the standards expected of an individual in the accused’s position of public trust.”

The Court found that mistakes or errors of judgment did not meet the elevated standard necessary. In their view the Mens Rea needed for criminal liability, Element 5, was stated, at paragraph 56:

“the Mens Rea of the offence lies in the intention to use one’s public office for a purpose other than the benefit of the public. In practice, this has been associated historically with using one’s public office for a dishonest, partial, corrupt or oppressive purpose, each of which embodies the non-public purpose with which the offence is concerned.”

[ 151 ] The Court went on, at paragraph 57, to note that “an attempt by the accused to conceal his actions may often provide evidence of improper intent”.

[ 152 ] The Court also cautioned both that the fact that a public official obtains a benefit is not conclusive of Mens Rea as legitimate exercises of public authority might confer an incidental advantage to that official, and that the offence may be made out where no personal benefit is involved.

[ 153 ] It was properly conceded by the defendant that elements 1 and 2 of the Boulanger criteria are fulfilled, the defendant was a sergeant on duty, in uniform and supervising police operations at the time of these events.

[ 154 ] Constitutionally challenged searches are not an unusual event, but they are not commonly the subject of breach of trust prosecutions. What distinguished this case is the personal motivation, the subterfuge, and the energetic invention of grounds that followed the Frederika St entry.

[ 155 ] There can be no question that the entry into the Frederika St apartment without reasonable and probable grounds or warrant or exigent circumstances was a brazen breach of the standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of a police sergeant by the nature of their office. We can reasonably expect senior officers to comply with the Charter. If they err in their appreciation of constitutional rights, we expect candour, not concoction.

[ 156 ] The degree of misconduct was not trivial. Here was a trail of actions which started with intentional involvement in a police duty in the interest of a relation, continued with a profound breach of constitutional rights, immediately followed by the defendant’s expression of cynical contempt for the acknowledged illegality and then concluding with multiple acts of dishonesty designed to obscure the complete absence of legitimate grounds. In the context of an unlawful residential search and unlawful arrests, this case was as marked a departure as can be contemplated short of significant brutality.

[ 157 ] As stated by Justice Cote in Kosoian v Societe de Transport de Montreal , 2019 SCC 59 at paragraph 139 :

“I insist on one point: an unlawful arrest -- even for a short time -- cannot be considered one of the "ordinary annoyances, anxieties and fears that people living in society routinely ... accept" . . . In a free and democratic society, no one should accept -- or expect to be subjected to -- unjustified state intrusions. Interference with freedom of movement, just like invasion of privacy, must not be trivialized.”

[ 158 ] With respect to Mens Rea, there was no legitimate public purpose contemplated here. The motive was personal. The defendant believed that the occupants of the apartment had no rights that he was bound to respect. His object was not only a search for the missing tools. After he failed to find the tools, he intensified his misconduct through the arrests and detention for bail of the occupants. The defendant’s aim was the infliction of extra-legal sanction on the persons he believed associated with the theft or sale of items belonging to his relation. The defendant stands convicted of the charge of breach of trust.

The law: Obstruct Justice

[ 159 ] The law requires an act or acts that tended to pervert or defeat the course of justice. The Mens Rea component will be satisfied by proof beyond reasonable doubt of the intention to do so. The Actus Reus in this matter would be satisfied by the “fresh pursuit” fabrication contained in the amendments the defendant made to the Occurrence Report authored by Constable Dunning. There were, however, numerous other falsehoods in the notes and in the initial Supplementary Report submitted by the defendant.

160] In addition, the defendant wrote that he arrived at the location 10 minutes after the other officers. That is also a blatant falsehood, clearly created to obscure his attendance in advance of his colleagues to await plausible reason for his involvement.

[161] The editing of the Occurrence Report and the multiple other falsehoods had common goals. Initially, the purpose was to maintain an unlawful and morally corrupt criminal action against the occupants of 230 Frederika St, apartment 14. Subsequently, an additional purpose became the intentional subversion of the initial Thunder Bay Police Service investigation into whether grounds existed for the police actions described above. This investigation was inspired by the legitimate concern persistently expressed by other officers that the entry, search, arrests and detentions at 230 Frederika St had no lawful basis.

[162] This conduct proves the obstruct justice count beyond reasonable doubt.

Released: February 20, 2026

Justice Michael Block