Philippe Michaud-Simard

The plaintiffs in two related civil actions arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident following a police pursuit brought motions under Rule 30.10 for the production of the complete investigative file of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), a non-party.

The SIU had produced parts of its file but opposed producing witness statements without consent and other administrative or derivative documents.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering the production of the civilian and police officer witness statements, finding them highly relevant to the issue of liability and that it would be unfair to require the plaintiffs to proceed to trial without them.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the balance of the file, as the plaintiffs failed to establish relevance.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder in the death of Ernesto Agsaulio.

The appellant had planned and deliberated the murder of his ex-wife Maria Ching.

When attempting to carry out this plan, Agsaulio intervened to prevent the appellant's entry into the house, and during the ensuing struggle, the appellant mortally wounded Agsaulio.

The trial judge instructed the jury that planning and deliberation regarding the murder of the intended victim (Ching) could elevate an unintended victim's murder (Agsaulio) to first degree murder if committed in the course of carrying out the plan.

The Court of Appeal found this instruction erroneous and substituted a conviction for second degree murder.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault with a weapon, dangerous operation of a vehicle, possession of cocaine, and two counts of possession of dangerous weapons.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by failing to adequately address weaknesses in eyewitness identification evidence and by misapprehending evidence regarding identification.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge could have expanded his discussion of identification evidence frailties, the overwhelming force of other evidence—including the appellant's own admission of being the driver of the fleeing vehicle, the presence of baseball bats with blood in that vehicle, and the vehicle matching the description provided by assault witnesses—established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed.