COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-00000678-0000

DATE: 2023 01 04

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

Paul Hanlon

Defendant

Counsel:

S. Turner and M. McLean, for the Crown

B. Smart, Counsel for the Defendant

HEARD: November 14,15, 16 and 17, 2022

Justice G. d. LEMON

JUDGMENT

The Background

[1] Mr. Hanlon is charged that on July 17, 2020, in the City of Guelph, he killed Alexander Campagnaro and, as a result, committed manslaughter.

[2] The events that led to Mr. Campagnaro’s death occurred over about 24 hours between Thursday, July 16 and Friday, July 17, 2020. There is no dispute that Mr. Hanlon’s actions led to the death of Mr. Campagnaro. The sole issue is whether the Crown has proved that Mr. Hanlon was not acting in self-defence.

The Legal Framework

[3] Counsel agree on the well known principles of law that apply to this case. For the benefit of the family members in the courtroom, I can summarize them as follows.

[4] First, Mr. Hanlon is presumed to be innocent, unless and until Crown counsel has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Hanlon does not have to prove anything in this case, in particular, that he acted in self-defence. The presumption of innocence means that Mr. Hanlon started the trial with a clean slate. The presumption stays with him throughout the case and is defeated only when Crown counsel satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hanlon is guilty of the crime charged.

[5] The phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a very important part of our criminal justice system. A reasonable doubt has been described as not a far-fetched or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based on sympathy or prejudice. It is a doubt based on reason and common sense. It is a doubt that logically arises from the evidence, or the lack of evidence.

[6] It is not enough for me to believe that Mr. Hanlon is probably or likely guilty. In those circumstances, he must be found not guilty, because Crown counsel would have failed to satisfy me of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof of probable or likely guilt is not proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[7] That said, it is nearly impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty. Crown counsel is not required to do so. Absolute certainty is a standard of proof that is impossibly high. Still, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is much closer to “absolute certainty” than it is to “probability”.

[8] Further, I am not to decide whether something happened simply by comparing one version of events with another and choosing one of them. Instead, I must consider all of the evidence and decide whether I have been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegation is proven.

[9] The Crown concedes that if I accept Mr. Hanlon’s evidence that he was defending himself and did not intend to commit the offence charged, I must find him not guilty of manslaughter.

[10] However, the law makes clear that even if I do not believe Mr. Hanlon’s evidence, if his evidence leaves me with a reasonable doubt about his guilt, then I must find him not guilty.

[11] Even then, if Mr. Hanlon’s evidence does not leave me with a reasonable doubt of his guilt, I may convict Mr. Hanlon only if the rest of the evidence that I do accept proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[12] The defence concedes that Mr. Hanlon caused Mr. Campagnaro’s death. It is, of course, usually a crime to cause the death of another person but, in this case, that death must be by an unlawful act. Here, the unlawful act alleged is that Mr. Hanlon assaulted Mr. Campagnaro by punching him in the head or neck. The defence concedes that if the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that self- defence is not made out, then Mr. Hanlon is guilty as charged.

[13] If Mr. Hanlon was acting in self-defence, he was acting lawfully and must be found not guilty of the charge. In some circumstances, our law allows a person to do things that would otherwise be a crime to defend or protect themselves from another who was to use force against them. Anyone who does something for this purpose, and within the limits that our law permits, is acting lawfully and commits no crime.

[14] To be a defence to the charge, self-defence must originate in a reasonable belief on Mr. Hanlon’s part that force is being used or threatened against him. As well, Mr. Hanlon’s actions must have been for the purpose of defending or protecting himself from the force that he reasonably believed was being used or threatened against him. If there is some other purpose, that is not self-defence. And, finally, what Mr. Hanlon did must have been reasonable in the circumstances that Mr. Hanlon knew or reasonably believed them to be.

[15] The Crown accepts that, in this case, there is evidence that Mr. Hanlon may have acted in self-defence. It is not Mr. Hanlon’s responsibility to prove that what he did was in self-defence. It is the Crown’s responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hanlon was not acting in self-defence.

[16] To decide whether Mr. Hanlon was acting in self-defence, section 34(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. c. C-46 demands that I consider three issues.

[17] First, did Mr. Hanlon believe, on reasonable grounds, that force was being used or threatened against him? If not, his defence fails.

[18] Second, did Mr. Hanlon act for the purpose of defending or protecting himself from that use or threat of force? If not, his defence fails.

[19] Third, was Mr. Hanlon’s conduct reasonable in the circumstances? If not, his defence fails.[^1]

[20] After considering all of the evidence and those principles of law, for the following reasons, I find Mr. Hanlon not guilty of manslaughter.

The Evidence

[21] I will review the evidence chronologically and make my findings of fact as I consider the conflicting evidence. The significant events start with a dispute on July 16, 2020, between Mr. Campagnaro’s wife, Kellie Moffit-Campagnaro and Mr. Hanlon’s wife, Diane Colladello. Mr. Campagnaro and Mrs. Laurie Harris were involved in that confrontation.

[22] Next, I will consider the evidence of the altercation on July 17, 2020. That comes from Ms. Lucie Poulin-Mackey and Mr. Hanlon along with the defence character evidence of June Hudyma.

[23] Third, I will summarize the evidence as to what occurred after the altercation between Mr. Hanlon and Mr. Campagnaro. I have not referred to the evidence of Officer Jennifer Purdy because she was important only to enter various exhibits into evidence at trial and those exhibits are either not in issue or not relevant to the issues I must decide.

[24] Finally, I will describe the medical opinion of Dr. Christopher Ball as to the cause of Mr. Campagnaro’s death.

[25] After a review of the evidence, I will then provide my analysis as to why I find Mr. Hanlon not guilty.

Evidence Relating to July 16, 2020

Kellie Moffit-Campagnaro

Background

[26] By the summer of 2020, Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro had been married to Mr. Campagnaro for 24 years. At that time, she was a special education teacher and Mr. Campagnaro worked as a machinist at Hammond Manufacturing. Mr. Campagnaro was 5 foot 8 inches tall and 175 pounds. He was 59 years of age. He had a physical job and was strong.

[27] The couple lived at 5 Beattie St. Mr. Hanlon lived across the street at 6 Beattie. They had all moved in at approximately the same time with a new build development on the same street. The neighbourhood was a friendly one and the Campagnaros were friends with Mrs. Harris at 10 Beattie, Ms. Poulin-Mackey at 7 Beattie and others in the neighbourhood.

[28] Mr. Campagnaro provided an open invitation to others to come and talk in or around his garage; he did not use his garage for a car. Many of the neighbours socialized in Mr. Campagnaro's garage. They drank beer and wine and hung around the open door of the garage. Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro agreed that Mr. Campagnaro could be referred to as “the mayor” of the neighbourhood. He was not hot-headed. He would smoke marijuana. He would offer a beer or marijuana to others.

[29] Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro knew the Hanlons because she had gone to high school with Ms. Colladello. They were acquaintances at that time. The two households were neighbourly but did not regularly socialize. The Hanlons were quiet neighbours. When they walked their dog, it was always leashed. Mr. Campagnaro’s relationship with the Hanlons was “just hello” when they were walking their dogs but were not “chatty” with them. They had no history of any negative interactions or threats. There had been no harsh words before these events.

[30] Although all neighbours were welcome to visit at the garage, the Hanlons did not. Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro was not aware of any reason other than that they had not spoken in the last four or five years.

July 16, 2020

[31] On Thursday July 16, 2020, Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro took her dog out for a walk. Before she could leash the dog, it ran across the yard and urinated on the Hanlons’ front lawn. As she ran to get a leash on the dog, she heard a voice from behind a tree saying, “What are you, fucking stupid?” The voice was angry and “degrading”. She was dumbfounded by the reaction and only then saw Ms. Colladello sitting behind a tree with her dog. Ms. Hanlon had a big dog and was trying to hold it back.

[32] In response, Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro said “Oh I'm sorry, Heidi got away from me.” At the time, Mr. Campagnaro was across the street, and she did not see him do anything about the comments. She ignored Ms. Colladello, leashed her dog, and walked away.

[33] Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro agreed that there was then an exchange between Mr. Campagnaro and Ms. Colladello, but Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro did not hear it. She did agree at trial that, in her statement to the police, she had said that their exchange included “not very nice words.” She agreed that Mr. Campagnaro called Ms. Colladello a bitch. She testified that his voice was raised because he was calling across the street, but he was not angry.

[34] She talked with Mrs. Harris about three doors away and then went home. There was no other contact between Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro and Ms. Colladello.

Diane Colladello

Background

[35] Ms. Colladello is Mr. Hanlon’s wife of 8 years. They moved into 6 Beatie St. 20 years ago. They both work at Oregon Tool in Guelph.

[36] Before this, they had had no issues with the Campagnaros; there had been no altercations between the two households. She and her husband just decided that they lived different lifestyles and did not socialize with them or attend the garage get-togethers.

July 16, 2020

[37] On July 16, 2020, Ms. Colladello was sitting on her porch in the evening having a glass of wine. Her dog was with her. Mr. Hanlon was at work.

[38] She saw Ms. Campagnaro crossing the street with her dog off leash. The dog came onto her lawn, circled around, and squatted. It then walked toward the house.

[39] Ms. Colladello called out to Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro: “Hey, come and get your dog.” There was no response. She called out a second time but louder. There was still no response. She started to panic as she was concerned about the two dogs together because her dog, a boxer, was a puppy, high energy and “played rough.” At the time, the dog was off leash, and she was hanging on to it. She was getting increasingly frustrated and panicked.

[40] She then called “Kellie, what the fuck is wrong with you. Come and get your dog.” When she swore at Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro, Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro turned toward her and called her a bitch. She continued to stand there until Mr. Campagnaro came and got the dog.

[41] Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro asked: “What is your problem. What have we done to you?” To which Ms. Colladello replied that “It’s the marijuana.” She was aware that her son hung around with the neighbours’ children and that they used marijuana at Mr. Campagnaro’s garage. She had told her children to stay out of the garage. When she gave a statement to the police, she said that her son told her that he got high at the Campagnaros’.

[42] Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro still did not get her dog, but Mr. Campagnaro came across the road. He was swearing and yelling. He picked up the dog and went home. He also made a comment that: “I know all about it. Jacob told me everything.” He went home to his garage but still called her a bitch, other obscenities and that “it was none of her business”. She did not know what Mr. Campagnaro meant about her son Jacob, but she was upset by his comment. She denied that she called Mr. Campagnaro a “dope smoking idiot.”

[43] When he yelled at her from his garage, Ms. Colladello was scared and went inside. She texted Mr. Hanlon and told him to call. He called back and she told him what had occurred. He told her to stay inside and lock the doors. Mr. Hanlon was concerned for her safety, but he was not angry. She did tell the police that “he was upset.” He came home at 11:30 p.m. There was no other contact between the houses that night.

[44] The next morning, the Hanlons talked about it again. Ms. Colladello said Mr. Hanlon was not angry about what had occurred. They were upset about the end of their relationship with a neighbour. They did not plan to speak with them again.

[45] The next day, they were both off work and went biking in Cambridge. When they came home, they walked the dog, and Mr. Hanlon went out to wash his truck. They were to meet together that night in the backyard for a drink but that did not happen.

Laurie Harris

[46] Mrs. Harris resides at 12 Beattie St (the same side of the road as the Hanlon residence). She has lived there for 18 years and is presently retired.

[47] She is friends with the Campagnaros and has socialized with them. They were in the neighbourhood before she moved in. She knows the Hanlons well enough to say hello when she sees them but did not socialize with them.

[48] On July 16, 2020, she was taking her garbage out to the street after dinner. She saw Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro with her dog crossing the street. She does not recall if the dog was leashed. Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro was on the sidewalk on her side of the street. She was talking to Mrs. Harris as she approached.

[49] She heard Ms. Colladello tell Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro to get her dog off her lawn. She said something about “dope smoking idiots.” Ms. Colladello was loud and angry. In response, Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro appeared to be taken aback and said, “What did I do to you?” Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro did not swear at Ms. Colladello although Ms. Colladello was swearing. This occurred in front of the Hanlons’ house. Mrs. Harris only heard Ms. Colladello and did not see her. She did not see Ms. Colladello’s dog.

[50] She had not seen this sort of interaction with Ms. Colladello before. She had never had a negative exchange with the Hanlons when they walked past her house on the sidewalk.

[51] At one point, Mr. Campagnaro came out and called to the dog to come back. He was not there throughout but did continue to speak with Ms. Colladello and told her to mind her own business. His voice was raised but he did not swear at Ms. Colladello. Mr. Campagnaro was able to return the dog. She was not sure where Mr. Campagnaro was but did see him cross the road with voices raised. She did not hear him call Ms. Colladello a bitch or similar.

[52] The whole interaction took no more then five or ten minutes. When Mrs. Harris spoke with Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro afterwards, she seemed nervous and embarrassed.

Fact Finding and Analysis with respect to July 16, 2020

[53] Counsel agree that I do not need to determine exactly what occurred on the evening of the 16th, other than it was an altercation that later came to Mr. Hanlon’s attention. Further, both agree that Mr. Campagnaro was involved in, at least, a loud and aggressive manner. I agree with those submissions. On this evidence, I would not likely be able to determine who said what to whom or why, but I have little doubt that neither woman behaved as faultlessly as they have attempted to describe.

[54] Further, on this and later evidence, there is no dispute that such a disruption in the neighbourhood was extremely unusual for both households.

Evidence Relating to July 17, 2020

June Hudyma

[55] Ms. Hudyma worked with Mr. Hanlon for six years at Oregon Tool. She was the human resources manager and worked with Mr. Hanlon as part of the leadership team. He was a supervisor but not her supervisor.

[56] Ms. Hudyma testified that Mr. Hanlon’s general reputation was that he was always level-headed and calm. She received no negative feedback about him from other employees.

[57] She described one example of having to deal with an employee with mental health issues. During an interview with her, the employee became quite agitated, and Mr. Hanlon was able to keep him calm. In face of the employee’s agitation, Mr. Hanlon remained calm.

[58] Ms. Colladello also works for the same employer. As far as Ms. Hudyma knew, there were no complaints about Ms. Colladello from other employees, nor did she have complaints about anyone else.

Paul Hanlon

Background

[59] Mr. Hanlon is 46 years of age. He was born in Guelph and raised in Fergus. He and his wife have been married 8 years and together for 25 years. He has been employed at Oregon Tool for 27 years. He is the toolroom supervisor. He has held that position for two years.

[60] By a statement of admissions, the evidence is that Mr. Hanlon was 43 years of age, 5 feet, 9.5 inches in height and 179 pounds.

[61] On July 17, 2020, he had been residing with his wife and two children on Beattie St. since May 2000.

[62] The Campagnaros moved in about a year after they did. There were no disagreements between them, and they were neighbourly. Mr. Hanlon and his family were friendly to their neighbours and would say “hi” or “how are you” as they crossed paths. Although the Hanlons socialized with the neighbourhood when they first moved in, they did not do so later.

[63] Throughout the time he lived on the street, the neighbours all got along. There were no issues between the families until this event. It was a very pleasant place to live. He had no issues with any of the individuals who gave evidence at the trial. He had no issues with Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro. He had never threatened or had any fights with Mr. Campagnaro.

[64] The Hanlons had a different lifestyle than the Campagnaros. The garage door was open, but the Hanlons chose not to go there and, instead, spent their time in their backyard in privacy. He saw those in attendance at the garage using alcohol, marijuana, and cigarettes.

[65] The events of July 16 and 17 were “out of character for everyone involved.” There had never been a negative interaction, and this was unusual behavior for all. Before July 17, 2020, Mr. Hanlon had never hit anyone nor been involved in a fight.

July 16 and 17,2020

[66] On July 16, Mr. Hanlon was at work. His wife texted him and he called her back. She filled him in on what had occurred in the altercation with the Campagnaros. Her voice was shaky, and he thought she was nervous and scared. It was upsetting for him to hear that. This was very out of character for the Campagnaros, and a very unusual event. He told her to lock the door.

[67] From what he had heard, there was no reason to leave work early. He therefore came home at 11:30 that night. They did not discuss it further that evening.

[68] The couple had July 17, 2020 off and had planned a day together. In the morning they discussed what had occurred but did not discuss it any more throughout the day. They went biking, did errands and walked the dog twice. They had dinner together.

[69] After dinner, Mr. Hanlon washed the vehicles. It was quiet on the street. He saw Mr. Campagnaro across the street. The garage door was open, and Mr. Campagnaro was facing his workbench. Later, Mr. Campagnaro moved to the back of the garage facing out.

[70] After washing the vehicles, Mr. Hanlon went across the street to speak to Mr. Campagnaro about what had occurred and to smooth things out. He agreed that what had occurred needed to be sorted out: they needed to clear the air and prevent a “brick wall” from forming. He was not angry at Mr. Campagnaro, but it was upsetting that neighbours would address each other in that fashion. He had dealt with other co-workers in similar situations, and he agreed that he may have been less sensitive in such a situation. He denied that he was angry.

[71] Although he agreed that he went to confront Mr. Campanero, he denied that it was a confrontation. It was a conversation rather than a confrontation. He had no other way to speak with Mr. Campagnaro. Mr. Campagnaro’s garage door was always open and therefore he went over to speak with him. He denied that he cornered Mr. Campagnaro. He denied that he was yelling.

[72] Mr. Hanlon walked to the edge of the driveway and the garage and said “Alex” before entering the garage. He was calm and had no animosity towards Mr. Campagnaro. He asked, “can we talk about what happened?” and in response, Mr. Campagnaro mumbled something from the back of the garage. Mr. Hanlon therefore walked further into the garage. Although he was not invited onto the property or into the garage, Mr. Campagnaro was facing him as he approached.

[73] As he approached the workbench, Mr. Hanlon said “It's not OK how you spoke to Diane.” When he said that this was “not OK,” Mr. Campagnaro’s expression changed, and he appeared angry and agitated. At that point, they were standing an arms length apart near the front of the workbench on the right-hand side of the garage. Mr. Hanlon saw a gun on the bench and stopped. He has no knowledge of guns and did not know that it was a pellet gun. He had never seen Mr. Campagnaro with a gun or speak about it. They were in mid-conversation. There was no pause or break in time to make a conscious decision to leave.

[74] Mr. Campagnaro immediately looked angry, said “Fuck her” and threw up his hands towards Mr. Hanlon. At least one of his hands was directed towards Mr. Hanlon’s face. He did not know whether Mr. Campagnaro intended to push or hit or slap him. He thought that Mr. Campagnaro intended to come into contact him in some way. He therefore put one hand to Mr. Campagnaro’s right shoulder and pushed him away. Mr. Hanlon loudly said “Alex” and shoved him.

[75] Mr. Campagnaro “came right back” at Mr. Hanlon, reaching for Mr. Hanlon’s left arm with his right hand and reaching with his left hand for the handgun on his workbench. As he did that, Mr. Campagnaro said “I’ll fucking kill you.” The two men stayed essentially in the same spot.

[76] In response, Mr. Hanlon pulled away and hit Mr. Campagnaro once. He does not know how hard he hit him, but it was enough to stun Mr. Capagnaro. Mr. Hanlon thought he was in danger and was in “an intense situation.” Mr. Hanlon wanted to hit him hard enough to get out of the situation but did not know how hard that was. He used his right hand to hit the left side of Mr. Campagnaro’s face. He can remember hitting his cheek. That apparently caused injury to Mr. Hanlon’s hand, but he does not remember it being sore.

[77] With that, Mr. Campagnaro walked backwards while still facing Mr. Hanlon. He walked back three steps to a chair. He was glassy-eyed and did not look behind him. Mr. Hanlon thought that Mr. Campagnaro probably touched the chair with his leg and sat down. Mr. Campagnaro said nothing. Mr. Hanlon testified that he did not intend to cause harm to Mr. Campagnaro.

[78] He then said to Mr. Campagnaro “What the fuck?” Mr. Campagnaro was “blank and staring.” He did not see any blood on Mr. Campagnaro at that time.

[79] Mr. Hanlon acknowledged blood spatters on objects behind the chair, but he has no idea how they got there. He has no idea of how Mr. Campagnaro got cut.

[80] Mr. Hanlon denied that he heard Mr. Campagnaro say “sorry.” He denied that he was mocked by Mr. Campagnaro while Mr. Campagnaro remained seated.

[81] Mr. Hanlon then backed up and turned around at the driveway to go home to get his cell phone to call the police. He entered his home by way of his own garage but could not find the phone and went back to the garage.

[82] At that time, he saw his neighbour, Ms. Poulin-Mackey, in front of Mr. Campagnaro in the chair and so Mr. Hanlon went out to the end of his own driveway to see better. He could hear Ms. Poulin-Mackey on the phone with 911 and saying “unconscious” but he could not see Mr. Campagnaro. He then went further down his own driveway and was able to see that Mr. Campagnaro was not upright in the chair. Rather, he was slumped over, with his hand hanging down.

[83] Mr. Hanlon therefore went over to join Ms. Poulin-Mackey in the Campagnaros’ garage. He could tell that Mr. Campagnaro was unconscious. Mr. Hanlon tried to prop him up and listened for breathing. He could feel a pulse. He told Ms. Poulin-Mackey that it was he who had struck Mr. Campagnaro.

[84] Ms. Poulin-Mackey handed the phone to him, and he spoke with the 911 operator. He supported Mr. Campagnaro’s shoulder and neck. He was trained in CPR and first aid, but this was the best he could do for Mr. Campagnaro. He told the 911 operator that he hit Mr. Campagnaro, to assist the first responders with their assessment.

[85] He looked for blood and saw a 1-inch gash behind Mr. Campagnaro’s ear. He stayed there until the first responders and his neighbour, Mr. Fitzgerald, arrived. He knew Mr. Fitzgerald and heard him arrive. He told them both that he was going across the street if they needed him.

[86] He agreed that Lucie Poulin-Mackey was an independent witness. He denied that Ms. Poulin-Mackey is correct when she said that he was “slapping him around.”

Lucie Poulin-Mackey

[87] Ms. Poulin-Mackey lives at 7 Beattie St., next door to the Campagnaros, and has lived there for 17 years. Mr. and Mrs. Campanero were living at 5 Beattie when she moved in. She was friendly with them. Mr. Campagnaro was boisterous, had a big personality and was outgoing.

[88] She was also friendly with the Hanlons. The Hanlons were pleasant neighbours who took care of their property. They were friendly, quiet, soft spoken. There had been no disputes in the past or any raised voices.

[89] On July 17, 2020, she was sitting on her porch reading after dinner. It was between 7:00 and 8:00 and it was still light out. She heard loud voices coming from the Campagnaros’ garage. There were at least two voices, and they were angry. It was not clear what was being said although she heard Mr. Campagnaro's first name being called. She did not know who was speaking.

[90] She heard Mr. Campagnaro say “sorry” and almost immediately afterwards heard the sound of “skin on skin.” She could not interpret the sincerity of the word “sorry”. She then ran into her home to call 911. She heard the skin contact and immediately went inside. She does not know what happened next or what was said.

[91] While still on the phone with the 911 operator, she went to the garage and saw Mr. Campagnaro in his chair and in need of assistance. He was slumped to the right, unresponsive and his eyes and mouth were open. She shook him, but he did not respond.

[92] At that point, Mr. Hanlon came up behind her. He said, “OK Luce, let's sit him up.” He then gently helped Mr. Campagnaro up while she was still on the 911 call. When Mr. Hanlon tried to right Mr. Campagnaro, Mr. Hanlon was gentle with him and checked for his pulse. Mr. Campagnaro appeared to be breathing.

[93] Mr. Hanlon then asked her to get something to wipe the blood. Her husband was able to get paper towels to wipe the blood from behind his ear. Mr. Hanlon remained until the police arrived and then said that he would wait across the street.

[94] She saw no weapons. She knew that police had found a BB gun on the counter and had asked her about it, but she did not see it before the police asked her about it.

Garrett Fitzgerald

Background

[95] Mr. Fitzgerald resides at 21 Beattie St. He described the neighbourhood as close knit, and he knew most of his neighbours. He knew the Campagnaros as the first neighbours he had met when he moved in. They socialized together and visited on the street. He was aware that others in the neighbourhood visited in their driveway. He had no issue with the Campagnaros. Mr. Campagnaro was outgoing and could be referred to as the “mayor” of the street.

[96] He knew the Hanlons but not as well. They would smile and wave and sometimes chat while walking the dog. He has had no negative contact with the Hanlons. They were always friendly, and he had heard nothing negative about them.

[97] Such an event was unexpected and uncharacteristic of the neighbourhood. He was not aware of any problems festering in the neighbourhood. Mr. Hanlon was not agitated nor angry at the scene.

July 17, 2020

[98] Mr. Fitzgerald is a trained paramedic and has worked in that field for 28 years. On July 17, 2020, he was not working. He was at home with his son. He was in the front yard taking a picture of his son when he received a tweet from the fire department with respect to a medical need on his street. He looked around but could not see any need and could not hear any sirens. He then saw two police cruisers arriving from the south. He could not tell at which house they stopped.

[99] In his experience, it is unusual for police cruisers to arrive at a medical call. He wanted to see what was going to happen. When the officers got out of the cruisers, they moved very quickly towards the house. He crossed the street to the sidewalk to be able to see into the garage. He saw one of the officers push a snow blower out of the way. He thought that was clearing space for medical assistance and that there might have been a cardiac arrest.

[100] He started to walk down the street and saw a neighbour on the front lawn saying, “He's unresponsive.” He also saw an officer standing at the front of the garage. He identified himself to that officer as part of the emergency medical service and asked if they needed a hand. The officer said yes and waved him into the garage.

[101] When he went into the garage, he saw Mr. Campagnaro on a chair at the back of the garage. Again, he identified himself as EMS and was allowed to assist Mr. Campagnaro.

[102] He crouched down to assess Mr. Campagnaro. His head was to the right, he had glassy eyes and he was unresponsive. There was a trail of urine from beneath the chair to the front of the garage.

[103] He assessed Mr. Campagnaro's airway. He could not tell if Mr. Campagnaro was breathing but he was not blue. He did feel some breath and saw chest movement. He checked for a pulse on Mr. Campagnaro's left wrist and it was slow and weak. He did not see any injuries.

[104] Mr. Campagnaro was sweaty and so he used a roll of paper towel to wipe the sweat from his chest. He also kept his hand on Mr. Campagnaro's pulse. He did not move Mr. Campagnaro until the paramedics arrived approximately 2 to 3 minutes later.

[105] When the paramedics arrived, he described Mr. Campagnaro's condition to them and one of the paramedics applied a neck brace on Mr. Campagnaro. In order to make room for the stretcher, they turned Mr. Campagnaro’s chair around and slid the chair beside the stretcher. As they were about to put him on the stretcher, they realized that he had lost his pulse. When they checked for the pulse again on the stretcher, Mr. Campagnaro no longer had a pulse. Mr. Campagnaro was still “vital signs absent” when they put him into the ambulance but once in, they were able to find a pulse.

[106] Mr. Fitzgerald only spoke to Mr. Hanlon when he first arrived. Mr. Hanlon asked if Mr. Fitzgerald wanted to stand where he was. When Mr. Fitzgerald said yes, Mr. Hanlon stood back and said that he would be outside.

Stephen Gawlik and Tyler Galea

[107] Officer Gawlik has been with the Guelph Police Service for 21 years. On the night of July 17, 2020, he was on the night shift uniform patrol in a marked cruiser. With him in the cruiser was a trainee, Officer Tyler Galea.

[108] The officers were dispatched to the scene at 8:17 p.m. and arrived at 8:21 p.m. When they pulled up at the front door, there was an upset female on the front lawn, later identified as Ms. Poulin-Mackey. They went into the open garage and found Mr. Campagnaro sitting in a chair at the back of the garage facing outward. Mr. Hanlon was standing beside him and holding Mr. Campagnaro’s head up. Mr. Campagnaro was unconscious and appeared pale. His mouth and eyes were open. Officer Gawlik felt for a pulse and found one. He then let Mr. Fitzgerald take over.

[109] When Officer Gawlik first went into the garage, he saw a handgun on the workbench to the right of the two men. The gun caught his eye, was in plain sight and there was light in the garage to see it. He is trained to identify firearms and the gun resembled a Glock; he needed to inspect it to be sure that it was not a real firearm. He picked up the gun and recognized it as a pellet pistol. He then put it out of the way behind a tackle box so that it would not be a distraction to anyone arriving later.

[110] After Mr. Campagnaro was removed by the EMS paramedics, Officer Gawlik put the gun back where he had first found it. He had no other interaction with the gun.

[111] Officer Galea moved the snow blower out of the garage to allow space for the paramedics. The paramedics arrived at 8:26 p.m. After that, Officer Galea went across the street to speak with Mr. Hanlon. I have no evidence of what was discussed there.

Dr. Christopher Ball

[112] Dr. Ball is a forensic pathologist with the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service. He was admitted as being able to give expert opinion evidence in the area of forensic pathology, the cause of death and the mechanism of death.

[113] In his opinion, Mr. Campagnaro died as a result of a sub-arachnoid hemorrhage due to a vertebral artery injury due to blunt force trauma of the head and neck. That is to say, that a blunt force was applied to the left side of Mr. Campagnaro’s head causing a tear of his right vertebral artery. As a result, blood leaked out of the artery and surrounded the brain and spinal cord. As a further result, there was no blood to the brain and the brain died. Blood flow ceased to the brain and clotted. Of significance, that was the right vertebral artery. He observed bruising to the left side of Mr. Campagnaro’s neck and head.

[114] The effects of such a tear could generate a loss of consciousness in seconds or minutes but Dr. Ball could not opine as to the length of time before Mr. Campagnaro would have lost consciousness. However, from his experience it would be almost immediate. The loss of bladder function could be caused by the loss of brain function.

[115] Although such an injury could be caused by quickly turning one’s head or some other benign cause, that would result only when combined with an underlying disease of the vertebral artery. That was not located here.

[116] The bruising behind the left ear and neck could not be caused by the tear of the artery because there was no connection or pooling of blood between the two locations.

[117] Dr. Ball agreed that such an injury was consistent with a single punch followed by moving backward into the chair. The extent of necessary force is variable. He could not say if Mr. Campagnaro was in or out of the chair at the time of the injury.

Fact Finding and Analysis with respect to July 17, 2020

[118] There is no doubt that this was an unusual and uncharacteristic event for the entire neighbourhood. The witnesses’ descriptions of Mr. Campagnaro and Mr. Hanlon confirm that both behaved completely out of character.

[119] I have an unease about what may be in the background between the Campagnaros and the Hanlons but that is not my concern in this case. As we often say to juries, it would be an unusual case that a judge or jury could say that they knew everything about a case. Instead, I need only make findings on those matters that are necessary for my decision. And those matters are only what occurred in the Campagnaro garage on the 17th of July 2020.

[120] Although I do not know exactly what occurred on the night of the 16th, I can accept that Mr. Hanlon believed what his wife told him occurred. He would be acting on that description of events, whether that was the truth or not. And what he was told was that his neighbour had acted in a vulgar and angry fashion for no apparent reason. Whether called a conversation or a confrontation, a meeting to clear the air was necessary.

[121] I do not accept the Crown’s theory that Mr. Hanlon was angry and attempting some sort of vengeance upon Mr. Campagnaro. That sort of conduct was contrary to both the Crown and defence evidence of Mr. Hanlon’s behaviour.

[122] Ms. Hudyma was not cross-examined with respect to her evidence about Mr. Hanlon; simply put, I have no reason to reject that evidence of his usual calm manner.

[123] Mr. Hanlon did not approach Mr. Campagnaro at the first opportunity as if he were angry. Rather, he approached Mr. Campagnaro when next convenient for both of them.

[124] On the 911 call, Mr. Hanlon is calm and reports Mr. Campagnaro’s injuries and what caused them. That conduct is inconsistent with the Crown theory. I find that Mr. Hanlon calmly approached Mr. Campagnaro to clear the air and to understand the events of the last evening.

[125] The Crown suggests that Mr. Hanlon should have contacted Mr. Campagnaro in some other fashion such as by phone or email. On the evidence, that was not available to Mr. Hanlon but, even if it were, I am satisfied that a calm discussion in person would have been a reasonable and better approach. The evidence shows that Mr. Hanlon was experienced in such interactions. I find that it was reasonable for Mr. Hanlon to walk across the street to meet his neighbour. Given the “open-door policy” of the Campagnaros’ garage, I find it reasonable that Mr. Hanlon continued inside the garage.

[126] Ms. Poulin-Mackey’s evidence of hearing the word “sorry” is inconsistent with Mr. Hanlon’s evidence but it is not enough to reject his evidence.

[127] Ms. Poulin-Mackey was clear that she did not hear all that was said and immediately went inside the home when she heard one “skin on skin” contact. She could well have misunderstood what was said. Although she appeared to be a truthful, objective witness, truthful witnesses can be wrong. Mr. Hanlon testified that it was a high stress event; he could also have simply forgotten what was said. Ultimately, I agree with Mr. Hanlon that, when considering all of the evidence, such an inconsistency is insufficient to reject all of his evidence. Although I accept Mr. Hanlon’s evidence, taking this one inconsistency at full weight, Mr. Hanlon’s evidence would still raise a reasonable doubt about his guilt.

[128] Although Ms. Poulin-Mackey told the 911 operator that “he’s slapping him around,” her evidence at trial rejects that description. Instead, I accept that Mr. Campagnaro was killed as a result of one punch as described by Mr. Hanlon and Dr. Ball.

[129] The Crown concedes that it cannot argue that Mr. Campagnaro was seated at the time he was struck. That is a reasonable concession. The chair was moved before the police photos were taken, the other evidence is inconclusive as to where the chair was first found, and I have no expert evidence on what the blood splatter evidence might suggest – if anything. While it is conceded that the blood is Mr. Campagnaro’s, I have no evidence of its age. Blood in a workshop, without more, does not lead to any inferences.

[130] I do note that the location of the bruising below Mr. Campagnaro’s jawline would make a punch from above unlikely. Dr. Ball described bruising to the “voice box.” I have no evidence of any kind as to the possible cause of the laceration behind Mr. Campagnaro’s left ear. In the end, the physical evidence at the scene does not contradict Mr. Hanlon’s evidence.

[131] The gun on the workbench was a pellet pistol but even a trained policeman could not make that determination on first glance. I accept that Mr. Hanlon thought it was a real gun.

[132] The Crown submits many reasons why I should reject Mr. Hanlon’s evidence. I do not agree with those submissions.

[133] The Crown submits that Mr. Hanlon was “stuck to a script” but also that he added evidence as he went along. It cannot be both. I found Mr. Hanlon to be open and direct with his evidence. Apparent inconsistencies were explained. If Mr. Hanlon were to be tailoring his evidence, one would expect an explanation for blood splatters or Ms. Poulin-Mackey’s evidence about “sorry.” Instead, Mr. Hanlon candidly acknowledged that he had no explanation for those parts of the Crown case.

[134] The Crown notes that Mr. Hanlon did not refer to the death threat made by Mr. Campagnaro in his examination-in-chief but only in his cross-examination. However, the agreed evidence in reply was that he did provide that evidence to his counsel at the outset. While such a change in evidence could damage the credibility of a witness, here, the error is explained by witness nervousness and is of little significance.

[135] The Crown submits that it is unlikely that Mr. Campagnaro would have uttered a death threat and reached for a gun in response to one push by Mr. Hanlon. However, to me, it seems also seems unlikely that Mr. Campagnaro could respond as Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro admitted he did the night before. In that event, I do not find Mr. Hanlon’s description of Mr Campagnaro’s response to be such that it impairs Mr. Hanlon’s credibility.

[136] Demeanour is a poor factor to determine credibility but there was nothing in Mr. Hanlon’s manner when answering questions that would raise any concerns.

[137] In short, I accept Mr. Hanlon’s evidence of what occurred in the garage that night.

[138] On those facts and following the steps set out above, I find as follows.

[139] I find that Mr. Hanlon believed, on reasonable grounds, that force was being used or threatened against him. Mr. Campagnaro appeared angry, and attempted to strike Mr. Hanlon first. Even if I accepted only Mrs. Moffit-Campagnaro’s evidence of what Mr. Campagnaro said on the 16th, she agreed that he used “not very nice words” and called Ms. Colladello a bitch. His voice was raised because he was calling across the street. That conduct is consistent with Mr. Campagnaro’s actions as described by Mr. Hanlon on the night in question.

[140] Mr. Hanlon’s first response was appropriate, including calling out Mr. Campagnaro’s name to focus his attention. Mr. Campagnaro’s verbal threat to kill followed by the apparent reach for the gun established a clear threat.

[141] Further, I find that Mr. Hanlon acted for the purpose of defending or protecting himself from that use or threat of force. Given the evidence of Mr. Hanlon’s character, a hot-headed or violent reaction was unlikely. The timing of events does not suggest a vengeful response but instead a measured in-person discussion to clear the air. I find that Mr. Hanlon’s punch was only as a result of Mr. Campagnaro’s actions that night in the garage and only for the purpose of defending himself.

[142] Finally, I find that Mr. Hanlon’s conduct was reasonable in the circumstances. Under s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code, the factors for me to consider on this point are “the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to”:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;

[143] The threat to use a weapon to kill called for a defensive act on Mr. Hanlon’s part. The Crown concedes that the gun was there to be seen.

(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;

[144] I accept that Mr. Hanlon had no time to choose other options.

(c) the person’s role in the incident;

[145] While it is true that Mr. Hanlon was arguably trespassing on Mr. Campagnaro’s home, I find that his attempt to defuse whatever had occurred the night before required him to carry on a conversation with Mr. Campagnaro. Yelling from a distance would not assist resolution. A civil conversation would be more easily had within speaking distance. Only in hindsight could Mr. Hanlon have been expected to remain on his own property or the street. The evidence of Mr. Campagnaro’s character was that he would not be expected to respond as he did.

(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;

[146] I find that Mr. Campagnaro threatened the use of a weapon.

(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;

[147] The two men are essentially the same age and build; nothing turns on this factor.

(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat, or any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;

[148] As agreed by all, there was no history between the two men besides normal, civil neighbourliness. There was no history of violence or dispute. Nothing turns on the history between the men.

(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force.

[149] In response to Mr. Campagnaro’s threat and his reach for the gun, Mr. Hanlon punched Mr. Campagnaro once with his hand. From the medical evidence, this one punch, while tragically causing the death, could not be expected, in most instances, to cause such a result.

[150] Dr. Ball could not opine on the degree of force necessary to cause the injury. Mr. Hanlon, who had never been in a fight before, could not say how hard he hit Mr. Campagnaro. From that evidence, I cannot say that Mr. Hanlon struck Mr. Campagnaro with too much force.

[151] I find that Mr. Hanlon’s response was reasonable and proportionate to the threat.

(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

[152] Apparently, Mr. Campagnaro was angry about the events of the evening before, but his actions toward Mr. Hanlon were not lawful.

[153] Considering all of those factors, I find that Mr. Hanlon’s conduct was reasonable in the circumstances. The result of Mr. Hanlon’s actions was unlikely and tragic, but his conduct was reasonable throughout.

[154] On this evidence, I find that Mr. Hanlon was acting in lawful self-defence.

Result

[155] For those reasons, Mr. Hanlon is found not guilty of the offence of manslaughter.

“Justice Lemon”

Justice G.D.Lemon

Released: January 4, 2023

COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-00000678-0000

DATE: 2023 01 04

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

Paul Hanlon

JUDGMENT

Justice G.D. Lemon

Released: January 4, 2023

[^1]: I appreciate that if Mr. Hanlon’s evidence raises a reasonable doubt about all three issues, his defence can be successful. See para. 10.