Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-10000201-0000 DATE: 2023-11-10 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: R. v. UMAR ZAMEER
BEFORE: MOLLOY J.
COUNSEL: N. Hasan and A. Heine, for the Defendant/Applicant M. Cantlon and K. Simone, for the Crown/Responding Party D. Butt, for the Third Parties Forbes and Birtle S. Hutchison and B. Chung, for the Third Party, Toronto Police Service
HEARD: November 8, 2023
RULING
(Disclosure/Production Application)
[1] From November 8-10, 2023, I heard pre-trial applications with respect to this matter.
[2] This Ruling relates only to the application for disclosure, or alternatively third-party production, of two sets of records that can generically be referred to as: (1) the D.C. Forbes investigation file; and (2) Toronto Police Services (TPS) training materials.
[3] I find that the TPS investigation files with respect to the tee-shirt fund-raiser are not properly characterized as first party disclosure. However, they meet the likely relevance test under O’Connor/McNeil at the first stage of the inquiry. Those documents should be turned over to me for review. This includes the file with respect to D.C. Forbes and anything within the P.C. Birtles investigation that refers to the conduct or role of D.C. Forbes in that fundraiser and any statements made by or attributed to her. I will conduct the second-stage inquiry on Wednesday, November 15, 2023 in person at the Courthouse.
[4] I find that the training materials sought are not relevant to any issue at trial. There is a clear distinction in the case law between documents that are simply training materials for police officers and other documents in the nature of Polices or Protocols that are more like directives that all officers are obliged to follow. Although it was not completely clear that the latter directive-type documents were covered by the subpoena, my reason for denying the production request is not based on the distinction between these forms of documents. Rather, whether it is a training manual or a protocol binding on all officers, my finding is that the relevance test is not met, even at the first stage of the O’Connor/McNeil test. That aspect of the application is dismissed.
[5] I will be issuing detailed written reasons for these rulings in due course.
[6] My decision with respect to the remaining aspects of the application (exculpatory statements of the accused and challenge for cause questions for the jury) remain under reserve.
MOLLOY J.
Date: November 10, 2023