Reasons for Ruling – Defence Motion for Direction and Third Party Suspect Application

Court File No.: CR-23-00000107-0000
Date of Ruling (Oral): March 26, 2025
Reasons Released in Writing: June 25, 2025
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King
and
Gregory Anthony Beasley, Defendant

Appearances:
J. Cavanagh and C. Moreno, for the Crown
R. MacDonald and E. Willschick, for the Defendant

Heard: March 18, 2025
Justice: Laurie Lacelle

Introduction and Positions of the Parties

[1] The accused, Gregory Beasley, is charged with two counts of first-degree murder. On October 16, 2021, he is alleged to have shot two men, Nico Soubliere and Carl Delphin, in a secluded parking lot in Kingston. The Crown’s theory is that this was an execution ordered from jail.

[2] The defence brings a “Motion for Direction and Third Party Suspect Application” where it seeks rulings addressing various issues. Following oral submissions, the defence has determined that it will bring a separate application seeking the admission of hearsay statements of the deceased to James Brooks. It now takes the position that it will not seek to adduce the victims’ criminal records and asks that that issue be “parked” pending a possible Corbett application by the accused. The defence has also further modified the nature of the relief sought in its application. At the close of the oral submissions, it asked only for a ruling to the effect that it would be permitted to ask the officer-in-charge whether he was aware of other threats to the victims’ lives, particularly that of Mr. Soubliere. The defence says this would be evidence admissible under the narrative hearsay exception, and that it would be required to live with any answer given by the officer.

[3] The defence argues that it is not pointing to any specific third party to suggest they committed the murders. It concedes none of the evidence it seeks to adduce would meet the test for admissibility under the third party suspect law since there is no evidence of opportunity to commit the offences.

[4] Instead, it proposes to question the officer-in-charge on sworn affidavits from other police witnesses which were used to obtain search warrants. These affidavits outline police interest in various individuals, including “significant figures in organized crime”, who, at the time, were believed to have participated in a conspiracy to commit the murders. The defence says that permitting cross-examination of the officer-in-charge about this body of evidence will allow it to outline the very real dangers that faced Mr. Soubliere and Mr. Delphin given conflicts they had with other people and groups. The defence argues that it is entitled to point to reasonable possibilities in order to explain the victims’ demise, even though it is not advancing a third party suspect application. In short, as it states in its application, the defence “seeks to touch upon the dangerous lifestyles of the deceased and wishes to name some of the dangerous actors who posed threats to the deceased prior to their demise”.

[5] The Crown notes that a great deal of information about the victims’ lifestyles will be before the jury. It accepts that the defence may argue that the victims’ lifestyles give rise to the possibility that other people may have had reason to harm them, and in this way argue that the Crown has not proved the identity of the victims’ killer beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown is opposed to the defence proposal to adduce narrative hearsay from the officer-in-charge, however, and evidence about specific individuals or groups who had motive to kill the deceased. It says that if this evidence is “investigative narrative”, the Crown would be entitled to adduce further evidence about the police investigation of those connections and what links each organized crime group or player had with the accused.

[6] Following oral argument, I advised the parties that I would not permit the defence to adduce evidence from the officer-in-charge about the other actors it says had reason to harm the victims. These are my reasons for that ruling.

Analysis

[7] The defence proposal to introduce “investigative hearsay” of this nature is problematic. As noted by the Crown, all of the sources of the hearsay evidence are available to testify. It is difficult to see how the defence could adduce the evidence in the way it suggests.

[8] There are further issues with the defence position, however. The cases relied upon by the defence, for instance R. v. Appleton, 2024 ONCA 329, bear no similarity to the circumstances here. This is not an instance where a third party suspect application is not required because the defence is pointing to another actor at the scene as having committed the offence (or where a witness statement allows for that possibility). None of the actors who are said to have had reason to harm the victims are in way connected to the remaining evidence to be provided at trial. At most, they had motive to harm the victims. There is no evidence tying them to the scene or the narrative of events in any way.

[9] The relevance of the proposed evidence depends upon whether there is any connection between any of the players identified by the defence and the events of October 16, 2021. The defence does not assert that there are any. It concedes there is no evidence of opportunity for any of the actors it identifies to have committed the murders. There is no circumstantial or direct evidence that implicates any of these actors in the killing of the victims beyond the possibility of a motive. In these circumstances, the defence has failed to establish the relevance of the evidence.

[10] Even if the defence had cleared the bar of relevance, however, the potential prejudice caused by permitting the defence to adduce information about other actors who were in conflict with the victims far outweighs any potential probative value the evidence might have. This is because it would open the door to other evidence about the investigation into other actors. This would be problematic for two reasons: first, because it would be a distracting side show from the issues in the trial; and second, because it would open the door to evidence about the accused’s links to organized crime groups and the actors who are said to have wanted to harm the victims. This would move the trial very far afield from the central issues the jury will be called upon to decide.

[11] For these reasons, the defence is not permitted to adduce evidence in the nature of “investigative hearsay” from the officer-in-charge about other actors who might have wanted the victims dead.

Laurie Lacelle
Ruling made orally: March 26, 2025
Reasons released in writing: June 25, 2025