R. v. Beasley, 2025 ONSC 4049

Court File No.: CR-23-00000107-0000
Date: 2025-04-14
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
His Majesty the King
and
Gregory Anthony Beasley

Applicant Counsel: J. Cavanagh and C. Moreno, for the Crown
Respondent Counsel: R. MacDonald and E. Willschick, for the Respondent

Heard: April 10, 2025
Judge: Laurie Lacelle

Reasons for Ruling – Jury View

Introduction

[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] Mid-trial, the Crown applied under s. 652 of the Criminal Code for an order directing the jury in the trial to have a view of the scene where the murders took place.

[3] During the trial, I dismissed the Crown’s application. These are my reasons for doing so.

Background

[4] The Crown has presented video footage which it says shows the accused and his vehicle entering and leaving the parking lot where the victims were killed. The footage was taken from a camera mounted above the gas pumps at a nearby gas station. At the time of the events, it was fall (October 16th) and the trees were in full leaf. The murders occurred shortly after 7 pm, by which point it had been dark for some time. What can and cannot be seen on the gas station video footage has been a considerable focus for both parties in their questioning of the witnesses at trial.

The Legal Principles

[5] The order for a jury view is discretionary. Section 652(1) permits a view to be ordered “where it appears to be in the interests of justice”. The onus is on the applicant to meet that test.

[6] The leading case interpreting s. 652(1) appears to be the decision of Nordheimer J. (as he then was) in R. v. Johnson, 2010 ONSC 5189. In that decision, Nordheimer J. held at para. 5 that “the applicant must establish that there is some very real and demonstrable advantage that the taking of the view will bring to the proceedings in terms of the jury’s understanding of the evidence they will hear”.

[7] Johnson sets out a list of factors to be considered in determining whether a view is in the interests of justice. They include:

• (i) Logistical problems associated with the scene itself including accessibility, distance, safety concerns for those attending the view, the likelihood of public attention to the process and the disruption to normal day-to-day activities in the area where the view is to take place;
• (ii) Logistical problems with the view itself including transporting the jury, the judge, counsel, court staff and the accused. If the accused is in custody, this may pose a special challenge as the accused is entitled to be present at the view;
• (iii) Security concerns at the scene including the likelihood of the jury being exposed to information or actions of others that are not relevant to the jury's task and the degree to which such exposure might be prejudicial;
• (iv) The extent to which photographs, recordings, models and other aids can adequately convey the necessary information to the jury; and
• (v) The nature of the evidence that the view is directed at helping the jury understand.

[8] Other courts, such as in R. v. Golov, 2017 ONSC 6918 at para. 13, have also considered whether the probative value of the view outweighs any prejudicial effect. Citing McWilliams Canadian Criminal Evidence, Fifth Edition, eds. Justice Casey Hill, David Tanovich and Louis P. Strezos 23:30.60, Golov suggested a court should also consider:

• a. The necessity of receiving evidence outside the courtroom having regard to the degree of assistance to the triers of fact likely to be gained from a view, the adequacy of alternative sources of information and the centrality of the thing to be viewed to the prosecution.
• b. Will the granting of a view be fair to the parties with minimum prejudice?
• c. Would the view be inconvenient, expensive, unsafe or disruptive?

[9] The Crown has also directed me to further cases which I have reviewed and considered, including: R. v. Macdonald, [2006] O.J. No. 4285; R. v. Polimac, [2006] O.J. No. 4760; R. v. Q.A.D., [2003] O.J. No. 6257 (S.C.J.); R. v. Vallis, [1989] B.C.J. No. 2046 (C.A.); and R. v. Wise, [2020] O.J. No. 5685 (S.C.J.).

The Positions of the Parties

The Crown

[10] The Crown argues that the “best information the jury can have to interpret the video”, where the “fields of view are somewhat unclear”, can only be derived from attending the scene. This will also allow the jurors to better assess a Google Earth video of the area prepared by the defence and entered into evidence. The Crown argues that a visit to the scene will allow jurors to form an opinion about what the camera is capturing. The Crown says a view will not be difficult to orchestrate, and the logistical issues involved are at the low end of the spectrum.

The Defence

[11] The defence opposes the order sought by the Crown, though not “hotly”. The defence says the court should find that a view is not in the interests of justice. Counsel argues that the scene of the murders is not so distinct that the jurors need to see it for themselves. Further, the defence submits that the video evidence presented by the Crown is the evidence of what occurred on the day of the murders, and if the jury gets a better view with their own eyes than the video affords, then there is a risk of conflation of what they themselves see and what can be seen on the footage. In a trial that is already expected to go over the allotted time, the defence also submits that a view, which will cause further delays, is not practical.

Analysis

[12] I am not satisfied that the Crown has established, on a balance of probabilities, that there is “some very real and demonstrable advantage” from the proposed views to the jury’s understanding of the evidence.

[13] The Crown seeks to have a jury view to help the jurors understand what is visible on a video of poor quality. I agree with the defence that there is a real risk associated with a view. The jurors’ task will be to determine what can and cannot be seen on the video, for instance whether the accused or his vehicle enter or leave the parking lot at any point, and/or whether any other vehicles enter and leave the parking lot. What the jurors can see for themselves at the scene, during a different season (the trees are not in leaf as they are in the video) and at a different time of day (at the time of the killings it is dark out) risks confusing what is and is not visible on the video. In my view, a view would not assist the jurors, and risks introducing confusion to their task of assessing what is or is not made out on the video footage of the events as they unfolded. A jury view cannot be in the interests of justice when it risks undermining the truth finding process in this way. The remaining factors generally considered in the jurisprudence need not be considered given this fundamental problem with the Crown’s application.

[14] In any event, there are a number of photographs entered into evidence which depict the scene from various angles and provide some idea of the topography of the area, an issue of concern to the Crown. A number of photographs were introduced through Cst. Etherington, the identification officer, which show the scene the evening of the murders. Pages 11 and 15 of Cst. Etherington’s Identification Presentation (Exhibit 10) are particularly helpful. These photographs, in my view, provide the jury with all the assistance they require in assessing the evidence and arguments of counsel about what can and cannot be seen on the video. They obviate the need for a view.

[15] Moreover, there are always considerable logistical hurdles presented by a view (including security concerns). It means moving the whole trial to another location. While these hurdles may be overcome, as they have in other cases, this does not render a view more valuable to the jury’s understanding of the evidence.

[16] I am not satisfied that a view is in the interests of justice. The Crown’s application is therefore dismissed.

Honourable Madam Justice Laurie Lacelle
Released orally: April 14, 2025
Released in writing for publication: July 8, 2025