An Ontario Superior Court judge has ruled that a statement given to police by a man who escaped custody by breaking the window of a police cruiser is admissible as evidence in his ongoing trial1. The decision, released on September 8, 2025, came after the man’s defence lawyer argued that police had violated his client’s Charter rights during a chaotic series of events in June 2019 that began with a house fire and ended with a lengthy police interview. A publication ban is in effect to protect the identity of the complainant in the case.
The complex legal dispute stems from events that unfolded in the early morning hours of June 16, 2019. Around 2:55 a.m., police and fire services were dispatched to a fire at the residence of K.D., the recent ex-girlfriend of the accused, who is identified in court documents only as L.L. The first officer on the scene, Sergeant Rick Garcia, found K.D. and her friends outside the home. A trainee officer, Constable Lindsay Galliher, who had been on the job for less than two weeks, was tasked with interviewing K.D. and her friend, C.D. Based on information that L.L. had been involved in earlier altercations and had made threats, Cst. Galliher formed the opinion that he was arrestable for two counts of assault and one count of uttering threats.
At approximately 4:00 a.m., L.L. arrived at the scene and began walking towards K.D. and C.D., who pointed him out to the police. Sgt. Garcia promptly arrested L.L. and placed him, handcuffed with his hands behind his back, into the rear of a police cruiser being used by Cst. Galliher and her supervising officer, Constable Stephanie Herdman. Two minutes later, Cst. Galliher sat in the driver’s seat and turned to face L.L. through the plexiglass partition to read him his rights to counsel. During this process, L.L. indicated that he might have his own lawyer but couldn’t recall the name. Cst. Galliher then exited the cruiser to consult with Cst. Herdman about how to proceed, leaving L.L. alone in the locked vehicle.
Within a minute, a firefighter frantically waved to get the officers’ attention, having spotted L.L. running down the street. He had escaped the cruiser. Cst. Herdman and Sgt. Garcia gave chase, on foot and in a separate vehicle respectively, but quickly lost sight of him. When officers returned to the cruiser, they discovered that a rear window had been shattered, with glass scattered on the street and inside the vehicle. L.L.’s flip-flops were found on the floor of the backseat. Sgt. Garcia initially broadcast over the police radio that L.L. had escaped through an open door, an assumption he later testified was based on a prior experience in his career. An all-points bulletin was issued for L.L., and a search was launched.
The search ended just after 6:00 a.m. when police received a 911 call reporting that L.L. was in the backyard of C.S. and C.D.’s residence. Constable Matthew Orbegoso and Constable Rajandeep Bimbh arrived to find L.L. with his handcuffs now in front of his body instead of behind his back. The officers drew their weapons, a gun and a Taser, and ordered L.L. onto the grass before re-securing his handcuffs. Cst. Orbegoso testified that he informed L.L. he was being arrested for two counts of assault, uttering threats, mischief, and flight from police, and that he read him his rights to counsel. Paramedics were called to assess L.L., who had ripped clothing and minor cuts, but he declined treatment. He was then transported to the police station by Constable Olivia Mule and Constable Troy Campbell. During the drive, Cst. Mule again read him his rights, this time cautioning him for assault, mischief, flight from police, and adding that he was being investigated for arson.
At the station, L.L. was booked into cells and informed the officer on duty that he suffered from depression and anxiety. Because he could not remember his lawyer’s name, police arranged a call with duty counsel, which took place in private at 7:16 a.m. An hour later, Cst. Mule updated him on the list of charges he was facing. The formal interview began at 11:35 a.m. with Constable Colin Blaney. Before questioning started, Cst. Blaney outlined the charges and reviewed L.L.’s right to counsel in detail. The interview was briefly paused for L.L. to receive a band-aid for a small cut. Just after noon, Cst. Blaney returned with a significantly expanded list of sixteen potential charges, including break and enter, sexual assault, and multiple counts of assault and uttering threats. After this new list was read, L.L. was again given privacy to speak with duty counsel for a second time. Following that call, he spoke with Cst. Blaney for approximately twenty-five minutes before the interview was concluded and he was taken for a bail hearing.
In court, the Crown sought to admit the 25-minute statement as evidence. The defence fought to have it excluded, launching a series of arguments that L.L.’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated. The defence argued that police had failed to inform L.L. of all the reasons for his detention at the time of his first arrest, specifically that he was a suspect in the arson. It was also argued there were improper delays in providing him his rights and that officers failed to make reasonable efforts to help him contact his own lawyer, instead “steering” him toward duty counsel. In a more serious allegation, the defence suggested that the police themselves had kicked in the cruiser window to cover up the fact that an officer may have accidentally left a door unlocked, and that telling L.L. he broke the window was a form of oppression.
Justice F.L. Lemay presided over a multi-day hearing, known as a voir dire, to rule on these claims. After hearing from nine police officers, the judge rejected the majority of the defence arguments. On the issue of the broken window, Justice Lemay found it was L.L., not the police, who kicked it out. The judge reasoned that L.L. leaving his flip-flops behind was consistent with needing to remove them to kick the window, and that it was highly improbable an officer would fabricate evidence in such a risky manner with firefighters and civilians nearby.
The judge also found no violations regarding L.L.’s right to the counsel of his choice. Justice Lemay noted that while L.L. repeatedly mentioned having a lawyer from his youth, he never provided a name or any information that would allow police to find that person. The decision states that L.L. himself opted for duty counsel for the sake of speed, and the police did not improperly steer him in that direction. The judge also dismissed the argument that Cst. Blaney undermined the legal advice L.L. received, finding that the officer’s use of the phrase “proper lawyer” was a poor choice of words but did not invalidate the interview when considered in context with other moments where the officer showed respect for the legal process.
However, Justice Lemay did find that police committed two breaches of L.L.’s Charter rights. The first and more significant breach occurred at the initial arrest, when officers failed to inform L.L. that he was being investigated for arson. The judge determined that based on the information available at the scene, including L.L.’s alleged threats to burn down the house, police had a “reasonable suspicion” and were obligated to tell him he was being detained for that potential offence. The second, more technical, breach occurred at the second arrest when an officer told him he was being arrested for “flight from police” when the legally correct charge was “escaping lawful custody.”
Despite finding these violations, Justice Lemay ruled the statement was still admissible because the police had made a “fresh start” before the interview began. The judge explained that the initial errors were fully corrected before Cst. Blaney questioned L.L. By the time the formal interview started, L.L. had been informed of the arson investigation and the correct charge for his escape. Crucially, he had been read his rights multiple times and had spoken with a lawyer twice with full and accurate knowledge of the extensive legal jeopardy he faced. Because of these corrective steps, Justice Lemay concluded the statement was not obtained in a manner that was connected to the earlier Charter breaches. The judge added that even if a “fresh start” had not been made, the police conduct was not serious, the impact on L.L.’s rights was limited because the mistakes were fixed, and society’s interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits weighed in favour of admitting the evidence. For these reasons, the judge concluded the statement was given voluntarily and could be used by the Crown as L.L.’s trial proceeds.
Read more crime stories here.
