Peter Khill seeking leave to Supreme Court of Canada
In June 2018, a jury found Khill not guilty of second-degree murder in the death of Jonathan Styres. In February, Ontario’s Court of Appeal ordered him to stand trial again
What Peter Khill did in the moments before he raised his shotgun and fatally blasted the unarmed man breaking into his truck shouldn’t change the fact it was self-defence — or so goes the appeal to Canada’s court of last resort.
Khill’s legal team has filed arguments seeking leave to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In June 2018, a jury found Khill not guilty of second-degree murder even though he admitted to killing Jonathan Styres in the driveway of his Binbrook-area home in the middle of the night. Jurors acquitted the former military reservist because they accepted he had acted in self-defence. He testified he believed Jonathan, who was Indigenous, had a gun. Jonathan did not have a gun.
In February, Ontario’s Court of Appeal ordered Khill to stand trial again. It said the jury ought to have been instructed by trial judge, Superior Court Justice Stephen Glithero, to consider if Khill’s own behaviour provoked the confrontation
that led to Jonathan’s death.
On Feb. 4, 2016, Khill, 26 at the time, and his spouse were woken by a sound outside, then saw a light on inside their truck.
Khill grabbed his legally owned shotgun from his bedroom closet, loaded it with shells from his nightstand and went outside in his bare feet, coming up on Jonathan from behind.
“Hey, hands up!” Khill ordered.
Jonathan did so as he turned and was shot twice, dying almost immediately. He was 29, with two children.
Khill testified he believed Jonathan had a gun and was raising it to shoot and kill him. The jury was instructed to decide if Khill acted reasonably for a person in those circumstances.
The Court of Appeal said the jury should have also considered whether Khill brought on those circumstances by leaving the safety of his home with a gun in the first place, rather than calling police.
Last month, lawyers Michael Lacy and Jeffrey Manishen filed their written arguments to the Supreme Court on behalf of Khill.
“Can a homeowner’s decision to confront a trespasser, rather than cowering and calling for help negate self-defence when the homeowner proactively defends himself in the face of a mortal threat?” they ask, before providing reasons why their answer is no.
Khill did nothing unlawful or immoral leading up to the incident, they wrote.
“In the face of the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of selfdefence, the only reasonable thing to do is call the police, cower in the darkness under our beds, and hope help arrives before the criminal invades our home and kills us and our loved ones.”
Asking a jury to consider Khill’s own actions prior to the event changes the understanding of Canada’s self-defence laws, they argue, and therefore the Supreme Court should rule on the case.
The Supreme Court grants leave to about seven per cent of applicants, of which there are 800 to 1,000 each year.
More criminal cases are heard than civil cases, the court generally taking the position that matters of liberty are more important than money.
Cases that make it to the Supreme Court tend to be of national or public importance or matters that provincial appeal courts cannot agree on.
Khill still faces a civil lawsuit launched by Jonathan’s relatives, which seeks more than $2 million in damages.
When Khill walked out of his trial a free man — after just six hours of jury deliberations — Indigenous communities and allies across Canada were outraged. For them, it raised concerns about the bias of an apparently all-white jury and was another case of a white person getting away with murdering an Indigenous victim.