Self-defence focus of appeal in death of Indigenous man

TORONTO — The legalities of self-defence and what constitutes “reasonable” actions are the focus of the Crown’s appeal of a Hamilton-area homeowner’s acquittal in the fatal shooting of an unarmed Indigenous man in 2016.

Peter Khill, of Binbrook, Ont., was found not guilty in 2018 of second-degree murder in the death of Jon Styres of the Six Nations of the Grand River.

Khill testified at trial that his training as a military reservist — he served from 2007 to 2011 — kicked in when he heard a noise outside his home in the early morning hours on Feb. 4, 2016, then grabbed his shotgun and loaded it. Court heard Khill left his house quietly, did not call 911 or turn on the outside lights, and snuck up on Styres.

He said he saw a shadowy figure leaning into his truck, then the man made a move with his hands — which is when Khill shot him twice.

Prosecutor Susan Reid said Monday at the Court of Appeal that the key question in the Crown’s case is, “Did the respondent act reasonably in lawful self-defence?”

She said the provisions of selfdefence discuss what a “reasonable” person would do in the same situation, and Khill did not act reasonably.

The trial judge made four errors, Reid said, including when he directed the jury to consider Khill’s military training as a factor in his self-defence.

“The military training is not a relevant characteristic for a reasonable person,” said Reid.

The court heard Styres, 29, was shot in the chest and through the arm into the chest.

He died minutes later.