Livestreamed verdict viewed by 20,000

Justice takes four hours to read out his decision on a YouTube channel

No courtroom can hold 20,000 people.

For the first time, that is how many people watched an Ontario Superior Court judge give a judgment in an online livestream — a step hailed as a breakthrough for court openness.

It took Justice Joe Di Luca four hours to give his 62-page ruling Friday in which he found off-duty Toronto police Const. Michael Theriault guilty of assaulting Dafonte Miller, a 19year-old Black man.

Theriault was acquitted of obstruction of justice, his brother Christian Theriault was acquitted of both aggravated assault and obstruction of justice.

Under normal circumstances, he would have read his reasons before about 50 people packed into a courtroom — perhaps with an overflow room with a television — with the only other view into the court coming from the hurried tweets of journalists.

The rare decision to livestream the judgment — the screen split to show the judge, the lawyers and the Theriault brothers from their various locations — was made for public health reasons that make gathering closely in a courtroom unsafe.

But Di Luca also acknowledged the strong public interest in the case, which raised issues of racism, police accountability and police culture.

He also noted the importance of public and media debate which is an “essential feature of a functioning modern democracy.”

Despite that, the judge warned as he began reading his decision that the law still prohibits taking photos or recordings of court proceedings — meaning media could not take pictures of or even rehost the YouTube stream.

By the time Di Luca read out his judgment on the charges, more than 20,000 people were watching online — a crowd more fit for the size of an NHL arena.

Defence lawyer Annamaria Enenajor said the broadcasting the decision not only brings more people into the courtroom, but provides a view into the court process and shows the court’s commitment to openness.

“I think that is really important for the continued legitimacy of the courts, that people believe they have access to them, that they can see them, that they can be part of the process that has an impact on their communities,” she said.

“I think this is a really bold step for increasing access to justice … and I think this is something that perhaps in the future can continue to be used,” she added.

Di Luca could have simply released his written reasons, but instead chose to read out the entirety of his decision. Judges have different preferences in how they choose to give their decisions, said defence lawyer Annamaria Enenajor.

“A lot of them believe the reasons are more important that the actual results because a person who stands before the court accused of a crime … has the right to know specifically how the judge got to the decision about their fate,” she said.

And by reading out a decision without first stating the verdict, a judge can force a “close and careful attention to the reasons by making you sort of sit on tenterhooks.”