Supreme Court to hear appeal in case of Peter Khill, acquitted in shooting ruled self-defence

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear an appeal in the case of Peter Khill, a Hamilton-area homeowner who was acquitted after shooting and killing an Indigenous man in his driveway.

Khill's lawyers filed anapplication to appeal an Ontario Court of Appealruling that overturnedtheir client's not-guilty verdict in the death of Jon Styres based on self-defence and ordered a new trial.

Michael Lacy and Jeff Manishen argued that the Appeal Court's decision"fundamentally" changedself-defence in Canada and leaves homeowners with little option but to callpolice and coweruntil they arrive.

On Thursday, the country's highest court released its decision, saying theapplication for leave to appeal from Khill's legal team had been granted.

Rhonda Johns, Styres's aunt,said the family was disappointed by the decision.

"We were pretty upset. Pretty angry that we have to go through this again," she said.

Lindsay Hill, Styres's partner and the the mother of his two children, echoed a similar sentiment, calling the decision "saddening."

"We are struck by the exceedingly long delay in obtaining justice, but my family and I will continue to move forward and prepare for the Supreme Court hearing," she wrote.

For their part, Khill's legal team released a briefstatement saying he "appreciates the opportunity to have the important issues raised by the Court of Appeal's decision further considered by the Supreme Court of Canada."

Khill, who spent several years as a part-time reservist, did not deny he fired the twoclose-range shotgun blasts that killed Styres, a 29-year-old man from Six Nations of the Grand River, but he pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder.

He testified at his trial that he wasfollowing his military trainingwhen he was woken up at about3 a.m. on Feb. 4, 2016, and saw the lights on in his truck. Court was toldhe loaded a shotgunand stealthily approached the man who appeared to be stealing his vehicle.

Khilltold the juryhefired in self-defencewhen he yelled, "Hey, hands up!" and Styres turned toward him with his hands movingup to"gun-height."Styres was unarmed.

The jury was tasked with determining whether Khill acted reasonably, given the circumstances.

Khillwas found not guiltyfollowing a 12-day trial in June 2018.

The Crown appealedthat verdict, and the OntarioCout of Appeal released its unanimous decision in February, saying the trial judge failed to instruct the jury to consider Khill's conduct leading up to the moment the trigger was pulled and Styres was killed.

That failure "left the jury unequipped to grapple with what may have been a crucial question in the evaluation of the reasonableness of Mr. Khill's act," reads the48-page decision.

The court overturned the verdict and ordered a new trial. That is the decision the Supreme Court will review.

Family hopes for justice

Johns said she spoke with Styres's mother, Debbie Hill, who wasfrustrated by the news.

"I was disappointed to hear that the appeal is going to hear his side, knowing what his intent was right from the get-go," Johns said, "But there's still hope that our appeal will override that in the future.

We want justice so that it won't happen again to others."

Lindsay Hill also said she's confident the appeal court's decision will be upheld.

"The just result is to have a new and fair trial," she stated.

In their application to the Supreme Court, Khill's lawyers saidwhat their client did in the leadup to the shootingshould not change the fact hefired in self-defence.

The arguments, dated April 2020, say that if the Appeal Court's decision is left to stand, it "fundamentally changes the law of self-defence in Canada" and "improperly dilutes legal justification to a shell of its former self."

While one homeowner may flee from danger, another may find it reasonable to confront an intruder and arm himself in defence, they state.

"In the face of the Court of Appeal's interpretation of self-defence, the only reasonable thing to do is call the police, cower in the darkness under our bedsand hope help arrives before the criminal invades our home and kills us and our loved ones."

Case closely followed byIndigenous leaders

The trial was closely watched by Indigenous community leaders because it raised similar legal issues to a controversial case in Saskatchewan involving thedeath ofColtenBoushie, a Creemanshot and killed by Gerald Stanley on Stanley's farm in August 2016.

In that case, anot-guilty verdict was reached by a jury without anyvisibly Indigenous jurors, adecision that led to protests across the country and a pledge from federal ministers and the prime minister to change "systemic issues" in the justice system.

Unlike the Stanley verdict, the 12 people who decided Khill should be acquitted were screened for racial bias and askedwhether the fact the accused was white and the victim Indigenous would affect how they viewed evidence.

The trial also heard that race didn't play a role in the shooting itself.