Peter Khill's legal team files appeal to Supreme Court after Ontario court orders new trial

The lawyers representing Peter Khillarguethe Ontario Court of Appeal decision to overturn his not-guilty verdict "fundamentally" changes self-defence in Canada and leaves homeowners with little option but to callpolice and coweruntil they arrive.

Michael Lacy and Jeff Manishenhave filed an application to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

They say what their client did in the lead up to the shooting that killed Jon Styres, an Indigenous man fromOhsweken, Ont., should not change the fact hefired in self-defence.

"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 arguing why they believe the answer is no.

Khill, who spent several years as a part-time reservist, did not deny he fired the two, close-range shotgun blasts that killed Jon Styres from Six Nations of the Grand River, butpleaded not guilty to second-degree murder.

He testified he wasfollowing his military trainingwhen he was woken up around 3 a.m. on Feb. 4, 2016 and saw the lights on in his truck. Court heard he loaded a shotgunand stealthily approached the man who appeared to be stealing his truck.

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 or not Khill acted reasonably, given the circumstances.

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

The Crown appealedthat verdict and and Ontario's Cout of Appeal released its unanimous decision on Feb. 26, 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.

Lindsay Hill, Styres's partner and the the mother of his two children, previously said news of thedecision left her feeling as though aweight had been lifted off her shoulders.

"I now still have some hope that Jon can get the justice he deserves."

Now Khill's legal team hassubmitted their written arguments toCanada's highest court. Supreme Court judges will decide whether to hear the case or not.

The arguments, dated April 2020, argue 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 beds, and hope help arrives before the criminal invades our home and kills us and our loved ones."