Supreme Court orders new trial for Peter Khill in fatal shooting of Jon Styres of Six Nations

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Peter Khill, a Hamilton-area man who wasinitially acquittedin the 2016 shooting death of Jon Styres, mustface a new trial.

The trial judge failed to give instructions tojurorson the way in which Khill's role in the shooting should be used to assess the reasonableness of his conduct,JusticeSheilahMartin, in writing for the majority, said in the decision released Thursday.

"Mr.Khill's role in the incident should have been expressly drawn to the attention of the jury," Martinwrote."The absence of any explanation concerning the legal significance of Mr.Khill's role in the incident was a serious error."

Styres, a 29-year-oldfrom Six Nations of the Grand River, was killedaround 3 a.m. ET on Feb. 4, 2016.

After the decision was handed down, CBC spoke to members of hisfamily who said they were "relieved" by the court's judgment and preparingto go through another trial.

Khill's lawyers issued a brief statement that saidhe remains "innocent in the eyes of the law" and "looks forward to defending the matter fully and vigorously at his new trial."

On Thursday, the Supreme Court laidout the facts of what happened on the night of the shooting, saying Khill, who served as a part-time army reservist from 2007 to 2011, was wokenup and sawthe dashboard lights of his truck were on.

Hegrabbed his shotgun from the bedroom closet, loaded it with two shells and "quietly" approached the truck using a back door, barefoot and wearing only a T-shirt and underwear, according to the judgment.

Khillsaw someonebent over the passenger seat and yelled,"Hey, hands up," andwhen the personturned toward him, Khill fired twice, it reads.

The personwas later identified as Styres. The judgment states he was shot in the chest and shoulder and, when Khill searched him, did not find a gun only a folding knife that was in his pocket.

Khilltold a 911 dispatcher and police that he fired in self-defence, believing Styreshad a gun.

Styres family 'stronger' this time

Debbie Hill,Styres'smother, told CBC the family had been "waiting and waiting" for a decision from Canada's highest court.

His aunt, Rhonda Johns, agreed it was a long wait, but said the family was encouraged by the outcome.

"I'm relieved and I'm glad to hear that we're going into trial," she said."Hopefully we have justice for Jonathan once this is all over and for others who may be in the same situation."

Johns said she believes the Supreme Court's decision shows Khill could have called 911, rather than confronting Styres with a shotgun, a suggestion the Crown raised duringthe initial trial.

She added that first trial washard for thefamily, but they're prepared to go through another.

"This time we're stronger."

First trial held in 2018

Khillwas found not guiltyof second-degree murderfollowing a 12-day trial in June 2018, but theCrown appealed theverdict.Aunanimous ruling from the Ontario Court of Appealsaid the trial judge failed to instruct the jury to consider Khill's conduct before he pulled thetrigger.

Khill's lawyersresponded by appealingto Canada's top court, arguing what their client did leading upto the shooting should not change the fact he fired in self-defence.

The Supreme Court dismissed that appeal on Thursday and ordered a new trial.

Justice Martinstatedthecharge to jurors failed to direct them to consider all of Khill's "actions, omissions and exercises of judgment throughout the entirety of the incident."

That may have left a"misleading impression" that the evaluation of how reasonable Khill's actions were should focus on the "mere instant" between when Khillbelieved Styres had a gun and when he shot him, explained Martin.

"Where a person confronts a trespasser, thief or source of loud noises in a way that leaves little alternative for either party to kill or be killed, the accused's role in the incident will be significant," she stated.

Martin addedthat if the jury that acquitted Khill in 2018had been properly instructed, it may have reached a different conclusion.

Thedecision in favour of a new trial was 8-1, though three of the Supreme Court justices reached the same conclusion fordifferent reasons.

Justice Michael Moldaver wrote on behalf of the concurringjustices, statingit wastheir opinion that when it comes to evaluating the reasonableness of someone's prior conduct, it must hit a"threshold of wrongfulness" that would impact the justification of self-defence.

"In this case, I am satisfied that a properly instructed jury could find that Mr.Khill's prior conduct, leading up to his use of lethal force, was excessive, such that it could constitute a 'role in the incident,'" he wrote.

Justice Suzanne Ctdissented from the majority opinion, sayingthe trial judge, in his jury instruction,coveredallof the circumstances leading up to the shooting.She wroteshewould have allowed the appeal and restored Khill's acquittal.

Indigenous leaders following case

Khill's trial has beenclosely followed by Indigenous communities and leaders as it raised similar legal issues to thecontroversial case inSaskatchewan involving thedeath ofColtenBoushie.

Boushie, a Creeman, was shot and killed by Gerald Stanley on Stanley's farm in August 2016. Anot guilty verdict was reached by a jury withno visiblyIndigenous members.

Thedecision led to protests acrossCanada 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 was Indigenous would affect how they viewed evidence.

Race was notraised in evidence during the Khill trial. Inhis closing arguments,Khill'sdefence lawyersaid that inthe pre-dawn pitch dark, there was no wayhis clientcould have knownStyreswasa First Nations man.