Peter Khill files statement of defence in $2M civil suit saying Styres acted 'menacing'

Peter Khill, who was acquitted of murder after hekilled a Six Nations man on his property, has filed a statement of defence ina more than $2 million civil suit brought by the man's spouse and two young daughters.

Incourt documents filed on Nov. 2, the Hamilton-area homeownerdeniesJon Styres' family suffered the injuries, losses and damages described in their statement of claim and rejects most of the otherpoints raised in the suit filed byHamilton's Hooper Law Offices.

• Family of Jon Styres suing man who killed him for $2M

• Peter Khill not guilty in fatal shooting of unarmed First Nations man Jon Styres

Khill, a former Canadian Forces reservist, admitted he shot and killedStyresin Feb. 2016. He was found not-guilty of second-degree murder in Juneafter a two-week trial in Hamilton Superior Court.

Khill'sstatement of defence takes the same position as he did in his criminal trial, that hefired in self-defence. His civil case defence also claimshe felt an "immediate threat of death and/or serious bodily harm" to both him and his wife when he woke up around 3 a.m., saw someone had broken into his truck, and grabbed a 12 gauge shotgun.

The defencerejectsthe lawsuit'sclaim Khill fired "suddenly and without warning" and that he intentionally shot to kill the 29-year-old man fromOhswekenon the Six Nations of the Grand River reserve as he "fled."

The direction Styres was facing when he was shot was a point of contention during the criminal trial, with prosecutors arguing blood spatter evidence showed he was facing toward the truck and the defence claiming he was facing away.

In his statement,Khillsays he knew a garage door openerin his truck could be used by Styres to gain access to the house leaving him to fear a "potentially armed home invasion" was imminent.

The defence adds Styreswas "acting in a menacing and or threatening way."

In their lawsuit, Styres' family said Khill made no attempt to contact the authorities before confronting him. But in his statement, Khilldenies this, despite testifying during the criminal trial that his actions that night were dictated by hismilitary training, which did notinclude calling 911.

None of the allegations in the suit have been tested in civil court.

Brian Simo, the lawyer representing Khill, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on his client's defence.

Khillclaimed self-defence

In thecriminal trial, a jury found Khill, who is white,not guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter in Styres' death.

The former military reservist never denied firing the two close-range shotgun blasts that killed the First Nations man, but said he pulled the trigger because he was following his training and believedStyreswas armed with a gun.

Court heard Styres did not have a gun. He did have a folding knife, but it was closed and found by police in the pocket of his pants.

Public reaction to the verdict was deeply divided. Somesome supported the decision, while others pointed to race as factor in the jury's decision despite each juror being screened forbias during the selection process.

The case drew comparisons the death of ColtenBoushie, a 22-year-old from theRed Pheasant Cree Nation, who was shot and killed by Gerald Stanley, a white farmer,in Saskatchewan.

• Not guilty verdict for Peter Khill shows Canada's justice system still broken after Boushie, says chief

A jury with no visibly Indigenous jurors reached itsnot guilty verdict for Stanley in August 2016. Thedecision led to outrageacross the country and a pledge from federal ministers and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to change "systemic issues" in the justice system.

Following the Khill verdict, Indigenous leaders and activists also called for changes to Canada's justice system and for the verdict to be appealed.

Ontario Regional Chief RoseAnne Archibald issued a statement describingStyresas "another victim of senseless violence."

"This sort of extreme violence shooting an unarmed man is not acceptable in Canada," she said. "No one should place the value of a possession over the sacred life of a human being."

In August the Crown announced it is appealing the not guilty verdict on the basis that Superior Court Justice Stephen Glitherofailedto properly instruct the jury about self-defence and let an unqualified witness give opinion evidence on military training.

• 'It feels like a little bit of hope': Crown appeals Peter Khill not guilty verdict

The lawsuit launched by Styres's spouse, Lindsay Hill and her two daughters was filed on Jan. 31, 2018.

In it the family claimsdamages of $2 million, aggravated and punitive damages of $250,000, pre andpost-judgementinterest and anyother costs the court deems just.

The damages are based on "mental distress," a loss of income and services fromStyresas well as a loss of"care, guidance and companionship as the result of his death."

A trial date has not yet been set.