Defence, Crown rest cases in J.P. Levesque trial

The Crown and defence both rested their cases Monday afternoon in the trial for Thunder Bay Police Chief J.P. Levesque.

While the morning was full of questions for retired Police Chief Bob Herman, who was on the stand, the afternoon was full of technical and closing submissions.

• Defence calls retired Police Chief Bob Herman as witness at J.P. Levesque trial
• Defence calls Police Chief J.P. Levesque as 1st witness in day 4 of trial

Herman set the stage for the day Monday morning, re-iterating much of what Levesque testified on Friday regarding how police chiefs have discretion when it comes to following and setting their own internal policies.

The testimony delivered by Herman flowed into the closing statements delivered, for more than two hours, by defence counsel Brian Gover.

Gover pointed to Levesque's "stellar, immaculate record" as a police officer, saying that the "decision [was the] best one in the circumstance," to tell Keith Hobbs about an investigation into extortion allegations.

"What is the likelihood...that he would suddenly throw it all away?", Goverasked to Justice Warkentin.

Gover reminded the court that the burden of proof in the case is on the Crown, and all that needed to be established was reasonable doubt for an acquittal for Levesque. Goversaid it was," not an illicit scheme" when Hobbs was told about the charges, as had been previously said by the Crown.

Gover referred to a long list of case law, and then refutedall of the case law presented by the Crown.

Goversaid what Levesque did was not a marked departure from the standard of a police chief, and he did not obstruct, pervert or intend to obstruct justice when he told Hobbs about the investigation.

The defence said discretion, which was questioned many times over the past two days, was based on abstract duties, andnot the written policies. The defence also said the Crown had failed to examine any policies put in place by the Thunder Bay Police Services Board - who hired Levesque, and policies that he would be unable to change.

The Crown's theories of "a scheme" to either avoid a betrayal from Hobbs, stop the extortion or to "bury the examination" is "all far fetched in the extreme" according to Gover.

Goversaid if it was a scheme, Levesque would not have told the RCMP about his conversation with Hobbs so openly, nor about his conversation with Police Services Board Chair Jackie Dojack.

Gover concluded that beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence was lacking, as Levesque acted in the utmost good faith, as any type of conspiracy theory is lacking good sense.

Gover said the Crown has failed to prove its case, and he is asking for an acquittal.

Crown's closing submission

The Crown, Jason Nicol, said Levesque testified he can deviate from the policies and law as he deems appropriate, leading to the obstruction of justice charge.

He called it a "shocking statement" when Levesque testified he was already considering telling Hobbs about the investigation, shortly after being notified by the RCMP about the charges.

Nicol said Levesque was willfully blind as to what would happen when he spoke with Hobbs - and that is not an acceptable defence.

Nicolsaid there is a "clear and overwhelming case" on Levesque's breach of trust charge.

He said Levesque was an official, and breached the standard of his duties in telling Hobbs about the investigation. Specifically, he breached the code of conduct in the Police Services Act, and that Levesque did not have the right to breach Thunder Bay Police Services policies as he saw fit.

Nicoltoldthe court that Levesque had no legitimate, law enforcement reason to tell Hobbs of the investigation, there was no precedent to proceed with telling him, and that he acted with a partial purpose in mind.

The crown did say telling city manager Norm Gale and Police Services Board chair Jackie Dojack about the Hobbs investigation was not criminal.

"He knew what he was doing was wrong," said Nicol, who said that Levesque only told retired Deputy Police Chief Andy Hay about the conversation with Hobbs beforehand, as Hay was a friend and confidant, who would always be on the side of Levesque.

• Crown alleges 'scheme', cover up at J.P. Levesque trial

The crown also said there were inconsistencies in why Levesque told Hobbs about the investigation, saying the reason to protect Deputy Chief Sylvie Hauth made no sense.

Nicolsaid he put more weight on officer Sue Kucharik'stestimony than others, that it was a "professional courtesy" to Hobbs.

Nicol said the only viable defence is an error in Levesque's judgment, but that Levesque testified he still does not see any issue with what he did, and that with the fear of another high profile case hitting the city, "desperate times call for desperate measures" for Levesque.

Nicolsaid he is looking for two findings of guilt, but particularly on the breach of trust charge.

Defence response

Goverresponded by saying Levesque has never been above the law at any point in his career, and the Chief of Police has a broader interest in the service than one investigation.

Goversaid the Crown is "grasping at straws" and "manufacturing something that does not exist" in the case.

Gover said the Crown failed to establish the purpose, and misuse of office that would see Levesque found guilty.

The matter will now be sent to assignment court on Monday, December 18, to set a date for the verdict.