Peter Khill will once again be put on trial for murder

Supreme Court of Canada upholds Court of Appeal for Ontario decision to overturn acquittal

A Supreme Court of Canada decision that sends Peter Khill to a new murder trial also compels juries and judges on self-defence cases to consider the accused’s actions and choices.

The judgment, handed down Thursday morning, says the jury that acquitted Khill of second-degree murder should have been told by the judge to take into account Khill’s actions and decisions before he shot and killed Jonathan Styres in his Binbrook-area driveway five years ago. Though Justice Stephen Glithero went over some of those details in his charge to the jury — that Khill loaded a legally-owned shotgun then went outside to confront Styres — he failed to instruct the jurors to specifically consider them when rendering the verdict.

Jurors ought to have been instructed to decide if the shooting was reasonable under the circumstances or if Khill’s behaviour provoked the confrontation that led to the homicide.

Justice Sheilah Martin, writing for the majority, explained that a “person’s role in the incident” refers to “the person’s conduct … during the course of the incident, from beginning to end, that is relevant to whether the ultimate act was reasonable in the circumstances.”

Martin says if properly instructed, jurors may have found Khill’s conduct

increased the risk of a fatal confrontation. And it might have changed the verdict.

She raises the possibility Khill could have avoided the need for deadly force by calling 911, shouting from the window or turning on the lights.

Styres’ mother, Bobbi Hill, was “quite pleased,” with the court’s decision.

His partner, Lindsay Hill, with whom he had two daughters, said in a statement: “The Supreme Court’s decision brings to the forefront the problem with the acquittal, the jury system and highlights the complexities of ensuring that juries are fair and given the proper information to effectively assist them.”

His aunt, Ronnie Johns, says the family’s “hearts were lifted” because it offers another chance to “get justice for Jonathan.”

Khill “should have called 911 instead of getting the gun and sneaking around in the dark and shooting,” she says. “He didn’t have any common sense whatsoever. He wanted to take matters into his own hands.”

Jeff Manishen, Khill’s trial lawyer, told The Spectator: “Mr. Khill continues to be innocent in the eyes of the law and looks forward to defending the matter fully and vigorously at his new trial.”

Khill, a former part-time military reservist, admitted to killing Styres because he — mistakenly — thought he had a gun.

Khill fatally blasted Styres with a shotgun in the early morning hours of Feb. 4, 2016.

Khill, 26 at the time, and his spouse awoke in their Binbrook area home to a noise outside. They looked out to see a light on inside their truck. Khill grabbed his shotgun, loaded it and went outside in his bare feet.

He quietly approached Styres from behind and ordered “Hey, hands up!”

Styres, a 29-year-old father of two, turned and raised his empty hands to what Khill described as “gun height.” Khill shot him twice.

Khill testified he believed Styres had a gun and his life was in danger. Styres did not have a gun. The Crown suggested that had Khill stayed in the house and called 911, no killing would have taken place.

In June 2018, a Hamilton jury found Khill not guilty of second-degree murder.

The Crown appealed that verdict and in February 2020 the Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered a new trial.

The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in February 2021. In the Supreme Court judgment, eight of the justices agreed there should be a new trial, while one justice dissented.

The Supreme Court does not try the facts of the case, but rather considers contentious legal issues of national importance. Only a few dozen cases make it to the highest court in the land each year.

The self-defence section of the Criminal Code was last amended in 2013.

What was not at issue in the Supreme Court judgment or for the provincial Court of Appeal is that Khill is white and Styres was Indigenous. However for many across Canada, those facts stood out and the case represented the latest in a series of murder trials in which white people were acquitted of killing Indigenous people.

Responding to the Supreme Court decision, Six Nations of the Grand River — where Styres and his family are from — issued a statement.

“Our people deserve a justice system that functions well and serves all people with equity, a system in which we can place our trust,” it says, calling the judgment “a step towards a more comprehensive resolution of the case.”

“It is our hope that this new trial will be fair, focus on accountability, and pursue the truth.”

Race was not an overt issue during Khill’s trial in Hamilton. Neither the Crown nor defence raised it as a factor in the shooting. Yet both sides made it an issue during jury selection. They agreed to ask each potential juror: “Would your ability to judge the evidence in this case without bias, prejudice or partiality, be affected by the fact that the deceased victim is an Indigenous person and the person charged with this crime is a white person?”

It was unclear if any of the jurors were Indigenous.

And there was one partial sentence Khill uttered on the witness stand that raised eyebrows. He was asked what he expected when he went outside that night.

“Growing up in Wilsonville, we’re fairly close to Six Nations reserve …” he said before his lawyer cut him off.

To some in the courtroom that day, including members of Styres’ family, that unfinished sentence suggests race was an issue for Khill.