This article is part of an ongoing series documenting the criminal trials of former high-ranking members of the Thunder Bay Police Service. Here’s what we know so far: Background Ex-Thunder Bay police chief facing jail time for “HomeSense Investigation” Trial of TBPS lawyer Holly Walbourne • 4/13: Morriseau testifies against Walbourne • 4/14: Walbourne defense seeks clarity: “This is uncharted” • 4/14: Deputy chief takes the stand, teases private notebook • 4/15: Timeline of events develops as deputy chief’s testimony concludes • 4/17: Court hears probe into Dimini message • 4/17: Crown rests, HomeSense memos enter court The trial of TBPS police chief Sylvie Hauth is scheduled for May 5

The Crown has rested its case against former TBPS legal counsel Holly Walbourne in her trial for breach of trust and obstruction of justice in connection to “The HomeSense Investigation“.

Walbourne has chosen not to testify in this case.

After hearing testimony from the TBPS deputy chief, former board chair, board secretary, detective, executive assistant, and Walbourne’s legal counsel, the court heard audio recordings of Walbourne’s meetings with the OCPC investigator in the case.

In April of 2021, Tribunals Ontario initiated an investigation into Morriseau’s claims of misconduct during the HomeSense Investigation. They assigned Ian Scott of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to conduct interviews of senior members of the Thunder Bay Police Service.

Nearly four hours of Ian Scott’s interviews with Walbourne came before court on Thursday and Friday.

Constable Michael Dimini’s text from Brian Webster and Walbourne’s September 2020 visit to Morriseau’s home was discussed during Scott’s first meeting with Walbourne. A summary of that discussion is available here. Two months later, Scott contacted Walbourne again after obtaining additional privileged information.

The Crown is looking to prove that Walbourne was aware of a criminal investigation into former board chair Georjann Morriseau before December 9, 2020, knowingly misled the police board in Hauth’s October 2021 memos, and lied to Scott about that knowledge in her interviews with him.

05/06/22 OCPC interview: Hauth’s memos to the board

A working timeline of events during the HomeSense investigation, drawn from email records and witness testimony, is available here.

Scott shared lines from Sylvie Hauth’s October 12 confidential board memo and her October 18 revision in his second meeting with Walbourne. This is the first time direct quotes from the memoranda have been brought before the court. The Oct. 12 memo opens: “In December 2020 it was brought to my attention by the deputy chief of police that he had reason to believe Georjann Morriseau had engaged in a potentially criminal act by communicating information regarding a complaint and ongoing investigation into a TBPS officer.”

Scott asked Walbourne, “We know that date isn’t accurate, right?” She replied that her role in drafting the memo was honest at the time, based on her personal knowledge of events. She said she drafted the memo using the phone call with Hughes and Hauth on November 30 and the call with Hughes on December 9, and she did not know of the email exchanges between Hauth and Hughes between those dates.

In the amendment to the memo, Hauth changed the date from December 2020 to late November 2020.

Former Police Chief Sylvie Hauth (left) and former police board chair Georjann Morriseau (right) (file photo)

Scott also pointed out an edit in a line of the first memo that read: “A phone call occurred on November 30 between the deputy chief, Holly Walbourne and I in which we agreed the interview [of Jason Rybak] would proceed and based on the outcome, we would contact the phones through a production order.” Scott noted there was handwritten edit that changed the last “would” to “could”, and added “if needed” at the end of the sentence.

By November 30, 2020, the interview of Rybak had already occurred, and the production order was already requested. Scott mentioned this in the meeting, and mentioned Hughes’ email to Hauth (which Walbourne was not included on) that same day telling her Rybak was “squirming”.

Scott suggested that many of the edits to the memo appear to be an effort to portray the November 30 phone call as concerning the possibility of a criminal investigation, rather than one already underway.

Walbourne again said she was not aware of any criminal investigation at the time of the first draft, and she could not speak to who revised the second draft, which was written after (and as a result of) Hughes’ October 14 email confirming his correspondence between him and Hauth regarding the HomeSense investigation.

Walbourne also mentioned that Hauth may have been made aware of an investigation, but she didn’t approve it. She said she doesn’t agree revisions to the memo were made with any ulterior intent, just that it was a convoluted situation they were trying to put to paper.

Crown rests its case

After hearing the entirety of the Ian Scott interview with Walbourne, the Crown rested. The defense stated they have no other evidence to bring before court.

The court will reconvene Tuesday to hear submissions from the defense. In Canada, there are no mandatory minimum sentences for obstruction of justice or breach of trust. Both offences carry significant maximum penalties, though those maximums are rarely imposed. Obstruction of justice can result in a sentence of up to 10 years’ imprisonment if prosecuted by indictment, while criminal breach of trust carries a maximum penalty of up to 14 years in prison.