John Doe: Toronto: (Accused's anonymity is explained at the end of this story HL) Toronto Star Courts Reporter Betsy Powell, my friend and former Toronto Star Colleague - a consummate journalist - raises the question of the day: "Did Toronto police conspire to plant a man’s ID as evidence in a gun case — or was it one officer’s ‘honest lie?,’ in a story sub-headed, "The accused walked out of court not only a free man, but with the $5,100 police had seized as alleged proceeds of crime - noting that: "The plea also ends a potentially explosive Charter motion. (The accused's lawyer HL) Hussain had asked a different judge to stay the proceedings entirely, arguing officers lied about finding the ID in a backpack located inside the downtown apartment of his client’s girlfriend. The defence position is that during a debrief, the officers in the case realized that there was “virtually nothing” linking the man to the contraband. The officers then “conspired to lie” that his ID was found inside the apartment, (Defence Lawyer) Hussain wrote in a factum filed with the court."

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Toronto police spokeswoman Stephanie Sayer wrote in an email Friday that she can’t comment on the specifics of the case, but added that the man “pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.” She added, more broadly, if the Crown believes misconduct occurred involving a police officer in court proceedings, that information is brought forward for review by Toronto police. “We take allegations of this nature very seriously and any concerns related to officer misconduct will be addressed through the appropriate processes.”

-----------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The officer’s evidence was “plainly wrong and contradicted” by police photos and videos, the prosecutors wrote in their court filings. “It is unclear how this factual inaccuracy came about, but it is most likely an honest confabulation, not a deliberate fabrication.” Hussain calls this a “pseudo-scientific explanation,” noting that “confabulation” can refer to a medical disorder. Often associated with a brain injury, such as a stroke, confabulation is when a patient “generates a false memory without the intention of deceit,” according to the U.S. National Institutes of Health — “The patient believes the statement to be truthful, hence the descriptive term ‘honest lying.’”

-------------------------------------------

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Earlier this month, when Hussain cross-examined a Toronto officer during the pretrial motion, he learned more photographs had been taken on the day of the arrest. One of them showed his client’s ID on a table, taken April 7, 2024, in a police office during a debrief with all of the officers involved in the search. “The IDs were photographed amongst all the evidence taken from the search of the apartment in order to paint the picture that they were seized in the apartment. No one is willing to explain how they ended up amongst the evidence,” Hussain’s court document argued. Days later, the defence and prosecution had a deal."

--------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Did Toronto police conspire to plant a man’s ID as evidence in a gun case — or was it one officer’s ‘honest lie?’, by my former Toronto Star Colleague Courts Reporter Betsy Ross, published by The Toronto Star, on May 19, 2026. (Betsy Powell is a reporter with the crime, courts and justice team at the Star. She is the author of Bad Seeds: the True Story of Toronto’s Galloway Boys Street Gang.)

SUB-HEADING: "The accused walked out of court not only a free man, but with the $5,100 police had seized as alleged proceeds of crime."

GIST: Did a Toronto police officer “honestly lie” about finding a suspect’s driver’s licence and health card inside a backpack along with fentanyl, cocaine, cash and two loaded firearms?

Or did he deliberately fabricate the damning evidence — and get backed up in court by lying colleagues — as defence lawyer Humza Hussain alleges.

It’s likely we’ll never know for sure, but this past week, Hussain’s client — who had previous convictions for firearm possession and drug offences — walked out of the downtown courthouse a free man after prosecutors agreed to drop a set of serious charges; he instead pleaded guilty to a single firearms offence.

He had been in custody since his arrest on April 7, 2024, and Superior Court Justice Rob Goldstein accepted the joint Crown‑defence submission that the appropriate sentence was time served.

The plea also ends a potentially explosive Charter motion. Hussain had asked a different judge to stay the proceedings entirely, arguing officers lied about finding the ID in a backpack located inside the downtown apartment of his client’s girlfriend.

The defence position is that during a debrief, the officers in the case realized that there was “virtually nothing” linking the man to the contraband. The officers then “conspired to lie” that his ID was found inside the apartment, Hussain wrote in a factum filed with the court.

The Toronto police gun and drug investigation

The Crown insisted the police had no reason to fabricate evidence because the case was so strong. The man had been seen carrying the Guess backpack on video. It also contained his bank card, and a lease agreement with his name was found inside the room where the backpack was found. The woman also told police the night of the search that the backpack belonged to the accused.

After the seizure, his DNA and fingerprint evidence were found on the drugs and one of the guns.

Prosecutors conceded that the defendant’s wallet was discovered in the purse of his co-accused girlfriend — but argued it was only one officer who “incorrectly stated” that the man’s driver’s licence and health card had been found, loose, in the backpack. The officer also wrote in his notes and testified at the preliminary hearing and during the pretrial motion that he found the ID in the backpack.

----------------------------------

PHOTO CAPTION: "Evidence from the backpack seized from the apartment. An officer later wrote down that the man’s driver’s licence had been found in the backpack — it hadn’t.

Ontario Superior Court Exhibit;

----------------------------------

The officer’s evidence was “plainly wrong and contradicted” by police photos and videos, the prosecutors wrote in their court filings. “It is unclear how this factual inaccuracy came about, but it is most likely an honest confabulation, not a deliberate fabrication.”

Hussain calls this a “pseudo-scientific explanation,” noting that “confabulation” can refer to a medical disorder. Often associated with a brain injury, such as a stroke, confabulation is when a patient “generates a false memory without the intention of deceit,” according to the U.S. National Institutes of Health — “The patient believes the statement to be truthful, hence the descriptive term ‘honest lying.’”

Earlier this month, when Hussain cross-examined a Toronto officer during the pretrial motion, he learned more photographs had been taken on the day of the arrest. One of them showed his client’s ID on a table, taken April 7, 2024, in a police office during a debrief with all of the officers involved in the search.

“The IDs were photographed amongst all the evidence taken from the search of the apartment in order to paint the picture that they were seized in the apartment. No one is willing to explain how they ended up amongst the evidence,” Hussain’s court document argued.

Days later, the defence and prosecution had a deal.

In court last Wednesday, prosecutors told Goldstein the trial date — set for next month — was going to have to be rescheduled over “disclosure issues,” which would put at “significant risk” the man’s right to be tried within a reasonable time of 30 months.

“That’s the primary reason why the Crown has agreed to the resolution,” prosecutor Benjamin Janzen told the judge.

Defence allegations ‘certainly not frivolous’

During the brief hearing, the judge agreed to Hussain’s request to file a defence “memo” as an exhibit, described as a “timeline of events that have taken place in this proceeding.” Goldstein said he was admitting it “not for the truth of its contents,” but so it’s clear for the record what the defence position was.

Federal prosecutor Anna Martin said the statement was “largely opinion,” adding that some of the claims didn’t line up with the evidence she recalled from earlier proceedings.

Among other things, the memo states that all the officers who attended the debrief testified in court that they had no knowledge of the IDs. Those officers “lied under oath to protect their participation in the coverup,” Hussain wrote. 

Toronto police spokeswoman Stephanie Sayer wrote in an email Friday that she can’t comment on the specifics of the case, but added that the man “pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.” She added, more broadly, if the Crown believes misconduct occurred involving a police officer in court proceedings, that information is brought forward for review by Toronto police.

“We take allegations of this nature very seriously and any concerns related to officer misconduct will be addressed through the appropriate processes.”

Before granting the man’s release, Goldstein noted the accused had a 2011 conviction for firearm possession and that he “would have been in line for a more significant sentence” if he’d been convicted.

The judge refrained from commenting on the defence allegations, other than to say Humza’s application for a stay was “certainly not frivolous.”

The accused walked out of court that day not only a free man, but with the $5,100 police had seized as alleged proceeds of crime returned to him. (The Star is not naming him because his case is completed and he is no longer facing a period of incarceration.) 

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/did-toronto-police-conspire-to-plant-a-mans-id-as-evidence-in-a-gun-case--or-was-it-one-officers-honest-lie/article_d7d9cab5-fe23-489a-91d7-8f86fa3ac2e5.html

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.  Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;

Stefon Morant: Connecticut: Ongoing civil rights wrongful conviction trial: The New Haven Independent (Reporter Mona Mahadevan) reports that Stefon Morant told a federal jury this week that he was hundreds of miles away from New Haven at the time of the Hill double murder that sent him to prison for two decades, in a story headed, "Morant details N.C. (North Carolina)alibi, "coerced statement" - also noting that, "Several hours after being in the interrogation room, Morant said Raucci (who Stefon Morant has labelled "a corrupt cop" HL) turned on the tape recorder. “If I didn’t give the correct answer he wanted, he would stop and rewind it [the tape],” said Morant. “He would give me the words,” and “he wanted me to make it sound like me.”

QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Stefon Morant told a federal jury this week that he was hundreds of miles away from New Haven at the time of the Hill double murder that sent him to prison for two decades. “Where were you at 4 a.m. on Oct. 11, 1990?” asked Morant’s attorney, Nick Brustin.“Fayetteville, North Carolina, sleeping,” he replied."

--------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Morant’s statement from that interview with Raucci implicated both Morant and Lewis in the crime. It stated that the two of them drove together to the Turner-Fields apartment and that Lewis threw the murder weapon, a gun, into the river near Criscuolo Park.   Morant said he left the police station around 4 a.m. on Jan. 16, 1991. He told a few people about the experience, who all urged him to recant. He returned to the station with his mother.  He recalled a large, bald police officer insisting that he sign the statement. “I said, ‘I’m not signing nothing, because it’s not true.’ Me and my mother left.” “Even though the statement was coerced and fed to you, how do you feel about having made it, even today?” asked Brustin.  It “destroyed not only my life but Scott’s life, allowing these people to do this to me,” said Morant. He pulled out a tissue and dabbed away his tears.

--------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "After that jury handed down a 70-year prison sentence, Morant spent 21 years behind bars. In 2015, he was released after receiving a sentence reduction in a Connecticut Superior Court. He eventually won a full pardon and a $5.84 million wrongful-conviction award from the state."

--------------------------------------------

STORY: "Morant details N.C.  (North Carolina) alibi, "coerced statement," by Reporter Mona Mahadevan, published by The New Haven Independent, on May 20, 2026.

GIST: Stefon Morant told a federal jury this week that he was hundreds of miles away from New Haven at the time of the Hill double murder that sent him to prison for two decades.

“Where were you at 4 a.m. on Oct. 11, 1990?” asked Morant’s attorney, Nick Brustin.

“Fayetteville, North Carolina, sleeping,” he replied.

Morant and two of his aunts first presented that alibi during his original criminal trial in 1994; a jury nevertheless convicted him of the 1990 murders of former alderman Ricardo Turner and his partner Lamont Fields.

On Tuesday, Morant and one of his aunts told the same alibi to a different jury — this time one that is hearing Morant’s claim that he was wrongfully convicted after a “corrupt cop” framed him and Scott Lewis over a drug debt.

They testified in U.S. District Judge Sarala Nagala’s Hartford courtroom in the ongoing civil-rights case that Morant is advancing against the City of New Haven and six former city police detectives.

On Tuesday, Morant donned a tailored white blazer. After swearing to tell the truth, he took a seat in the wood-paneled witness box.

On Oct. 10, 1990, Morant said, he was on a mission to help his older brother, who had just been arrested in New Jersey. “I was trying to get a notary to get my big brother out of jail,” he said.

In the fall of 1990, Morant and one of his brothers had been living with their aunt, Eunice Johnson, in Fayetteville. On Oct. 10, he said he drove from Fayetteville to Summerville, South Carolina to ask for help from another aunt, Vernell Frasier. Johnson and Morant’s then-girlfriend were also in the car, he said.

On Monday, Frasier testified in federal court that Morant had asked her to notarize a bond-related document. She recalled the date clearly because it was her birthday, she said.

“We sat around for a little while, talked,” Morant recalled on Tuesday. He said a florist came by to drop off a bouquet of birthday flowers.

Johnson, Morant, and Morant’s then-girlfriend ended up driving to Georgetown, South Carolina to ask another aunt, Albertha Linnen, to sign paperwork for the bond. They returned to Fayetteville after midnight and went to sleep, he said.

That same night, Turner and Fields were murdered in their Hill apartment — hundreds of miles away from North Carolina.

On the morning of Oct. 11, 1990, Morant said he called his mother from a payphone.

Brustin displayed Linda Morant’s call records on screens in front of the jury in the Hartford courtroom. According to the document, Linda Morant received multiple collect calls from Fayetteville on Oct. 11, 1990.

Brustin also presented a fax that Linda sent from New Haven to Fayetteville on the same day. The document was something that would help secure a bond for her older son, Morant’s brother.

Morant said he stayed in Fayetteville until Oct. 16, 1990, when he took an overnight train to Connecticut.

Three months later, former police Det. Vincent Raucci left his card with Linda Morant and asked to speak with her son, Stefon.

After downing a few drinks and smoking some pot, Morant met Raucci at a gas station on State Street. Raucci drove them to the police station, where Morant said he spent the next six to eight hours.

Morant recalled telling the police dozens of times that he had “no knowledge of the crime.” Raucci “just kept saying he knew I didn’t have anything to do with it [the Turner-Fields murders]. He just wanted Scott Lewis.” 

Several hours after being in the interrogation room, Morant said Raucci turned on the tape recorder.

“If I didn’t give the correct answer he wanted, he would stop and rewind it [the tape],” said Morant. “He would give me the words,” and “he wanted me to make it sound like me.”

Morant’s statement from that interview with Raucci implicated both Morant and Lewis in the crime. It stated that the two of them drove together to the Turner-Fields apartment and that Lewis threw the murder weapon, a gun, into the river near Criscuolo Park. 

Morant said he left the police station around 4 a.m. on Jan. 16, 1991. He told a few people about the experience, who all urged him to recant. He returned to the station with his mother. 

He recalled a large, bald police officer insisting that he sign the statement. “I said, ‘I’m not signing nothing, because it’s not true.’ Me and my mother left.”

“Even though the statement was coerced and fed to you, how do you feel about having made it, even today?” asked Brustin. 

It “destroyed not only my life but Scott’s life, allowing these people to do this to me,” said Morant. He pulled out a tissue and dabbed away his tears.

The key witness who placed Morant in the Hill at the time of the Turner-Fields murder was Ovil Ruiz. Over the years, Ruiz has recanted his testimony, un-recanted his testimony, and recanted once again. During Morant’s ongoing wrongful-conviction trial, Ruiz said Morant had nothing to do with the Turner-Fields murders.

Thomas Gerarde, the attorney representing the City of New Haven in this trial, did not counter Morant’s alibi in court on Tuesday. Instead, he questioned whether Morant ever told police about his alibi.

In January 1991, “You did not say to them, ‘Hey, I was securing a bond for my brother Frank when all of this happened?” asked Gerarde.

“No, sir,” responded Morant.

“What you did say to them was that you were with Scott Lewis” on Oct. 11, 1990, driving towards Howard Avenue, said Gerarde.

Morant agreed.

“A jury heard all of the evidence,” including multiple witnesses placing Morant in North Carolina and South Carolina, and Ruiz saying Morant was in New Haven. “That jury convicted you of felony murder?” asked Gerarde.

Morant replied, “Yes, sir.”

After that jury handed down a 70-year prison sentence, Morant spent 21 years behind bars. In 2015, he was released after receiving a sentence reduction in a Connecticut Superior Court. He eventually won a full pardon and a $5.84 million wrongful-conviction award from the state."

The entire story can be read at: 

https://www.newhavenindependent.org/2026/05/20/morant-details-n-c-alibi-explains-statement-coerced-by-detective/

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.  Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;

21 May: Technology: (Gone Wrong!) The Toronto Star (Court Reporter Betsy Powell) reports that Ontario police are using spyware that lets them remotely take over smartphone and they are fighting to keep almost everything about it secret," noting that: "The police use of ODITs is so secret that police forces have signed agreements to drop serious criminal investigations rather than reveal the name of their vendor."..."In April 2023, Ontario Provincial Police and Windsor Police Service asked a judge for something far more intrusive: authorization to wiretap phones, plant audio probes in homes and vehicles, and to secretly deploy what law enforcement calls “on‑device investigative tools,” or ODITs. Far more than a simple wiretap, these allow police to not just intercept calls, but to directly hack into a target’s phone or computer to extract everything from call logs and photos to encrypted messages, and more. Essentially spyware, an ODIT can grant almost unlimited access. Investigators can capture screenshots, monitor keypresses, access emails and text messages — including those that are encrypted — and even remotely activate microphones and cameras. All without the owner knowing."

QUOTE  OF THE DAY: "The Canadian Civil Liberties Association says the lack of openness is troubling. “If police want to make the case that use of spyware is justified, they need to do this in a transparent manner that fully explains the details and level of intrusiveness of the tool,” Tamir Israel, the CCLA’s director of privacy, surveillance and technology, wrote in an email in response to the Star’s questions.  If the secrecy makes it impossible for police to provide the information courts need to assess these tools, “then these tools are inappropriate for police investigations, and police should not be using them.”

-----------------------------------------------

SECOND QUOTE OF THE DAY: "There are a number of reasons why the vendor should be known, Israel argues. “Different companies have different track records when it comes to their data handling practices, their respect for human rights and more,” he writes, crediting the University of Toronto’s Citizen’s Lab for putting information about specific spyware tools and companies in the public domain. “This is not a tool that police buy and operate themselves, and as a result, you cannot separate the vendor from the tool.”

------------------------------------------------

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In the separate Brampton case, Schofield, Brar and lawyers Leora Shemesh and Michael Little are representing three brothers charged in connection with opium smuggling. They all declined to comment as their cases are before the court. Dubbed Project Vegas, the Crown’s case against the accused drug dealers relies almost entirely on ODIT-derived messages. Defence lawyers are demanding access to the tool’s manuals, configuration details and vendor information, arguing it’s the only way they can make a full answer and defence. The Windsor court documents indicate that federal prosecutors in Brampton have refused to release more than 140 documents related to the ODIT, citing Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act. That section allows the Crown to object to disclosure of information on the grounds “of a specified public interest.”

--------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Ontario police are using spyware that lets them remotely take over smartphone and they are  fighting to keep almost everything about it secret," my former Toronto Star colleague Court Betsy Powell,  (a great reporter) published by The Toronto Star on May 19, 2026.

SUB-HEADING: "The police use of ODITs is so secret that police forces have signed agreements to drop serious criminal investigations rather than reveal the name of their vendor.

May 19, 2026

CAPTION; The Joint Technical Assistance Centre (JTAC) makes local police and prosecutors agree not to disclose key details of the so-called ODITs. JTAC is a collaboration of the OPP, Toronto Police Service, Peel Regional Police, York Regional Police, Durham Regional Police and Ottawa Police Service. Led by the OPP.

GIST: When police in Windsor began looking into an alleged international auto‑theft ring in late 2022, they turned to familiar investigative techniques.

Some officers went undercover, others conducted long hours of surveillance, while the courts gave police permission to hide a tracking device in the alleged ringleader’s car and to intercept his cellphone location.

Within a few months, cellphone data placed the main suspect’s phone near 23 car thefts, sometimes hours apart. Yet, police never caught him actually stealing any vehicles.

Up to this point, it was an investigation like many others — but the police believed it wasn’t enough.

By August, police announced 23 arrests, 279 charges, and more than $9 million in recovered vehicles.

But the case has also done something else: It has pulled back the curtain on how police forces in Ontario — not just in Windsor, but in Toronto and Peel Region — are now using these powerful technologies to reach deep inside suspects’ devices. And despite ODITs growing use in major prosecutions in the province, government lawyers and police are fighting tooth and nail to keep almost everything about them secret: how they work; what safeguards, if any, govern their use; even the names of the companies that sell them.

The secrecy around the tool is so extreme that the Crown may abandon the prosecution rather than reveal the vendor’s identity and details of the ODITs capabilities and limitations, according to a court document filed in Windsor Superior Court. 

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association says the lack of openness is troubling.

“If police want to make the case that use of spyware is justified, they need to do this in a transparent manner that fully explains the details and level of intrusiveness of the tool,” Tamir Israel, the CCLA’s director of privacy, surveillance and technology, wrote in an email in response to the Star’s questions. 

If the secrecy makes it impossible for police to provide the information courts need to assess these tools, “then these tools are inappropriate for police investigations, and police should not be using them.”

The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario — which has previously raised alarms about police use of artificial intelligence, facial recognition technology and genetic genealogy — shares the concern and says the office is “closely monitoring” ODITs in terms of technical capacity, privacy risks, guardrails and ongoing court cases where their use is involved.

Given the privacy and security risks, “it is critical that police adopt and apply an appropriate transparency and accountability framework,” the privacy commissioner’s office said in a statement. 

How Ontario police are using ODITs

On Tuesday, a highly secretive court case involving the use of ODITs is set to resume in Brampton, where prosecutors are fighting to keep details about the spyware under wraps.

Most of the court documents in the opium-smuggling investigation are under seal, pretrial arguments have been held behind closed doors, and the judge’s 146-page decision relating to ODIT-related disclosure remains under a publication ban — at least for now.

The type of ODIT used in both the Windsor and Brampton cases has been “shrouded in secrecy,” defence lawyers Kim Schofield and Miranda Brar wrote in their factum filed in Ontario Superior Court in the Windsor case. Although based in Toronto, the lawyers also represent some of the accused in Project Fairfield, the name of the Windsor vehicle theft investigation.

Schofield and Brar are challenging the constitutionality of the ODIT warrant, saying police did not release volumes of related information to the authorizing judge, nor did they tell him such documentation even existed. They also didn’t tell the judge about the agreement between the police and the Crown to end the prosecution in the event the court orders them to disclose the identity of the ODIT vendor.

This “novel technique” demands “scrutiny and fully informed judicial oversight,” Schofield and Brar write in their filings, arguing they need these details to ensure there was no infringement of their clients’ constitutional rights.

They’re also arguing the warrant is invalid. Police obtained a general warrant when they should have requested a search warrant — hacking into a phone to seize data is essentially a search of the device, they argue.

The CCLA’s Israel says that because police in Ontario appear to be using commercial spyware tools, the public absolutely needs to know whether the currently secret vendor can see, store or access any of the data being collected.

“A court needs to understand the full scope of how the tool is going to operate if it’s going to fully assess its impact,” he wrote.

“This capability is among the most intrusive in terms of the detailed window it can open into any individual’s life and in a democratic society.”

He noted that regimes around the world lacking strong human rights protections have misused spyware tools to spy on political dissidents, journalists, civil society groups, political opponents and others in their home countries and around the world, including Canada.

Why so secret?

In court documents reviewed by the Star, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada says that, like other police techniques, details about how the spyware works must be kept secret if revealing them would compromise future investigations. The accused still gets full access to the evidence gathered — just not the technical play‑by‑play of how police obtained it, the Crown argues.

If disclosure “results in the police no longer having access to an effective technological tool that allows it to intercept communications, then that will have a profound impact on public safety and the ability of the police to do their job,” they write.

In the separate Brampton case, Schofield, Brar and lawyers Leora Shemesh and Michael Little are representing three brothers charged in connection with opium smuggling. They all declined to comment as their cases are before the court.

Dubbed Project Vegas, the Crown’s case against the accused drug dealers relies almost entirely on ODIT-derived messages. Defence lawyers are demanding access to the tool’s manuals, configuration details and vendor information, arguing it’s the only way they can make a full answer and defence.

The Windsor court documents indicate that federal prosecutors in Brampton have refused to release more than 140 documents related to the ODIT, citing Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act. That section allows the Crown to object to disclosure of information on the grounds “of a specified public interest.”

The Windsor court documents reveal ODITs in Ontario are managed by the Joint Technical Assistance Centre (JTAC), a little‑known unit that pools resources from multiple police agencies — the OPP and the local services in Toronto, Ottawa and York, Peel and Durham regions — and is funded by the province.

The court documents say JTAC has a relationship with a private company vendor. But the information is so secret that JTAC is making the Crown and local police sign an agreement to potentially drop major prosecutions rather than reveal the name of the company that made the tool, Brar and Schofield write in their factum. 

Disclosure of sensitive information — including the vendor’s identity, where they’re located, the name of the tool, its capabilities and its technical infrastructure — could impact “relationships with domestic and international partners, and undermine the JTAC’s ability to use the tools and techniques in the future,” reads an “engagement agreement” in the Windsor court documents.

There are a number of reasons why the vendor should be known, Israel argues. “Different companies have different track records when it comes to their data handling practices, their respect for human rights and more,” he writes, crediting the University of Toronto’s Citizen’s Lab for putting information about specific spyware tools and companies in the public domain.

“This is not a tool that police buy and operate themselves, and as a result, you cannot separate the vendor from the tool.”

A parliamentary committee report on the RCMP use of ODITs stated the Mounties have dropped a number of prosecutions rather than reveal key details.

The scrutiny pushed the Mounties, in 2024, to publish a “transparency bulletin” that said ODITs had been used in 32 investigations between 2017 and 2022.

However, in an email responding to the Star’s request for updated information, the RCMP indicated ODITs have only been used in three additional investigations since 2022. “To be clear, ODITs are used extremely rarely and in limited cases,” involving serious criminal and national security investigations, a spokesperson wrote in an email.

They’re also expensive.

A former senior intelligence officer and expert on national security and intelligence told a parliamentary committee that just one operation involving an ODIT “will easily reach half a million dollars. That’s just to make one interception on one target with maybe one device only.""

The entire story can be read at: 

https://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/ontario-police-are-using-spyware-that-lets-them-remotely-take-over-your-smartphone-theyre-fighting-to-keep-almost-everything-about-it-secret/article_56ef6906-4008-48ec-8b4c-d56e57a00ea5.html

Betsy Powell is a Toronto-based reporter covering crime and courts for the Star. Follow her on Twitter: @powellbetsy.

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:  I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system.  Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com.  Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog. FINAL WORD:  (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases):  "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."Lawyer Radha Natarajan: Executive Director: New England Innocence Project; FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions.   They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true;