The Court of Appeal for Ontario has dismissed a Cambridge man's claim that a judge who convicted him in 2020 was wrong to conclude a Waterloo regional police officer used reasonable force when he shot him in March of 2018.
Joshua Hannaford was convicted for break and enter, stealing a van, and possession of a stolen wallet containing $3,000, two rifles and some ammunition.
He was located by a Waterloo regional police officer in the van near Highway 401 and Old Mill Road in Blair. He had driven the van into a field and it was stuck. When confronted by the officer, he refused to drop a bag he was carrying. He also refused to put up his hands when an officer instructed him to do so.
As he fled, he turned towards an officer and said words to the effect of “want to die.”
Thinking Hannaford had a gun, the officer shot at him six times, injuring his leg.
The suspected gun was later found to be a knife.
Hannaford was convicted on all counts in March 2020 by Justice Antonio Skarica who dismissed his application for a stay of proceedings on the alleged use of excessive force by the arresting officer.
In appealing the conviction, Hannaford claimed the trial judge erred in dismissing his application and said Skarica "misapprehended the evidence of the so called 'one plus one policy.'"
It refers to the police practice of assuming there is another outstanding weapon when one has already been found. Two rifles were found in the van Hannaford had stolen prior to his arrest.
The appeal also claimed the trial judge "misapprehended the evidence" relating to what Hannaford said shortly before he was shot.
In general, the appeal challenged the trial judge’s ultimate conclusion that the force used by the arresting officer was not excessive.
In dismissing the appeal this week, the court concluded the trial judge did not misuse the “one plus one policy” and called it a "false assumption that the outstanding weapon must be the same type of weapon as the one already found."
The court also said the trial judge did not misinterpret Hannaford's “want to die” statement.
"Whether this was meant and perceived as a direct threat to the officer, or whether the utterance actually reflected the appellant’s wish to be shot and killed by the police, it did not change the emergency situation faced by the officer," the decision reads.
"It must be remembered that when he made this utterance, the appellant turned towards the officer and, as it turns out, he was armed with a knife."
The court saw no error in the trial judge's approach on the use of reasonable force.
During his trial, Hannaford's defence took the position that the officer was not justified in discharging his firearm at all.
But on appeal, the same lawyer conceded "the officer was justified in discharging his firearm the first couple of times, but was not justified in continuing to fire at the appellant after he turned away from the officer."
The court called it "a fair concession" but said it does not strengthen Hannaford's position.
"It reduces relevant time frame to as few as three seconds in a dynamic situation on the side of a major highway."
In the end, the court concluded Hannaford failed to meet his onus to prove the officer's decision to shoot was unreasonable under the circumstances.
