When Doug Ford stood next to family members of Andrew Cristillo, the Ontario father who was killed in a head-on collision in August, the premier didn’t mince words.
“This wasn’t an accident, it was a murder,” said Ford, speaking to reporters on Sept. 5.
The accused, Jaiwin Victor Kirubananthan, is facing several charges, including dangerous driving causing death. He is not facing murder charges, and the charges against him have not yet been tested in court.
Ford himself has a personal connection to the case. The same man was already facing charges related to a collision in January with an OPP vehicle in which the premier was travelling. The story of Cristillo and his grieving family is also no doubt one that has stirred many emotions.
Even so, some lawyers say Ford should be more careful about wading into criminal cases that are before the courts. His comments on the Kirubananthan case are not the only recent example, and lawyers say they come with risks, including prejudicing juries and contributing to misinformation.
“It’s not a great look. It disrespects the presumption of innocence, it disrespects the judicial process and the fact finding process in a criminal case,” said Adam Weisberg, a criminal lawyer in Toronto and vice president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association.
The premier does often decline to comment on cases, citing that they’re before the courts, but his approach is not consistent. Ford’s office did not respond to CBC Toronto’s request for comment.
In August, the announcement by local police in Lindsay, Ont., that a resident had been charged for allegedly assaulting a home invader made headlines and sparked debate across the country.
Ford was one of many to weigh in, and he did so completely unprompted.
He brought up the case while speaking with reporters on Aug. 20, saying the charges show “something is broken,” and that people should be able to “use all the resources you possibly can” to protect their families.
Ford — like the general public — was not “privy to the facts of what happened that night,” notes Shakir Rahim, director of the criminal justice program with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA). Therefore, Ford was not in a position to make informed comments about the case, and whether the charges were reasonable, Rahim said.
It’s not the first time Ford has weighed in on a criminal case without knowing all the facts. A high profile example occurred in 2021, when Ford was one of several public officials to voice unhappiness with Umar Zameer being granted bail, writing on social media that it was “completely unacceptable.”
Zameer was facing charges including first-degree murder in the death of Const. Jeffrey Northrup, but was later found not guilty.
Asked about the social media post by reporters after the verdict in April 2024, Ford said “at that time, I had limited information.”
Maintaining the presumption of innocence is important, said Jennifer Rooke, vice-chair of the Federation of Ontario Law Associations. But “freedom of expression is there to a certain extent,” and she said she believes most of Ford’s comments likely wouldn’t get him into legal trouble.
However Rahim, with the CCLA, argues that when the premier or other high profile officials weigh in “it can raise issues like the prosecution itself being compromised,” particularly if the comments risk prejudicing a jury.
Rahim points to past court cases where this issue has come up. In 1982 in Quebec, a judge declared a mistrial in a high profile case against an RCMP officer, because of comments made by then-premier René Lévesque in the National Assembly which could have influenced the jury.
In 1997 in Ontario, a judge cautioned the attorney general over comments he had made related to a case, advising him “to heed the practice of not commenting on the potential guilt of anyone with respect to any offence that is under investigation by the authorities or before the courts.”
When public officials like a premier weigh in on cases it can contribute to “public misinformation about a case,” Rahim said, and in extreme cases, it risks contributing to “tunnel vision” where a person is widely perceived as guilty, despite not having had the charges tested.
Weisberg, the criminal lawyer, also worries that when someone like the premier weighs in on cases, it can cause people to have doubts in police, the Crown and the justice system as a whole.
“We have to remember that in Canada we have an enviable justice system, one of the most fair, respected justice systems in the world. It’s a model for other jurisdictions,” Weisberg said.
He said he sees “little upside” to the premier’s habit of weighing in and argues the premier should be shaping policy based on broader analysis, rather than “one-off” situations.
