 |
| John L. Hill |
Justine Ordonio was convicted in May 2019 of first-degree murder in connection with the April 8, 2015, stabbing death of Mississauga, Ont., spa operator Ming-Chien (Teresa) Hsin. Hsin’s son, Eric Lu, and Mark Dookhram were also convicted of first-degree murder in what the Crown argued was a murder-for-hire plot orchestrated by Lu.
A confession was needed to solve the crime. The Crown admitted that it needed the confession to secure a conviction (R. v. Ordonio, 2019 ONSC 1804). Therefore, Peel Regional Police employed what has become known as the “Reid technique.” Ordonio was interrogated for nearly 13 hours, while falling in and out of
AdrianHillman: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
The Reid technique was developed by American police officer John Reid in the 1950s. It employs an accusatory interviewing style that assumes the subject’s guilt and is used to extract a confession or incriminating evidence during the interview.
In a February ruling, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned Ordonio’s first-degree murder conviction, holding that statements solicited from Ordonio using the Reid method were not voluntary (R. v. Ordonio, 2025 ONCA 135). The court concluded that the trial judge’s determination that Ordonio’s 2015 statement was voluntary and her analysis “was tainted by error.” That resulted in the trial judge admitting the accused’s statement, which was crucial to the Crown’s case.
During the appeal, an intervenor, the Criminal Lawyers’ Association (CLA), submitted that the common law of confessions should be expanded to assume that a confession where the Reid technique is used is involuntary unless that presumption is rebutted.
The Court of Appeal summarized the common law confession rule: If an accused makes a statement to an authority figure and that statement is important evidence in the case, the prosecution cannot use it unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in a voir dire, that the statement was made voluntarily. A judge must examine the context in which the statement is elicited and be convinced of its voluntariness before being admitted (R. v. Tessier, 2022 SCC 35).
Context requires a judge to consider inducements, oppression, police trickery and the presence of an accused’s operating mind. Further, police interrogators should not create an oppressive atmosphere by depriving an accused of food, clothing, water, sleep or medical attention. Nor should police deny access to counsel or be excessively aggressive, intimidating over a long time or suggest the availability of nonexistent evidence (R. v. Oickle, 2000 SCC 38).
The Reid technique attempts to evaluate veracity without mechanical aids such as a polygraph. The case law in Ontario has developed such that it is not by itself objectionable (R. v. Morgan and Smith, 2010 ONSC 3459); rather, it has been left with the judge to determine voluntariness (R. v. Jorgge, 2014 ONSC 6022).
The Ontario Court of Appeal was unwilling to accept the proposition put forward by the CLA that would assume a lack of voluntariness unless rebutted. Since Oickle, courts have been fully aware of the risk of false confessions and have established guardrails to prevent their introduction. Except for R. v. Doyle, 2023 ONCA 427 (the “shaken baby syndrome” death), where Reid technique evidence was wrongly admitted, the system in its present form has worked.
The Ontario Court of Appeal further rejected the CLA position because ascertainment that a Reid technique or some variation thereof was used would consume more judicial resources without apparent forensic benefit than if the existing confessions rule continues in place.
Even though the Appeal Court would not go so far as the CLA would have liked, it did not mean that the Crown was successful in resisting appellate review. The Court of Appeal continued its judgment by finding that the trial judge erred twice in holding the statement was voluntary: (i) the trial judge failed to consider the circumstances of the interview as a whole and assess the cumulative effect or impact of the 13-hour interrogation on the statement’s voluntariness; and (ii) the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error of fact in finding that the appellant did not fall asleep during the interrogation. The trial judge took a “piecemeal” rather than a cumulative approach in assessing the effect of police conduct.
The trial judge’s error in finding voluntariness requires setting aside the conviction and ordering a new trial, during which the issue of voluntariness will be reassessed.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the [True Crime] Story (AOS Publishing). The Rest of the [True Crime] Story has been shortlisted for a prestigious Brass Knuckles Award, which is the Crime Writers’ of Canada’s prize for best nonfiction crime book of the year. Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.