 |
| John L. Hill |
On Nov. 27, 2025, the Ontario Court of Appeal quashed the conviction of Tim Rees for the 1989 murder of 10-year-old Darla Thurott and ordered a new trial (R. v. Rees, 2025 ONCA 812).
Darla was found strangled in her bed in Etobicoke on March 16, 1989. Rees, then 25, had stayed overnight at the home and was convicted on September 15, 1990, receiving a life sentence. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal (R. v. Rees, [1994] O.J. No. 1325), with leave to appeal to the Supreme Court refused). He served 26 years in prison before being released on parole in 2016.
PashaIgnatov: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
Had the recording been disclosed, it is questionable whether Rees would ever have been charged, let alone convicted. Remarkably, while Toronto police failed to reveal the tape in 1989, the Toronto Police Homicide Cold Case Squad located it in 2016 when responding to Innocence Canada’s request for the original investigative files.
Following the Court of Appeal’s ruling, the now 62-year-old Rees stated, “For the first time in 36 years, I do not carry the burden of the conviction for murdering Darla. I did not murder her, and today’s ruling of the Court of Appeal is a big relief. I feel like my life can start all over again.”
Innocence Canada lawyer James Lockyer said, “The decision of the Court of Appeal is an important step for Tim Rees. He was a victim of extraordinary non-disclosure… Fortunately, his parole officer believed he was wrongly convicted because, without that, he would likely not have been given parole in 2016 and would still be in prison today.”
Co-counsel Jerome Kennedy added, “The Court of Appeal’s decision is a huge and welcome relief for Tim Rees. We at Innocence Canada are proud to have helped him through this ordeal of his wrongful conviction.”
Whether deliberate or through negligence, non-disclosure of highly relevant evidence paved the way for Rees’ wrongful conviction. A central issue was the police's failure to disclose a tape-recorded statement by the landlord. That evidence was material, exculpatory, and directly relevant to an alternative suspect theory. Under R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 SCR 326, the Crown has a constitutional duty to disclose all relevant information to the defence, whether inculpatory or exculpatory.
The tape recording that was subsequently disclosed contained information that directly contradicted the landlord’s trial testimony. It pointed to the landlord as potentially involved and would have fundamentally altered the investigation and trial.
The court was required to determine whether this undisclosed evidence amounted to a Charter breach so serious as to render the trial unfair.
The court had to decide whether the non-disclosure created a miscarriage of justice under section 686(1) (a) of the Criminal Code. The miscarriage arose since the defence was deprived of the ability to challenge a key witness’s credibility, prevented from advancing a viable alternate-suspect theory, and denied evidence that could have deterred police from charging Rees at all. Given that the landlord “testified with impunity, and falsely,” and the defence had no way to impeach him, the reliability of the verdict was gravely undermined.
The case raised the issue of whether the Toronto Police Service’s failure to disclose the taped interview constituted incompetence, negligence, or deliberate suppression. Regardless of motive, the effect was the same: the state breached its procedural obligations, compromising the integrity of the justice system.
The court had to assess whether the circumstances met the threshold for setting aside a conviction on grounds of state-caused unfairness.
The rediscovery of the tape in 2016 formed the basis for a fresh evidence application. The court had to assess whether the tape was credible and relevant, and whether it could have affected the verdict. Would its admission at the original trial have created a reasonable possibility of a different outcome? The tape's compelling nature made the threshold easy to meet.
Because the incriminating evidence against Rees was circumstantial, undermining the landlord's credibility and raising the possibility of another perpetrator, it struck at the heart of the case. The court concluded the conviction was no longer reliable, justifying a new trial.
Under the Criminal Code s. 86, the court could uphold the conviction, enter an acquittal, or order a new trial. Given the substantial original investigative errors, the landlord's death and the age of the case (36 years), the court opted to quash the conviction and order a new trial, leaving issues of guilt or innocence to be determined by a properly informed trier of fact.
It is highly unlikely that the Crown will opt to pursue the matter further. The Rees case checks all the boxes for a classic miscarriage of justice. In other words, it is highly consistent with the Morin, Milgaard, Marshall, Baltovich, and Phillion cases, the “classic” Canadian wrongful conviction profile.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill 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). 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.