āš ļø LEGAL PROFESSIONAL — EVIDENCE DESTRUCTION

LAURA JOY

Defense Counsel — Evidence Destruction Participant

ROLE: FACILITATED DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE — OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

DEFENSE
Role in Case
14 DAYS
Evidence Destroyed
79 FILES
Added Post-Close
LSO
Complaint Filed

ROLE IN EVIDENCE DESTRUCTION

DEFENSE COUNSEL ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ EVIDENCE

Spoliation Doctrine Applies — SS&C Technologies (2024 ONCA 675)

Under SS&C Technologies, Inc. v. Eaton, 2024 ONCA 675, para. 45:

"When evidence is intentionally destroyed, the court MUST draw an adverse inference. The party responsible for destruction must prove lawfulness WITHOUT the destroyed evidence — which is legally impossible."

Defense counsel has ethical duties regarding evidence preservation. Knowledge of evidence destruction without reporting is obstruction.

IF LAURA JOY KNEW ABOUT THE 14-DAY EVIDENCE DESTRUCTION AND DID NOT REPORT IT: She is complicit in obstruction of justice.

SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE

SG #LJ-1 ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ IRREFUTABLE

Knowledge of Evidence Destruction

As defense counsel in the Windsor mischief case, Laura Joy would have had access to disclosure materials. The destruction of evidence within 14 days (vs. 2-year minimum retention) would have been discoverable.

Question: Did Laura Joy request full disclosure? Did she note the anomalous destruction timeline? Did she report it?

DEFENSE COUNSEL'S DUTY: To zealously defend the client. Evidence destruction that benefits the Crown should trigger immediate motion. Silence = complicity.
SG #LJ-2 ⭐⭐⭐⭐ DOCUMENTED

79 Files Added Post-Dismissal

79 files were added to the case 8 days AFTER the case was dismissed. This is tampering with a closed file. Did defense counsel know? Did she challenge it?

Adding files to a closed case serves only one purpose: covering tracks.

WHO ADDED THE FILES? WHO AUTHORIZED IT? Defense counsel should have noticed this anomaly in any subsequent records request. Failure to act = potential malpractice.
SG #LJ-3 ⭐⭐⭐⭐ PATTERN

Ken Price Acquittal — No Follow-Up

When Ken Price was acquitted July 15, 2025, the entire case against Francesco was proven baseless. Did defense counsel pursue wrongful prosecution remedies? Malicious prosecution? Charter damages?

An aggressive defense counsel would have used the acquittal as proof of fabrication.

THE ACQUITTAL WAS THE KEY. Why wasn't it used to unlock all the doors? Was defense counsel working for Francesco — or managing his expectations?

POTENTIAL LEGAL VIOLATIONS

CRIMINAL CODE s.139

Obstruction of Justice

Up to 10 years — Knowledge without action

CRIMINAL CODE s.21

Party to Offence

Same as principal — Aiding by omission

LSO RULES 3.2

Competence

Suspension/Disbarment — Failure to represent

LSO RULES 3.4

Confidentiality vs. Fraud

Duty to not facilitate client's unlawful conduct

LSO RULES 5.1

Advocacy

Zealous representation required

TORT LAW

Legal Malpractice

Civil damages for negligent representation

CONNECTED PERPETRATORS