Arson case tossed after Crown outs confidential informant. Toronto judge calls prosecution ‘amongst the worst I have ever encountered’
“Inadvertently revealing confidential source information is one of the most serious errors Crown counsel can make,” Ontario Court Justice Brock Jones wrote.
Dec. 3, 2025
3 min read
“The Crown, and the Crown alone, bears responsibility for this prosecution falling apart.”
Andrew Francis Wallace/Toronto Star
Jacques-Gallant
By Jacques GallantCourts and Justice Reporter
For the second time in two months, the Crown’s inadvertent disclosure of information about a confidential informant has contributed to the collapse of a Toronto criminal case.
The prosecution’s error came to light in the case of a man accused of arson, which was tossed due to delay in a ruling excoriating the Toronto Crown attorneys’ office.
“The unnecessary delay that accumulated in this case was entirely due to the Crown’s failure to effectively manage the prosecution and to provide the disclosure materials in a timely manner,” wrote Ontario Court Justice Brock Jones.
“The pace of disclosure in this case and the Crown’s handling of its own file is amongst the worst I have ever encountered.”
Prosecutors outed a confidential informant. Now, a Toronto judge has tossed ‘very serious’ charges — and two people are in ‘grave danger’
Prosecutors outed a confidential informant. Now, a Toronto judge has tossed ‘very serious’ charges — and two people are in ‘grave danger’
The Crown had accidentally shared information that could identify a confidential source in materials disclosed to the defence, which it then had to claw back after realizing its error, resulting in additional delay to a case already plagued by issues.
“Inadvertently revealing confidential source information is one of the most serious errors Crown counsel can make,” Jones wrote. “However it happened, it was a serious failure on the part of the Crown’s office and added to the mounting disclosure problems in the prosecution.”
Jones cited a Toronto case in the Superior Court of Justice first reported by the Star last month, in which a judge tossed an individual’s unspecified “very serious charges” after the Crown inadvertently revealed that their relative was a confidential informant, putting both in “grave danger” of being killed. The two were told to immediately go into witness protection.
There was no indication that the accused before Jones was a confidential informant — the Star isn’t naming him as he is no longer facing criminal charges — but rather the police appeared to rely on the information of a confidential source as part of their investigation.
The accused man was facing an arson charge in relation to a fire set at a downtown bar; one of his lawyers, Alison Craig, said he had been in custody since his June 2024 arrest because he didn’t have family or friends who could act as sureties — individuals who promise to the court that they’ll ensure the accused abides by their bail conditions.
“He has maintained his innocence since day one, and it was quite frankly heartbreaking to visit him repeatedly and tell him that there had been no movement on his case because the disclosure was so delayed,” said Craig, whose co-counsel, Sigma Khan, argued the delay application before Jones.
Craig said the inadvertent disclosure of information about confidential informants by the Crown is becoming a growing issue, mentioning that in a few of her cases, she’s received an email from the prosecutor hours or days after receiving disclosure asking her to destroy it.
“I do not know what is causing this to be a more common problem, other than perhaps overworked Crown offices,” she said.
The Supreme Court of Canada has said that cases in provincial court must be completed within 18 months or they must be tossed for violating an accused person’s constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time, unless the Crown can show there were exceptional circumstances for the delay, with delays on the side of the defence deducted from the calculation. The top court also left the door open to tossing cases below the 18-month ceiling, in certain circumstances.
The accused conceded that about three months of delay in his case was defence-related. His trial was anticipated to conclude in March 2026, which would put it over the ceiling, but the Crown said it believed the trial could be completed below the ceiling by the end of January. Regardless of whether the case was over or under the ceiling, Jones said it had to be tossed.
Despite “multiple requests” by Craig, the Crown was slow in disclosing materials to the defence, the judge said. He also criticized the assigned prosecutor at the time for the “unprofessional error” of failing to show up at two judicial pre-trial hearings, which is where the Crown and defence work out trial issues with a judge and discuss missing disclosure items.
Initial disclosure wasn’t received until six months after the man’s arrest, and “significant items” remained outstanding for a year, even though they would have been in the police’s possession since the arrest, Jones wrote. The Crown then dropped “several gigabytes” of material on the defence this past July.
“When the Crown fails to act with the degree of professionalism and due diligence that must be demanded of any criminal prosecution, it is responsible for the adverse outcomes that will inevitably follow,” the judge wrote.
All of the materials should have been disclosed within two to three months of the arrest, Jones said, but no explanation was provided for the delay.
“I conclude that as the disclosure problems associated with (the) prosecution grew, careless mistakes were being made,” Jones wrote. “The Crown, and the Crown alone, bears responsibility for this prosecution falling apart.”
