Calls for judge to apologize to officers in Zameer case are inappropriate: observers

TORONTO — Calls for an Ontario judge to apologize for suggesting three Toronto police officers lied and colluded in a high-profile criminal trial are inappropriate and undermine public confidence in the justice system, some legal observers said Wednesday.

The president of Toronto’s police union urged Ontario Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy to publicly apologize to the officers Tuesday after an investigation by Ontario Provincial Police found no evidence of perjury or obstruction of justice in the case of Umar Zameer.

Premier Doug Ford added his voice to the call Wednesday morning, saying the veteran judge “should apologize for accusing (the officers) of everything under the sun.”

Asked whether the attorney general supports the request, a spokesperson referred the question to Ford’s team, who said the premier’s comments “stand as comment from our government on the matter.”

The OPP report, which challenged some of the trial’s evidence and conclusions, was hailed as vindication by the police union and Chief Myron Demkiw, with both saying Tuesday that the officers’ reputations and credibility had suffered as a result of Molloy’s comments.

Reid Rusonik, a Toronto defence lawyer who was not involved in the Zameer case, said it’s one thing to find there isn’t enough evidence to warrant charges against the officers, but suggesting the judge was wrong in her conclusions denigrates the justice system and comes close to contempt of court.

“Judges never have to apologize for a finding that they make based on the evidence in good faith and there’s absolutely … no evidence that this wasn’t in good faith,” Rusonik said.

“The premier should shut his mouth and let the judges do their job … according to their sworn duty.”

Asking a judge to apologize for findings made in a properly conducted trial is “incredibly unusual and quite frankly … not appropriate given the circumstances,” said Trevor Farrow, dean of York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School.

“People have to remember that we have a really strong criminal justice system in this country… so calling into question that system needs to be done with the utmost care and we have processes for that,” he said.

If there was reason to believe a mistake had been made or justice had not been carried out after the initial trial, the proper process would have been to appeal, he said.

People can also make a complaint to the judicial council if they have concerns about a judge’s conduct, which is not an issue in this case, he said.

“Neither of those were used because at the time there was no view that a mistake had been made, nor had there been any judicial misconduct,” he said.

“To put that into question now is highly irregular and quite frankly not helpful for the perception of justice, either in this case or generally for our justice system.”

The three officers — Det. Lisa Forbes, Det. Const. Antonio Correa and Det. Const. Scharnil Pais — were key witnesses for the Crown prosecuting Zameer, who was acquitted two years ago in the death of Det. Const. Jeffrey Northrup.

Northrup died in July 2021 after he was run over by a car in an underground parking garage at Toronto City Hall.

All three officers testified their colleague was standing in a laneway with his arms outstretched when he was struck, evidence that was contradicted by security video and the testimony of two experts.

Molloy told jurors to consider the possibility of collusion given that the officers all had the same incorrect memory.

In a written decision released after the verdict, the judge said that while there may have been an “innocent explanation” for Forbes’s faulty memory, “it is not possible for officers Pais and Correa to have the exact same image of an event that simply did not happen.”

“Officers Pais and Correa did not see Officer Northrup standing upright while being run down by Mr. Zameer,” she wrote.

“Further, the fact that their versions dovetail so closely with each other and with Officer Forbes leads me to the inexorable conclusion that they not only lied, but they colluded to lie.”

The officers testified they had not discussed their evidence with anyone.

In the report released Tuesday, OPP said they re-investigated the collision after reviewing the findings of the defence and police experts who testified at trial, and found the Toronto police reconstructionist’s work lacking in several aspects.

The OPP reconstructionist instead concluded that Northrup was standing when he was hit by the car. Those findings have not been tested in court.

The report also found that Pais and Correa had “limited opportunity” to consult each other and collude before giving their statements to homicide investigators.

Zameer’s lawyer, Nader Hasan, criticized the investigation and its conclusions Tuesday, painting them as an attempt to relitigate the trial without the checks and balances of the court.

In cases involving public confidence, it’s almost always better to hold a public inquiry rather than have another police service investigate, if only for perception, said Michael Kempa, who teaches criminology at the University of Ottawa.

“Rightly or wrongly, people always have less confidence in what one police service has to say about another. There’s a perception that it’s not independent,” he said.

In that sense, the premier’s comments and the findings of the OPP “do less to bring the administration of justice into disrepute than if it had come from an independent inquiry,” he said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 18, 2026.

Paola Loriggio, The Canadian Press