On September 23, 1985, Ontario Provincial Court Judge Arthur Meen stated:
And it was not as though those human lives were being taken lawfully, for in fact, the Clinic was operating outside the law, and such was therefore murder. The irony of this entire matter is that, on the one hand we have a clinic performing abortions openly, blatantly and outside the law, yet on the other hand all the while enjoying policy protection which enabled them to carry on those activities.
On February 10, 1986, another Provincial Court Judge, Lorenzo DiCecco stated the following:
On the basis of Doctor Scott’s testimony in this case, the Court has no hesitation to state that the actions of the occupants of 85 Harbord Street constitute a prima facie case of violation of Section 251 of the Criminal Code. Further that the defendants’ belief of such breach of Section 251 of the Criminal Code was not mere speculation on their part.
Private citizens are acting lawfully in padlocking the back gates of the Morgentaler abortuary.
On February 10, 1986, Judge DiCecco further stated:
The fact that the most senior Crown law officer of this province [Attorney General Ian Scott] has advised peach officers that he would not prosecute any additional charges until the final disposition of the original charge does not mean that no office is taking place. It simply means that he would stay the judicial process. However, it cannot be construed as banning citizens or peace officers to take reasonable steps to prevent the continuation of the actus reas, a right which they had at common law.
The evidence in these trials does not meet these criteria. The Crown has not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that any wrong, injury or physical harm or a dangerous situation has been created by the defendants, which the Criminal Code intended to cure or avoid.
Gun toting
On Wednesday, February 5, 1986, Cyndi Kram of 87 Harbord Street was acquitted on three counts of pointing a firearm. The trial took place in Old City Hall courtroom 123 where the court heard evidence from three crown witnesses. Each witness was a pro-life picketer and each testified that on … Miss Kram threatened their life and safety by holding them at gunpoint from her balcony behind the abortuary and shouting “I’ll blow your heads off.”
The charge of pointing a firearm forced the outcome of the trial to hinge on the answer to only one legal question: If Miss Kram had discharged the weapon, would she have actually struck any of the picketers?
Evidence submitted by Miss Kram’s attorney stated that the firearm could have been directed some ten meters away from the picketers. On the basis of this suggestion, the charges were dismissed.
Miss Kram originally faced the more serious charge of possession of a weapon dangerous to the public safety. This was reduced to three charges of pointing a firearm to facilitate a speedy trial. Therefore, the new charge made it incumbent upon the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Miss Kram pointed the firearm directly at the picketers in question. Under this new charge no relevance could be attached to the question of whether or not the accused did indeed endanger the lives of the picketers.
