- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Arshad Desai, one of Steve Hinder’s key witnesses, today told the Superior Court in Eagle Street he was charged in June 2014 for driving without insurance and was fined $500. He is not entirely sure of the figure. In any event, Desai tells the Court:
“I was convicted.”
He took out a loan of $15,000 to clear his various debts and a separate loan to finance his (unsuccessful) campaign for election to Aurora Council in 2014. Despite this he brazenly campaigns on a platform of fiscal rectitude. Pullano’s lawyer asks him:
“Did you think you were the model of fiscal responsibility?”
With breathtaking chutzpah, he replies:
“I did.”
He says he cannot recall when he got married. We learn he is now divorced and his fiancée of four years bales him out financially. He has a minimum wage job at York University where he is also a student.
Pullano’s lawyer tells him he fell behind with his child support payments of $460 per month. Desai disagrees. He took out a loan to cover the cost.
Desai comes across as someone with absolutely zero credibility yet, curiously, Hinder calls him as a witness.
Desai tells us he has known Hinder since 2014 and he regards him as a mentor and friend.
Standing too close for comfort
On the night of the alleged assault, Desai arrives at the Mansion Banqueting Hall around 6.40pm. He checks in his coat and walks over to the (then) Deputy Mayor, John Abel. He says he was standing close to Abel and Pullano. Hinder walks up to Pullano and shakes his hand. Then he shakes John Abel’s hand and then Desai’s.
Desai tells us they are all huddled together – improbably “less than one foot away” from each other. (As close as people stand when they are being photographed together.)
Desai says the handshake “was at waist level”.
Earlier witnesses, Fred Rankel and Wanda Cena, both saw Hinder’s arm at shoulder height. They both saw Pullano step backwards. Desai says:
“Mr Hinder did not strike Pullano in the chest. I watched the entire interaction (which) lasted seconds.”
“Mr Pullano did not say anything. He looked embarrassed.”
I don't recall
Desai was approached by Hinder’s lawyers around June 2015 to give a statement on what happened on the evening of 20 March 2014 at Jane Twinney’s acclamation as the PC candidate for Newmarket-Aurora. He is asked if he spoke to Hinder after that approach. He tells the Court:
“I don’t recall.”
“It was three years ago.”
So many key witnesses are so forgetful. Yet they have perfect recall when it suits.
Earlier, Hinder is asked by Pullano’s lawyer why he chose to shake Pullano’s hand.
“He was a candidate.” (in the October 2014 municipal election)
“It might have added to the comfort of shaking Pullano’s hand to have other people around.”
Hinder is asked about what happened after the alleged punch when, later, Pullano goes up to him and says:
“Listen you fuck I am calling Magna. Tomorrow I am calling.”
Hinder tells the Court:
“I don’t recall that.”
My mind is a blank
It is a funny thing memory. Sometimes it’s there when you need it. But often there’s just a blank.
When he is not giving evidence Hinder, in the row in front of me, is crouched over for long periods gazing intently at his mobile phone, switched to silent mode.
The Court Usher repeatedly tells us to switch off our mobile phones when the Court is in session.
I am programmed to obey.
For others rules are made to be ignored.
Former Aurora Deputy Mayor John Abel is on the stand tomorrow.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Read this: Photos, diagrams, documents and other exhibits are regularly shown to the jury on a big 70" TV screen which is not visible to the press and members of the public sitting in the public gallery. This puts us at a huge disadvantage when trying to follow the proceedings. Just so you know.
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Steve Hinder was good in the witness box today. He is calm, confident and assured. But is he telling the truth?
To be clear, Anthony Pullano or Steve Hinder is lying under oath.
Hinder puts in a masterly performance. At one point, when talking about the effect of Pullano’s never ending stream of acidic tweets, he chokes up. He tells the Court:
“My wife constantly reminded me how much we enjoyed life before politics. I didn’t want to be out there being subjected to this.”
“It caused anxiety… I didn’t go out as much.”
I am looking at the jury as he says this, gauging their reaction.
Hinder has appeared in Court a thousand times in the course of his long 30 year police career. He knows what to say and how to say it. But despite being at the sharp end, dealing with criminality for decades he is still, touchingly, an innocent abroad. He is asked if he knows what a bagman is. He says he doesn’t know. I gasp.
The night of the alleged assault
On 20 March 2014 – the evening of the alleged assault on Pullano – Hinder went along to the Mansion Banqueting Hall for Jane Twinney’s acclamation. He tells us he really didn’t want to go but Frank Klees was stepping down as MPP for Newmarket-Aurora and he had a lot of respect for him. He wanted to be there for that and for Jane Twinney. He worked with her in her role as a councillor.
He tells the Court he walked into the main room. He saw John Abel – the then Deputy Mayor of Aurora – and walked over to say hello.
“There were lots of people standing around that general vicinity.”
“I reached out and shook Pullano’s hand and said:
“So who are you supporting tonight?”
“It was a simple comment like that. I shook Pullano’s hand first (with my right hand) then John Abel’s and Arshad Desai’s. It (all) happened in less than a minute.”
He is asked if he was upset that Pullano had been at the Ballard meeting the night before.
“I didn’t care.”
He is asked if he touched Pullano in the chest or poked him.“No.”
He says that after shaking hands he moves on and Pullano follows him and tells him not to worry who he is supporting. “Don (Don Walker, Chief Executive of Magna) and Joan (his wife) will know.”
WOPs
Hinder is asked if he ever called Pullano a WOP. “Never.”
Did you silently mouth WOP? “No”
Do you hate WOPs? “No.”
Do you have concerns about Italian people moving into Aurora? “No.”
Do you ever use the term WOP?
“Certainly not publicly.”
Do you use it privately?
“No.”
Hinder is asked about a remark he allegedly made about rolling up the tents and moving out of town if WOPs are elected.
“I don’t recall saying it. It is not in my nature.”
Whoa! This falls way short of an absolute denial. It is formulaic. I don’t call people of Italian heritage WOPs in public or in private. My brain isn’t wired that way. Hinder’s response is rehearsed.
Later, Pullano’s lawyer, William Reid, picks up on this when he asks Hinder if he is familiar with the law on perjury. Reid tells the Court the “I don’t recall” is a technique that is used to avoid the perjury trap. Hinder acknowledges the formulation he used could be seen that way.
Police training and the use of force
Hinder goes on to tell the Court that in his 30 year police career he used a “closed hand punch” only once.
He is asked if he has ever been in a fist fight and says yes. He is not asked how many fist fights he has been in.
Pullano’s lawyer’s cross examination is slow, meandering and laborious. There are no signposts to tell the jury where his questions are going. The jury’s eyes are glazing over.
Picking up a salary as a councillor while barred from elected office
We learn that Hinder stood for election to Aurora Council when he was a serving police officer in Toronto and when the Police Regulations in place at the time did not allow for this (they were subsequently changed).
Did you get a legal opinion? No.
You broke the law. Yes.
We hear in deadening detail about Hinder’s employment history with Magna and the Stronachs and how much he earned, his employee benefits and the bonuses he could get. We learn about the Stronach Consulating Group (a family trust) and the plans to release surplus lands in Aurora for development. Pullano’s lawyer, William Reid, is now taking us deep into the undergrowth and we all follow reluctantly.
We hear about Magna’s political contributions. We learn Hinder recommends who gets the money. He doesn’t make the decision. We are not told how many of Hinder’s recommendations are spiked and rejected.
All in all, a long painful day of cross examination trying to get behind Hinder’s solid pillar-of-the-community exterior.
Tomorrow he is back on the stand.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Steve Hinder was due to start giving evidence today (Tuesday 27 November) but the Court rose early because of the weather and he was not called. Hinder takes the stand at 10am tomorrow in Courtroom 402 at the Courthouse in Eagle Street, Newmarket.
Today we hear from Fred Rankel who is a longstanding resident of Aurora with a background in construction and engineering. He says he is not political. He has known both Hinder and Pullano for about 15 years. He gives evidence on oath.
WOP is a derogatory term for Italians and people of Italian heritage.
Punch or handshake?
It is 20 March 2014 and we are back at the Mansion Banqueting Hall in Aurora. Fred Rankel goes to Jane Twinney’s acclamation with a friend and when Pullano comes in they shake hands.
“I pretty much stayed at the back of the room close to the exit… Mr Hinder entered the hall and rapidly approached Anthony Pullano. There was a quick interaction. Mr Hinder’s right hand went up and Anthony took a step back (as if he) lost his balance…
“Mr Hinder had his hand up (indicating to shoulder level).
Pullano’s lawyer, William Reid, asks if it looked like a handshake
“It could have been.”
After the interaction
“Anthony looked shaken and (was) sweating… He looked uncomfortable like he was going to have a heart attack.”
Fred Rankel tells the Court he signed his affidavit in 2015 in Pullano’s office.
Does Hinder refer to people of Italian Heritage as WOPs?
Now Pullano’s lawyer asks Rankel how Hinder described the former Mayor of Aurora Phyllis Morris.
“Syphilis Morris” he replies
Whoa! The Judge intervenes and asks Pullano’s lawyer, William Reid, how this is relevant. The jury (and Fred Rankel) are asked to leave the Courtroom while the Judge and Counsel lock horns on the admissibility of this evidence.
Reid reminds the Court that Hinder launched a counter-claim for defamation earlier this year, citing Pullano’s attacks on him in social media. Reid says Hinder has a disposition for repeated verbal bullying and the jury should be made aware of this fact.
Reid tells the Judge that on 10 June 2014 Hinder says in the presence of Mr Rankel:
“If these WOPs get elected we will have to roll up our tents and leave town.”
I learn that conversation was between Hinder and Tim Jones, the former Mayor of Aurora, who has been sitting in front of me in the public gallery throughout the trial.
Hinder’s Counter-claim for defamation
Reid tells the Judge these statements by Hinder are crucial to the defence and to (rebutting) the counter-claim on defamation. He says that Hinder attended a meeting for municipal election candidates organised by the Chamber of Commerce in 2014 and when Hinder saw Pullano he (Hinder) mouthed the word “WOP”.
Reid, now sounding exasperated, tells the Judge that to exclude this evidence “doesn’t do justice”. He says Tim Jones could be called to the stand. But the Judge rules this out immediately on the grounds that Jones cannot give evidence as he has been sitting through the entire trial. Reid says that when Hinder comes to give evidence he may even admit what he said. Personally, I doubt it.
The Judge rules that Hinder’s alleged remarks about Syphilis Morris and WOPs cannot be put to the jury on the grounds that this would be highly prejudicial to the defence.
Seriously upset
By now the Judge is getting seriously upset. He says:
“The prejudicial effect would outweigh the probative value.”
I consult my on-line legal dictionary. The probative value of evidence refers to whether it is, or is not, sufficiently useful to prove something important in a trial.
However, probative value of proposed evidence must be weighed by the trial judge against prejudicing in the minds of jurors towards the opposing party.
He orders Reid to steer clear of asking Fred Rankel about Phyllis Morris and how Hinder allegedly referred to her.
Now Hinder’s lawyer is on her feet asking a series of questions designed to demonstrate that Rankel didn’t really see or hear what happened in the interaction between Hinder and Pullano. I hear lots of questions about who is seated where and whether views are blocked by people wandering about.
Rankel is asked about his recollection of Hinder’s arm being about shoulder height and why that wasn’t in his affidavit.
“The affidavit was a quick summary not the detail we are getting today.”
Rankel says he was about 20 – 25 feet away from the interaction between Hinder and Pullano. He says Pullano jumped backwards.
Hinder’s lawyer says the affidavit mentions a “sudden step backwards”.
“That was a jump.”
“I didn’t interpret that he got hit when he took a step backwards… but I don’t see how he lost his footing.”
“I am not guessing at what I saw.”
Pullano, described by Rankel as flushed and sweating, said Hinder hit him and it hurt.
Hinder is in the witness box tomorrow at 10am.
On oath.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
Tomorrow (27 November 2018) Steve Hinder will say under oath that he did not assault Anthony Pullano by punching him in the chest on 20 March 2014.
Instead he will say he shook Pullano’s hand.
Giving evidence earlier today, Wanda Cena said under oath that she was at the Jane Twinney acclamation on 20 March 2014 and that she saw Steve Hinder strike Anthony Pullano in the chest causing him to stumble backwards. She said she didn’t hear anything that might have been said between the two because she was about 30 feet away. She had a clear uninterrupted view. Mr Pullano was facing her. Mr Hinder had his back to her.
After the altercation she saw Hinder go towards the VIP section. She was concerned about Pullano as he was “twitching and grimacing” but at no stage during the evening did she talk to him.
Cena was asked which hand Hinder used to punch Pullano, left or right, but she couldn’t recall.
“I wondered why you would hit someone hard enough to make them stumble back… it was a really quick punch.” (she demonstrates)
Hinder’s lawyer, Deborah Berlach, asks how long the encounter was.
“Just a few seconds.”
Berlach’s line of questioning is designed to suggest to the jury that Cena was distracted during the evening and she may not have seen what she claims to have seen.
She was privately tweeting to her friend Maddie Di Muccio (at one stage a candidate for the PC nomination) sometimes crouching down, sometimes standing up, while, at the same time, keeping an eye on the front door to see if she recognised people coming in.
Berlach asks at length about Cena’s relationship with Maddie Di Muccio and Anthony Pullano, how they got to know each other and how the friendships matured and developed. Berlach asks about the 2014 campaign for Newmarket Council when Cena was a candidate in Ward 1.
Twitter takes centre stage as tweets are analysed at great length for their true meaning. We hear about Twitter friends and Twitter feeds. And who was friends with whom.
Towards the end of the cross examination, Berlach goes to the affidavit sworn by Cena. In it Cena claims Hinder “without provocation” punched Pullano.
Now Berlach asks:
“What do you mean by without provocation?”
“How did you see the punch if Mr Hinder had his back to you?”
Wanda Cena says without missing a beat:
“Mr Hinder was slightly at an angle. His right side was facing me at an angle.”
Like everyone else I was looking at Wanda Cena intently, reading the expression on her face.
Did she look as if she was inventing this?
It seemed to me she was telling it as she saw it.
Tomorrow, Steve Hinder will no doubt be asked if his mighty handshake caused Pullano to stumble backwards two or three paces.
Or was there a punch?
Pullano and Hinder cannot both be telling the truth.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
- Details
- Written by Gordon Prentice
We are in the middle of an epidemic of gun violence.
I want to see a nationwide ban on assault rifles and handguns and I recently asked my MPP Christine Elliott if she still believes (as she did in 2008) that
“a simple handgun ban is not going to be the answer that we need, because criminals are not going to respect handgun bans.”
Given the roll call of massacres over the last decade – from Sandy Hook to the Danforth - I am left wondering if her views have evolved. For example, does she still believe:
“For all intents and purposes, there is a handgun ban in Canada right now.”
Does she believe that private citizens who are lawfully allowed to own handguns regularly and frequently use these handguns to kill people?
“there already is a handgun ban, except for people who are lawfully allowed to own handguns: members of our police services, our armed forces, and recreational shooters.”
If Elliott is still against a ban on handguns in private ownership what steps should be taken to prevent gun violence?
“We are all in favour of any reasonable proposal coming forward that's actually going to do something to prevent gun violence.”
When I blogged about handguns a month ago I promised to post Elliott’s response if she got back to me. I have now heard from her constituency office who refer me to the PC Party’s basic Talking Points. They say this is all they can do until they get a direct response from her. I am grateful to her office.
This is what the Talking Points say:
- Gun violence has no place in Toronto and these brazen, indiscriminate attacks need to stop.
- Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and ensuring the police have the tools they need to do their job is our priority.
- Illegal guns cross the border into our province every single day. This needs to stop.
- We will look to work with the federal government to ensure that sentencing is tougher for the criminals who have committed these violent acts, and ensure the bail system is doing its job to keep our communities safe.
- We are also committed to making sure our police have the resources they need to do their jobs effectively.
- Ontarians deserve to feel safe and secure in their communities.
Elliott’s Office tells me further announcements will be made in the new year when I can look forward to a better response to my questions.
I consider this progress.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Page 133 of 281