Lerren Ducharme

This case out of Ontario has blown up for all the right reasons. Basically, a guy named Andrew Cowan just got a shot at a new trial because of something that should never happen in a courtroom — a Crown prosecutor kept quiet about being close friends with the trial judge.

Let me break it down like someone who’s worked around the legal system and watched how these things play out. Cowan was convicted of second-degree murder back in 2017 in Windsor. The judge on the case? Justice Kelly Gorman. Sounds normal on paper, right?

Here’s where it goes sideways. The Crown attorney, Tom Meehan, tells the defense that yeah, he’s friends with the judge. But he doesn’t say, “Oh by the way, me and the judge already agreed back in 2016 not to work the same case.” He also tried to get this exact case moved to another judge and didn’t say why. Then he just… kept going with the trial.

That’s a huge problem.

The Ontario Court of Appeal took another look and dropped the hammer. They said this wasn’t just some oversight — it undermined the whole fairness of the trial. There’s a basic legal principle here: justice not only has to be done, but it has to look like it’s being done. That’s not a technicality. It’s a cornerstone of the justice system.

And it’s not just about optics. When you’re walking into a courtroom where the Crown and judge are tight — and no one tells you just how tight — you’re basically playing poker at a table where the dealer and your opponent are sharing cards.

Justice James MacPherson, writing for the appeals panel, said Cowan was walking onto a “tilted field.” That hits hard, because it’s true. How do you expect a fair trial when the people running the show already have that kind of history?

To be clear, the Crown’s job isn’t to “win” at all costs. Their job is to present evidence fairly and pursue justice — period. Hiding something like that friendship breaks that responsibility in a serious way. It’s not some grey area; it’s straight-up misconduct.

I’ve seen enough behind the scenes to know this isn’t just a fluke. Prosecutorial discretion gets abused more than people realize, and judges often don’t recuse themselves unless someone forces the issue. That’s why disclosure is everything — especially in murder trials where someone’s life is on the line.

If you look at legal standards across Canada, especially the Supreme Court's ruling in R. v. S. (R.D.), the threshold for “reasonable apprehension of bias” isn’t sky high. All it takes is a situation that might lead a reasonable person to think the trial wasn’t neutral. And this case? Easily fits that.

Now Cowan gets a new trial, which is honestly the only fair move here. Not because he’s innocent — that still has to be proven in court — but because the first trial didn’t meet the basic standards of justice. Everyone deserves that, no matter what they’re accused of.