It was an “unusual, if not unique” result. But the jury’s verdict convicting Toronto police officer James Forcillo of attempted murder in the shooting death of Sammy Yatim was reasonable, Ontario’s highest court ruled Monday.

In a highly anticipated decision — landing nearly five years since the controversial police shooting — the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously upheld Forcillo’s 2016 conviction of attempted murder. The panel of Chief Justice of Ontario George Strathy, Justice David Doherty and Justice Gary Trotter also dismissed Forcillo’s appeal of his six-year prison sentence handed down by trial judge Justice Edward Then.

The sentence, which is one year more than the mandatory minimum sentence for attempted murder with a firearm, “was fit,” the panel said in a 78-page decision, noting that Forcillo has never made an “expression of remorse.”

The decision brings significant relief to Yatim’s family, who say it validates their long-held view that Forcillo used excessive force. It also sends a powerful message to police.

“At its heart this is an important reminder by the province’s highest appeal court that the rules for police are no different than the rest of the population,” Julian Falconer, lawyer for Yatim’s mother, Sahar Bahadi, said in an interview. “Whether we are talking about mandatory minimums or instructions to the jury, police officers do not get a pass.”

But it may not be the end of the years-long legal saga.

Forcillo’s lawyers now have the option to seek leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, an uphill battle that would require them to show the issue is of national importance. The suspended police officer’s lawyers will take the next few weeks to review the judgment and decide how to proceed.

“This is a very difficult day for James and those who are affected by the decision. It remains our view that the appeal raised difficult and important legal questions,” Forcillo’s lawyers, Michael Lacy, Joseph Wilkinson and Bryan Badali said in a statement.

Yatim, 18, died in a barrage of Forcillo’s bullets on July 27, 2013, moments after exposing himself and wielding a small knife on the busy Dundas West streetcar.

Within less than a minute of arriving on scene, Forcillo fired nine shots at Yatim in two distinct volleys separated by 5.5 seconds. He first fired three bullets, including the fatal shot to Yatim’s heart, then fired six more as Yatim lay on the floor of the streetcar, paralyzed and dying.

The separation of the two volleys was vital to Forcillo’s conviction and formed the basis for his appeal. A jury found Forcillo not guilty of second-degree murder in connection to the first volley, but convicted him of attempted murder for the second.

“In effect, (Forcillo) has been convicted of attempting to murder the very same person he was found to have justifiably shot just 5.5 seconds earlier,” the Court of Appeal panel wrote in its decision.

Forcillo’s lawyers argued the shooting should not have been divided into distinct charges, saying the shooting was one continuous event. But the panel judges — two of whom, Doherty and Trotter, are considered to be the top criminal law judges on the of Court of Appeal — disagreed.

The jury’s verdict was reasonable, the panel ruled, finding there were “obvious differences” between the circumstances when Forcillo fired the first volley of shots and when he unleashed the second — including that Yatim was hit and laying on his back when Forcillo fired the second volley.

“Those differences could reasonably have led the jury to come to different conclusions as to what (Forcillo) perceived when he opened fire,” reads the decision.

When Yatim lay on his back, Forcillo said “absolutely nothing” to him before the second volley, the panel said.

“(Forcillo) knew from his training that Mr. Yatim did not pose an imminent threat to anyone merely by re-arming himself with a knife. He knew that he was not entitled to kill Mr. Yatim in these circumstances, yet he proceeded to fire six additional rounds fixed with that lethal intent,” the decision states.

The jury’s January 2016 verdict was considered by some to have been a compromise — a savvy move by prosecutors perhaps anticipating that jurors may be reluctant to convict a police officer of murder in an on-duty death, even one captured on video.

“It’s very hard to convict officers for wrongdoing,” said Patrick Watson, an assistant professor of criminology at Wilfrid Laurier University, who researches the use of video evidence in police-involved shootings. “They really have the deck stack against them from the beginning, so using as many legal options available to them seems like the only play.”

Peter Rosenthal, a Toronto lawyer who has frequently represented the families of people killed by police, agreed, but said in an email Monday that Forcillo “might well have been convicted of murder if that was the only count put before the jury.”

Forcillo’s lawyers had also argued before the Court of Appeal that the six-year sentence handed down to the officer was unconstitutional. They said the mandatory minimum sentence of five years for attempted murder with a firearm wasn’t intended to be applied to a police officer, who is armed by virtue of his employment.

The Court of Appeal called that argument “faulty,” saying, in part, that a police officer’s obligation to carry firearms “does not preclude their criminal misuse in excessive force scenarios.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Jennifer Chambers, the co-ordinator of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health’s Empowerment Council, a mental health advocacy group, said it was paramount that the conviction be upheld to show that police officers are “not above the law.”

“(Forcillo) did not contain Sammy Yatim, a clearly disturbed youth, to allow time to de-escalate the situation. He did not take his time, he did not try to connect,” she said.

The panel’s decision does send the message to police that firing their weapon “has to be an action of last resort,” said Daniel Brown, a Toronto director for the Criminal Lawyers’ Association.

“And to fail to attempt to de-escalate the situation using all reasonable alternatives can result in a conviction for an extremely serious crime,” Brown said.

Not lost on police experts or Yatim’s family was the coincidental timing of the decision, landing one week after the much-lauded peaceful arrest of accused van killer Alek Minassian by Toronto police Const. Ken Lam. In a statement responding to the court’s decision, Yatim’s father Bill said Lam’s arrest showed “the power of proper de-escalation techniques.”

“If I can take solace in what has transpired since, it is that police tactics and training seem to be improving,” Bill Yatim said.

Forcillo had been granted bail pending the appeal decision, but is behind bars after he was charged late last year with breaching his bail conditions. He has since been charged with perjury and attempting to obstruct justice and is currently suspended without pay from the Toronto police.

The officer is still facing three counts of a professional misconduct in connection with the shooting. A spokesperson said Toronto police will now proceed with the misconduct hearing, which could result in serious consequences including dismissal.

If Forcillo’s lawyers decide to appeal to the Supreme Court they are facing tough odds, said University of Windsor law professor David Tanovich. It is “very difficult” to get a case before the Supreme Court of Canada, considering the small number it hears; just 11 per cent of the applications made to go before the Supreme Court in the last decade were accepted.

The court is only interested in cases that raise legal questions of public importance, Tanovich said, such as one exemplifying a systemic problem in the criminal justice system, like wrongful convictions. The issue stemming from the Forcillo case that may be most likely to be heard by the Supreme Court, Tanovich said, is that of mandatory minimums.

“It is an issue that the Supreme Court has demonstrated an interest in with a number of recent cases striking down other mandatory minimum sentences,” Tanovich said.

He noted, however, that in 2008, the court upheld the four-year mandatory minimum for manslaughter involving a firearm in another conviction of a police officer in an on-duty shooting, that of RCMP officer Michael Ferguson.

Forcillo’s lawyers also requested that the court consider allowing fresh evidence to be heard at a new trial, citing a recent study examining Toronto police officers’ stress response in dangerous situations. The lawyers argued the study may have helped the jury better understand Forcillo’s perception that Yatim was re-arming himself and rising up from the floor immediately before he shot the second volley of bullets.

The fresh evidence application was considered by the court but dismissed, because it couldn’t have reasonably affected the verdict.