KITCHENER— A federal Crown attorney was accused Thursday of misleading a judge in order to cover up for a dirty cop and trap thorn-in-the-side Toronto defence lawyer Leora Shemesh into committing perjury.

Shemesh is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for allegedly telling various lawyers that she had seen a “nanny cam” video of a Peel Regional Police drug officer stealing money from a safe in her client’s home, and then allegedly committing perjury by lying about it under oath.

The officer, Const. Ian Dann, initially denied stealing any money but later claimed he had taken some cash to convert Shemesh’s client into a confidential informant.

Her lawyer, Marie Henein, is arguing in pretrial motions that Shemesh’s constitutional rights against self-incrimination were violated when she was forced into the witness box under subpoena.

She is asking Superior Court Justice Gerald Taylor to stay the charges before the trial begins in September.

On Thursday, Henein, for a second day, grilled Lois McKenzie, a Brampton-based Crown working for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. McKenzie conducted the cross-examination of Shemesh that led to the perjury charge after persuading Justice Bruce Durno her testimony was needed to clear the air about the nanny cam video.

Read more:

Prosecutor testifying at perjury trial denies trying to conceal police corruption allegations

Prominent Toronto lawyer set to go on trial on perjury charge

Opinion | Drug dealer claims he’s truthful and a Hamilton cop is the liar

Henein is alleging prosecutors orchestrated a coverup to protect Dann while trying to “catch” out the troublesome defence lawyer, who, in an earlier case involving Dann, had already exposed the police as courtroom liars.

“I’m going to suggest to you Ms. McKenzie that you deliberately misled the court into thinking that Ms. Shemesh may have simply made all of this up, this allegation of theft,” Henein said to McKenzie.

“I did not do that,” replied the prosecutor.

“You never tell the court, ‘she’s right he did take money’ ... she’s not pulling this out of thin air, it is true, he took money,’” Henein said. Nor did McKenzie tell Durno that Dann changed his story about the cash.

McKenzie agreed she did not but repeatedly insisted prosecutors were concerned that disclosing any information would violate confidential informant privilege, despite the fact the public prosecution service had already concluded Dann’s confidential informant claim was bogus.

“I get your point that I haven’t told him (Durno) the two versions of what we have but it wasn’t my intention to mislead, my focus was on the fact that here was a video that could support or undermine the officer’s position,” McKenzie said.

“When you’re making that submission you know there’s no video,” Henein said following up. She noted that prior to testifying, Shemesh’s lawyer told Durno she had never seen a nanny cam video of the theft nor had she told anyone that she had.

After McKenzie testified that Dann’s “admission” about taking the money was “separate and apart” from the nanny cam videotape, Justice Taylor turned to her seeming perplexed.

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

“I just want to make sure I got this. What is on the video is totally separate from the admission that Constable Dann took the money?” he asked, adding, “Is that what you said?”

After McKenzie attempted to clarify, Taylor nodded and instructed Henein to “carry on.”

The pretrial arguments resume Friday.