For two years, the people of Ontario have watched the City of Hamilton pursue Wendell and Faye Leytham — farmers on Crown Patent agricultural land — for doing what farmers have done in this province for more than 200 years: harvesting trees as part of normal farm practice.
But on May 11, 2026 — Day 1 of trial — something happened that changes the entire trajectory of this case.
For the first time, after nearly two years of silence, the bylaw officer admitted under oath that there were complainants.
People who made allegations.
People whose information triggered the investigation.
People whose identities were never disclosed to the Leythams.
Not in the willsay.
Not in the notes.
Not in disclosure.
Not in any communication from the City.
This is not a “grey area.”
This is a serious Charter problem.
And the Supreme Court of Canada has already spoken — clearly and forcefully — on this exact issue.
The Stinchcombe Principle: Evidence Belongs to the People, Not the Government
In R. v. Stinchcombe, the Supreme Court of Canada established one of the most important constitutional rules in Canadian law:
the prosecution must disclose all relevant information — whether it helps their case or helps the defence.
The Court stated:
“It is difficult to justify the position which clings to the notion that the Crown has no legal duty to disclose all relevant information… The arguments against the existence of such a duty are groundless.”
And quoting Boucher v. The Queen (1955), the Court reaffirmed:
“The purpose of a prosecution is not to obtain a conviction… The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing.”
Then came the line that defines disclosure law in Canada:
“The fruits of the investigation… are not the property of the Crown for use in securing a conviction, but the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done.”
This is not optional.
This is not discretionary.
This is constitutional law.
And while this case is a Provincial Offences Act matter — not criminal — the Charter still applies. The duty of fairness still applies. The right to disclosure still applies.
Which brings us back to the Leytham trial.
The Problem: Complainants Were Never Disclosed
The existence of complainants was never disclosed.
This raises serious questions about the completeness of the investigation.
The officer’s late revelation undermines confidence in the disclosure process.
We do not yet know why this information was withheld — and that is precisely the problem.
To be clear:
We are not alleging misconduct.
But when a bylaw officer reveals, for the first time on Day 1 of trial, that complainants existed all along, it raises unavoidable questions:
- Why was this not disclosed?
- How many other relevant facts were omitted?
- How can any defendant prepare a fair defence when critical information surfaces only at trial?
These are not accusations.
These are legitimate questions grounded in the Charter and in Supreme Court authority.
And they go to the heart of trial fairness.
Charter Section 7 — The Right to Full Answer and Defence
Section 7 guarantees every Canadian:
- the right to know the case against them,
- the right to test the evidence,
- the right to challenge the credibility of accusers,
- and the right to prepare a defence based on the full truth — not a curated version of it.
You cannot defend yourself against ghost witnesses.
You cannot crossexamine anonymous accusers.
You cannot prepare for trial when the government withholds the very people whose allegations triggered the investigation.
This is not a technicality.
This is a violation of fundamental justice.
Charter Section 11(d) — The Right to a Fair Hearing
A fair hearing requires:
- transparency,
- disclosure,
- and the ability to confront adverse evidence.
When complainants are hidden, the fairness of the entire proceeding collapses.
The Supreme Court has said repeatedly that trial fairness is not negotiable.
It is the foundation of the justice system.
Why This Matters Beyond the Leytham Case
If municipalities can:
- withhold complainants,
- omit relevant information,
- and reveal new facts only at trial,
then no landowner in Ontario is safe.
This is not about trees.
This is about:
- government accountability,
- the rule of law,
- the Charter,
- and the people’s right to know the case against them.
Municipal bylaw prosecutions — even under the Provincial Offences Act — must still respect constitutional rights. The Charter does not stop at the farm gate. And it does not stop at the doors of a municipal courtroom.
What Happens Next — August 8
The Charter will be front and centre.
We will be filing a Charter application seeking:
- the names of the complainants,
- their willsay statements,
- and full disclosure of all information withheld since 2024.
We will argue that the failure to disclose:
- violates Section 7,
- violates Section 11(d),
- violates the Stinchcombe principle,
- and has prejudiced the Leythams’ ability to prepare their defence.
As the Supreme Court said:
“The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing.”
Yet here we are.
This Is Why the OLA Exists
Because if you do not know what your rights are — you have no rights.
The Leytham case is not just about one farm.
It is about:
- every landowner in Ontario,
- transparency,
- fairness,
- and the rule of law.
And on August 8, the Charter will speak.
Loudly.