Robert Baltovich's life was changed forever the day his girlfriend, Elizabeth Bain, disappeared. A trip to the University of Toronto Scarborough campus by Bain on the 19th of June 1990 resulted in, not only her tragic disappearance but the wrongful conviction of Baltovich for a crime in which he did not commit. Baltovich was the victim of a miscarriage of justice grounded entirely in circumstantial evidence. The evidence presented throughout the legal proceedings focused on three key aspects: motive, opportunity, and consciousness of guilt following the offence (1). The prosecution argued that Bain was in fact attempting to discontinue her romantic relationship with Baltovich at the time of her disappearance. They presented the idea that this caused Baltovich to respond in a jealous rage, resulting in her death and therefore providing motive for the killing (1). Evidence presented by the prosecution in court stated that witnesses seen Baltovich and Bain sitting together on a picnic table around 5:40pm on the day of her disappearance and had also seen Baltovich driving Elizabeth's car on the 22nd of June, three days after her disappearance (1). These testimonies provided the prosecution with an argument of opportunity for Baltovich to commit the killing as loved ones of Bain believed she would be on the UTSC campus to "check out the tennis schedules" and thereby would not be concerned with her lack of presence throughout the day of her disappearance (1). Lastly, it was argued that Baltovich showed extreme guilt following the disappearance of Bain (1). This was used by the prosecution to argue grounds that Baltovich must have been overwhelmed by guilt since he must have been the one to kill Elizabeth (1).

Not only was the unreliability of witness testimony an ethical issue contributing to this miscarriage of justice but so was the use of hypnosis on witnesses in attempt to "strengthen" their memories of the events they claimed to have witnessed firsthand. Hypnosis on witnesses in criminal proceedings has been highly controversial and considered by the Supreme Court of Canada, in the R v Trochym case, as not generally admissible in court (2). Individuals are also seen to be more suggestible under hypnosis which can cause an increase in inaccurate memories in the same manner it may do so for accurate memories, if provoked by suggestive actions produced by the individual conducting the hypnosis (2).

Furthermore, it was argued by the defendant and his legal team that he had not received a fair trial -- a right afforded to him by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2). It was shown that the trial judge promoted the Crown's case while simultaneously denigrated the defence's case (1). It was argued that the charge to the jury lacked fairness and balance (1).

Lastly, the case also involved the use of improper photo line- up techniques when interviewing Perez, leading to suggestive behaviours by officers conducting the photo line-up (2). It was admitted by Perez that she had selected the photo of Baltovich on a "process of elimination" as a photo array format was used in place of a sequential lineup format (2). Prior to taking part in the line- up, officers had suggestively told her that Baltovich's photo was present in the line-up (2). This was a significant ethical issue in Baltovich's miscarriage of justice as photo line-ups are to be conducted in a way in which members of the force do not have specific information regarding presence of certain individuals (2).

So, let's dive into the details of Robert Baltovich's miscarriage of justice that resulted from various ethical issues during the long and tiring legal process of the courts.

(1) Canadian Legal Information Institute. R. v. Baltovich. https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2004/2004canlii45031/2004canlii45031.html (accessed February 2nd 2021).