Defense lawyer wanted to halt trial of woman found guilty of second-degree murder

CTV’s Krista Simpson explains why Elfgard Oughtred’s lawyer tried to halt her second-degree murder trial.

New details are coming out that the jury hadn’t heard about in the trial of Elfgard Oughtred who was found guilty of second-degree murder in death of her husband, Gordon Oughtred.

The verdict was handed down on Friday.

Gordon, 82, was found in a pool of blood on the floor of the couple’s Brant County home on Nov. 24, 2022.

An autopsy concluded his death was caused by blunt force trauma to the head.

During the three-week trial, an 11-person jury heard evidence from first responders and experts. Oughtred’s daughter Rita Huellemann testified that while her mother was in custody, Elfgard told her she had hit Gordon with a hammer. She said she was fed up with his drinking.

Application for a stay

Elfgard’s lawyer asked for the proceedings to be stayed due to an incident that followed admission. A stay of proceedings would have meant the trial was halted.

The ruling on the stay application was not public information until after the verdict, so the jury never heard about it.

According the judge’s summary in her ruling, Huellemann told police what Elfgard had said to her and two detective-constables arranged to go to Vanier Centre for Women in Milton, Ont., to question Elfgard directly about what she had said.

In September 2024, Detective-Constables Dan Twinem and Petar Brujic met Elfgard and recorded their conversation on their devices.

After they outlined Elfgard’s rights, she asked to call her lawyer.

The officers left the room to give her privacy, but their devices remained inside and recorded Elfgard’s entire conversation with her lawyer.

Afterwards Elfgard said she did not want to speak to police after all but before leaving one officer asked her about her admission to her daughter.

“Ms. Oughtred responds with a ‘yeah’ that appears to be an acknowledgement of the admission,” the judge described in her application ruling.

In the parking lot the two officers talked about Elfgard’s call to her lawyer. Neither of them made notes in their notebooks about it. Det.-Const. Brujic deleted the record in the presence of the other officer.

They agreed the other officer would make arrangements to have his recording edited to remove the portion with the call before it was put into evidence.

The officers did not disclose what had happened until a few weeks before Elfgard’s trial, when the Crown was looking to get the recording entered into evidence.

Ultimately, the Crown dropped that application and the jury never heard Elfgard’s response to the officer’s question about what she’d told her daughter regarding Gordon’s death.

The judge described what happened as a breach of Elfgard’s right to counsel.

“In this case the breach was serious,” read the application ruling.

Elfgard’s lawyer asked the proceedings be stayed, arguing Elfgard’s right to a fair trial had been compromised.

Justice Aubrey Hilliard ruled that the trial should continue.

“Courts have consistently reiterated that a stay of proceedings is the most drastic remedy a court can order because it halts the prosecution and frustrates the truth-seeking function of a criminal trial. Victims of crime are deprived of their day in court. A stay is the atomic option, which should only be resorted to in the clearest of cases,” said the ruling.

Hilliard also included a judicial censure of the two officers’ actions.

“I condemn the actions of these two officers in the strongest of terms. Police officers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of Canada and enforce the law. However well-intentioned, failing to immediately disclose the recording of Ms. Oughtred’s call with her lawyer and then deciding to attempt to delete, alter and then suppress evidence of the recording of a solicitor-client privileged call was unlawful, breached Ms. Oughtred’s constitutionally guaranteed rights and amounted to dereliction of duty,” Hilliard said in the ruling.

What’s next

Elfgard’s conviction of second-degree murder comes with an automatic sentence of life in prison.

The judge still needs to determine how long she’ll be ineligible for parole for. It will be a time period between 10 and 25 years.

Hilliard said she’ll leave it up to the defense whether they will ask for a reduction of parole eligibility as part of a remedy for what happened with the two officers and the recording.

Elfgard is due back in court in July for a parole eligibility hearing.