Judge denies change-of-venue request in high-profile northern Ont. attempted murder case

Cobalt attempted murder trial to stay in Temiskaming; judge denies venue change, citing precedent that crime's abhorrence doesn't equal bias.

An Ontario Superior Court judge has denied a request for a change of venue for an attempted murder case in which a Cobalt, Ont., man is charged with attacking his former girlfriend with a vehicle and a sword.

Phillipe Gagnon is charged with trying to kill his former girlfriend, who was 16 when she was hit by a vehicle after getting off a transit bus on Nov. 3, 2024, in Cobalt.

She was then attacked by a sword — her hand was amputated, her right hand was partially amputated and she had a skull fracture and a large cut to the back of her head.

Gagnon is charged with attempted murder and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. None of the charges have been proven in court.

Defence lawyer Andrew Perrin argued the trial couldn’t take place in the community because of the extensive pre-trial publicity “and negative public sentiment expressed about (Gagnon) in the community,” said the decision from the Superior Court of Justice.

“He submits that he cannot have a fair trial if the matter remains in the District of Temiskaming.”

But assistant Crown attorney David Kirk argued there are several measures that could be taken to ensure a fair trial and pointed out that legal precedent is for trials to be held in the community where the offence took place.

Cited Sudbury precedents

In her decision, Justice Susan Stothart wrote that changing the venue should only be done in cases where “there is a fair and reasonable likelihood of partiality or prejudice in the local community that cannot be overcome by the safeguards available during jury selection and the trial process.”

Cases cited for not moving the trial included a decision not to move Clinton Suzack’s trial in Sudbury, Ont., for shooting Sudbury police Const. Joe MacDonald.

Suzack, along with accomplice Peter Pennett, shot and killed MacDonald on Oct. 7, 1993. MacDonald pulled the pair over for a traffic violation and was writing a ticket when they turned on him.

The case received widespread media attention in the city, prompting Suzack’s lawyer to seek a change of venue for the trial, which was denied.

In this case, Stothart wrote that “a strong source of potential prejudice in this case will be the exposure to the facts of this case.”

“They involve a young 16-year-old complainant who suffered life-threatening and life-altering injuries as a result of the alleged attack.”

Change of venue wouldn’t help

Considering the fact that the facts of the case are a major sort of prejudice for Gagnon, the judge wrote that a change of venue wouldn’t help.

“Rather, the many safeguards that are built into the trial process address the prejudice that may arise from the nature of the allegations,” Stothart said.

She cited another case related to Sudbury — Robert Steven Wright, who was tried and convicted in 2023 for the stabbing death of Renee Sweeney in 1998. That case received extensive coverage over many decades before DNA evidence led to Wright’s arrest in 2018.

The details of that case were also violent, Stothart said.

“Jurors, like most judges, will react emotionally to the violent nature of a crime,” the decision said.

“However, it is important not to confuse abhorrence of a crime with an unfair and prejudicial bias against an accused. While the alleged offences are serious, I am satisfied that in the circumstances of this case, any prejudice flowing from the nature and extent of the alleged offences can be dealt with through juror screening and proper instructions to the jury once chosen.”

While the defence argued that media coverage and social media posts would make a fair trial a huge challenge, Stothart said the number of media articles peaked just after the incident — and there were none between August and December 2025.

“The media attention in this case has played out as one would expect when a serious crime has been committed,” she said.

“Initially, the crime is reported widely and then over time coverage decreases to occasional coverage of court appearances.”

The challenge in this case isn’t to find 12 jurors who know nothing about the details of the case, she said. Instead, it is to find jurors who “are able to discard any prior opinions they may have formed and to approach their role as jurors impartially.”

“They must be prepared to decide the case solely on the evidence led at trial and with the instructions provided by the trial judge, which include instructions about the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence.”

Protest outside the court

While there was a protest held outside the Temiskaming Shores courthouse on Nov. 12, 2024, none have been held in the 14 months since then, Stothart said.

That being said, if more protests are held in the future, that could change her decision.

“If there are further protests outside of the courthouse, this will have to be addressed at that time,” she wrote.

“Further protests may support a change of venue if there is a risk of jurors seeing the protests or coming into contact with any of the protesters as they enter the courthouse.”

While the population of the area was estimated at around 31,424 in 2021, Stothart said there is “no presumption that trials involving serious violence cannot be held within small communities.

“Even small communities deserve to see justice fully and fairly administered in their own community,” she said.

“Several murder trials have been held at the Temiskaming Shores courthouse.”

While dismissing the application and ruling the trial should be held in Temiskaming Shores, she said she would be open to revisiting the decision if new factors come to light, such as new protests.