A jury deliberating over a case in which a man is accused of opening fire at the Eaton Centre six years ago has asked about the circumstances under which he could be found not criminally responsible, Sunday.
Christopher Husbands, 29, is accused of shooting at a group of young men at the mall's food court on June 2, 2012, killing two of them and injuring several others.
Husbands two defence lawyers - Dirk Derstine and Stephanie DiGiuseppe - have told the court that Husbands should not be held criminally responsible as he was in a dissociative state as a result of his PTSD, which was triggered by an encounter with some of the men who had brutally beaten and stabbed him months earlier.
Crown lawyers have said the psychiatric experts who assessed Husbands agreed he had PTSD but were split on whether he could have been in a dissociative state when he fired 14 bullets.
On Sunday - the fourth day of deliberations - the jury came back with four questions. One, directed at the Crown, was whether the physical act of shooting should be considered along with the outcome of each gunshot.
Addressing the media Sunday afternoon, DiGiuseppe said jurors were comparing it to another high profile case - that of Const. James Forcillo.
"Part of the question [in Forcillo] is that there were two volleys of shots - one of them was in self defence, the other was intentional - but you couldn't prove that either caused death," she said.
"One of the jury's questions here suggests a similar problem. Some shots could have been fired in a non-criminally responsible state, some in an intentional state, but it's impossible to say which caused death."
Furthermore, jurors were questioning the exact definition of not criminally responsible, wanting to know whether he can be found not criminally responsible for some of the shots fired, and criminally responsible for others.
"It's pretty clear right now that the jury is at least at the moment is considering the question of criminal responsibility," said Derstine. "All of the questions were focused directly or indirectly on the question of whether or not he's NCR [and] not on the other questions which they could potentially address."
They were also looking for clarification on Husbands' testimony and cross-examination, and have asked to see the transcripts.
"Essentially a jury can stop at any time in their deliberations and pose a question," NEWSTALK1010 legal analyst Ed Prutschi says. "Once they do that, they basically go back into their sequestration and the question gets pushed out to the defence lawyer, the Crown and ultimately the judge."
"Everybody gets to make their argument over how that question should be answered, and the judge will then provide some sort of response."
Husbands has pleaded not guilty to two counts of second-degree murder, five counts of aggravated assault and one count each of criminal negligence causing bodily harm and reckless discharge of a firearm.
This is the second trial for Husbands. In his first trial in 2014, he was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison with no parole for 30 years. However, the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial after they determined the judge had made a mistake while potential jurors were being questioned about bias.
The jury at the second trial has only been told that Husbands was tried once before, but they are unaware of why a new trial was ordered.
If no verdict is reached by late Sunday, deliberations will continue on Monday.
- With files from Jackie Rosen/NEWSTALK1010