Judge dismisses abuse of process challenge in fatal Bobs Lake boating case

A Superior Court judge has dismissed an abuse of process application brought by Matthew Splinter, thereby rejecting defence arguments that prosecutors acted improperly when they bypassed a preliminary inquiry and sent the case directly to trial in one of eastern Ontario’s most closely watched criminal cases.

In a decision released Monday, May 25, 2026, Justice Robyn Ryan Bell found there was “no air of reality” to defence counsel Brian Greenspan’s allegation that the Crown’s conduct compromised trial fairness or undermined the integrity of the justice system.

The ruling means the prosecution against Splinter — who faces multiple impaired and dangerous operation charges connected to a fatal boating collision on Bobs Lake — will continue toward an April and May 2027 Superior Court trial.

The case has drawn widespread public attention across the Kingston and Frontenac region since the Victoria Day weekend collision in 2024 left three young people dead and several others injured. The tragedy deeply affected the tight-knit Bobs Lake community in Central Frontenac Township and prompted a lengthy Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) investigation involving collision reconstructionists, forensic specialists, marine units, and the OPP Criminal Investigation Branch.

In October 2024, the OPP charged Splinter, 44, of South Frontenac Township, following more than five months of investigation. He faces three counts each of dangerous operation causing death, impaired operation causing death, dangerous operation causing bodily harm, and impaired operation causing bodily harm. None of the allegations have been proven in court.

The issue before Justice Ryan Bell was not Splinter’s guilt or innocence, but whether prosecutors improperly deprived the accused of a key procedural step in the criminal process.

The application was argued in Kingston Superior Court on March 26, 2026, where Toronto defence lawyer Brian Greenspan contended that the Crown had abruptly abandoned an agreed-upon preliminary inquiry process after months of cooperation between the parties. Greenspan was joined by defence lawyer Naomi Lutes. Assistant Crown attorney Joanne Stuart represented the Crown, assisted by Kingston Crown attorney Andrew Scott.

A preliminary inquiry is a court proceeding used in serious criminal cases to test portions of the Crown’s evidence before trial and determine whether sufficient evidence exists to commit an accused to trial.

According to Ryan Bell’s ruling, the matter initially appeared headed toward a focused four-day preliminary inquiry involving a limited number of witnesses and expert evidence. In June 2025, Stuart emailed defence counsel summarizing discussions from a judicial pre-trial hearing, indicating the defence was expected to concede committal and that oral testimony would be called from all witnesses.

But on September 29, 2025, the Crown instead proceeded by direct indictment — a legal mechanism under the Criminal Code that allows prosecutors to send a matter directly to the Superior Court without a preliminary inquiry. Defence counsel received the indictment days later without advance warning.

Greenspan argued during the March 2026 hearing that the decision came “out of left field” and deprived the defence of the opportunity to meaningfully test key evidence in what he described as a highly complex prosecution involving numerous civilian witnesses, multiple experts, and accident reconstruction evidence.

“That is… one of the critical aspects of this case that will have to be tested solely and exclusively at trial,” Greenspan told the court in reference to the reconstruction evidence.

The defence argued the move amounted to an abuse of process and sought either a stay of proceedings or a more limited remedy permitting pre-trial examination of key witnesses. Greenspan argued the preliminary inquiry served an important “discovery function,” allowing the defence to assess and challenge evolving evidence before trial.

Stuart rejected that characterization, arguing the defence had failed to meet the high legal threshold required to establish abuse of process.

“The applicant has not met his onus of establishing the threshold evidentiary foundation,” Stuart argued during the March hearing. “The presumption of good faith… has to win the day.”

The Crown maintained that there is no constitutional right to a preliminary inquiry and argued that direct indictments are lawful prosecutorial tools commonly used to address delay concerns and move complex matters efficiently through the court system.

In her written decision, Ryan Bell agreed.

The judge emphasized that direct indictments are expressly authorized under s. 577 of the Criminal Code and fall within the Crown’s prosecutorial discretion. Ryan Bell noted that appellate courts have repeatedly recognized the practice as an appropriate mechanism for reducing delay and protecting an accused’s constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time under the Supreme Court of Canada’s R v. Jordan framework.

“There is no evidence in this case that would result in trial unfairness,” Ryan Bell wrote, adding there was no evidence capable of displacing the presumption that Crown prosecutors acted in good faith.

Ryan Bell also rejected suggestions that the Crown acted with improper motives or in a manner offensive to the integrity of the justice system.

“There is no evidence to suggest that the Crown’s conduct is offensive to societal notions of fair play and decency or would harm the integrity of the justice system,” the judge wrote.

Instead, she found there were legitimate delay-related reasons supporting the Crown’s decision.

The ruling refers to scheduling pressures in the Kingston court system and notes that preliminary inquiry dates were set for January 2026, while trial dates were ultimately set for April and May 2027. During the March hearing, Stuart specifically noted the impact of other lengthy local prosecutions on court scheduling, including the ongoing Michael Haaima trial (the most recent Kingstonist coverage of which can be read here).

In dismissing the application, Ryan Bell wrote, “The applicant has not established the proper evidentiary foundation for his abuse of process claim to proceed.”

Editor's note: This article was originally published on Kingstonist.com on Tuesday, May 26, 2026.