Appeal court orders new trial for man acquitted in double fatal boat crash

The Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial for a Mississauga man acquitted of a double fatal boat crash on Lake Ontario after a judge-alone trial.

The Crown brought the appeal on grounds involving questions of the law alone.

In May 2025, Filip Grkovski was acquitted on two counts of impaired operation of a conveyance causing death, two counts of impaired operation causing bodily harm, two counts of criminal negligence causing death and two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

In a decision released Friday, a three-judge panel found that the trial judge failed to consider whether Filip Grkovski was in care and control of the boat, even when not driving it, because of her incorrect interpretation of “care or control.”

On May 31, 2022, at around 11:30 p.m., Grkovski’s boat struck rocks off Tommy Thompson Park near Toronto’s Outer Harbour Marina, causing the boat to flip over. Four passengers were rescued from the cabin of the vessel and four others swam to safety.

Story continues below advertisement

Twenty-four-year-old Megan Wu and 34-year-old Julio Abrantes were trapped under the boat and could not be saved.

At trial, a toxicologist testified that as a result of the analysis of Grkovski’s blood sample that was given within two hours of the crash, her unchallenged evidence was that his blood alcohol level was over 80 mg in 100 ml of blood.

Get daily National news

Get daily Canada news delivered to your inbox so you'll never miss the day's top stories.

She also testified that benzoylecgonine was detected in the respondent’s blood, drawn a few hours after the crash.

“She explained that the body breaks down and eliminates cocaine pretty quickly such that it will not be detected in blood beyond eight to 12 hours of use. However, she noted that some impairing effects of cocaine can last for several days. She explained that the consumption of alcohol with cocaine increases impairment. However, she could not say definitively that cocaine was producing an effect on the respondent at the time of the crash,” wrote the Court of Appeal.

Story continues below advertisement

Grkovski argued that he was not operating the boat at the time of the crash but had given control to his friend Edward Denkha.

The Crown argued Grkovski was driving and even if he wasn’t driving, he was still liable.

Its theory of liability was essentially twofold. Its first theory was that Grkovski was impaired by alcohol and cocaine and was driving the boat when it crashed. The second theory of liability was that even if Grkovski had ceded the wheel to Denkha and Denkha was the driver at the time of the crash, Grkovski was continuously operating the boat while impaired in that he was navigating it, assisting in its navigation, or had care or control of it.

The defence argued that the Crown’s second theory of liability should not be relied upon. After submissions on that issue, the trial judge accepted the defence’s arguments and determined that the Crown’s only available theory of liability was that Grkovski was driving the boat at the time of the crash.

The parties then made closing submissions only on the Crown’s first theory of liability that Grkovski was driving the boat.

“The trial judge accepted the respondent’s evidence that he was not driving the boat at the time it crashed. She acquitted the respondent of all charges,” wrote the Court of Appeal.

Story continues below advertisement

2:02 Defence in fatal Lake Ontario crash trial asks for Crown theory to be thrown out

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not grapple with the evidence that went directly to the issue of care or control of the boat and to the nature of the legal duty that the respondent had as owner and captain of the boat who was overseeing its travel back to the marina.

“As a result of these legal errors, the trial judge erred by failing to consider on correct legal principles and on the entirety of the evidentiary record before her, whether there was a sufficient evidentiary basis, if accepted, to support the Crown’s second theory of liability,” wrote the Court of Appeal.