It's been five years since the events at issue in the gas plants trial took place. On Friday morning, the matter could finally be resolved, depending on the verdict read by Justice Timothy Lipson in a downtown Toronto courtroom.
Here's what you need to know about the history of the gas plants trial, the people involved, and what to expect on Friday.
<h3>Background</h3>
Take your mind back to 2012 and 2013, when "Call Me Maybe" and "Blurred Lines" were hits and Dalton McGuinty governed Ontario in a minority government.
A significant issue at the time were the cancelled gas plants in Mississauga and Oakville, a move supported by all three parties in the run-up to the 2011 election, despite the estimated $230-million cost. The Oakville plant was scrapped in late 2010, while the Liberals announced the cancellation of the Mississauga plant during the 2011 campaign. The Grits retained their seats in Mississauga and Oakville.
After the election, information emerged that the cancellation would cost significantly more than first expected. From $230 million, the cost estimate rose to $275 million, then $585 million, and then the auditor general concluded in October 2013, that the cost was actually in the range of $950 million to $1.09 billion.
The opposition parties criticized the McGuinty minority government in 2012 and 2013, for the cost of the gas plants cancellations and the decision-making that went into it, arguing that the price was driven up due to "<a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-liberals-gas-plant-cancellations-cost-1-billion-auditor/article14744879/?ts=131008163422" target="_blank" rel="noopener">political manoeuvering</a>."
The opposition parties used their power in a minority to hold the government to account on the issue, and through a committee requested all relevant documents related to gas plants decision-making. While the civil service provided extensive documentation, the ministry delivered scant records. In September 2012, Speaker Dave Levac issued a preliminary ruling that Energy Minister Chris Bentley was in contempt of the Parliamentary request to produce all records. After procedural contempt motions escalated in late September and early October, McGuinty prorogued the House and announced his intention to resign.
Kathleen Wynne won the Liberal leadership race.
<h3>Wiping the computers</h3>
The computers and email records at issue in the case were allegedly wrongly wiped  during the transition period between the McGuinty and Wynne governments.
At the time, David Livingston was the premier's chief of staff and Laura Miller was the deputy chief of staff. They sought to wipe the computers of political staffers who would not continue to work in the Wynne administration, and Miller asked her partner, Peter Faist, an IT consultant, whether he knew anyone who could do the job.
Faist testified that he told Miller he could do the work, and was paid $10,000 from the Liberal Party for doing so. However, Faist encountered some stumbling blocks. He quickly learned that he had insufficient administrative access to wipe the computers and needed special privileges to do so. Livingston sought the special access from the civil service, saying his aide Wendy Wai needed it.
In the context of the gas plants scandal, senior civil servants would later testify that they were reluctant to grant this access, but could not cite a precedent to not do so. Instead, the access was granted and a memo was sent to Livingston outlining records retention responsibilities.
Around two dozen computers were wiped.
The Crown argues that in the absence of the information that was wiped, a reasonable person can infer from the context of the gas plants scandal as to their motivations. Prosecutors Tom Lemon and Sarah Egan argued that Livingston and Miller had the premier's IT team at their disposal to take care of such matters, making it unnecessary to pay Faist $10,000 in party money to do so. Moreover, they argued that in the very busy final days of a transition it seemed unreasonable that the task to ensure baby photos and personal music was removed from computers would fall to the premier's most senior and trusted staffers.
<h3>The Trial</h3>
Livingston and Miller initially faced three charges: Breach of trust, unauthorized use of a computer, and mischief of data. The charges would carry a maximum of 10 years in prison.
When the trial began in September 2017, the defence immediately challenged the status of retired OPP officer Robert Gagnon, an IT specialist who supported the police investigation. The defence argued that because of Gagnon's level of involvement in the investigation — at one point he suggested an additional charge to lay against the defendants, and he did much of his work free of charge — he was not sufficiently independent, and thus should not be called upon as an expert witness, free to give his opinion.
Justice Timothy Lipson agreed with the defence, and the Crown faced a challenge, as the witness best equipped to walk the court through the difficult-to-understand computer forensic evidence would no longer testify.
The prosecution called former and current high-level civil servants to testify in the trial, including Peter Wallace, the province's top civil servant at the time of the alleged crimes.
In an often-acrimonious cross-examination Wallace testified that the civil service was concerned about Livingston's requests for computer access, but it seemed out of the realm of possibility that Faist would be brought in to wipe computers.
The defence responded that Livingston and Miller were practising diligence in trying to comply with records retention policies during a transition, and regardless, acted in "colour of right," a legal term that refers to the defendants acting in good faith.
In November 2017, the defence moved for a directed verdict like the one in the Sudbury bribery trial, arguing that there was not enough evidence presented by the Crown for a jury, properly instructed, to have a reasonable prospect to find the defendants guilty.
Facing this, the Crown dropped the breach of trust charge.
Justice Lipson disagreed with the defence motion in part, allowing the trial to proceed. However, he reduced the mischief in relation to data charge to attempted mischief in relation to data.
Livingston lawyer Brian Gover tells QP Briefing he is "cautiously optmistic" about the verdict on Friday, and that his client will be "relieved" to put the trial behind him.
"We argued the Crown hasn't proven its case," Gover said, noting that the prosecution's expert witness was ruled unable to provide his opinions on the stand.
Gover also expressed his satisfaction that the Crown dropped the breach of trust charge in November, arguing that it carries "more of a moral stigma" than the two remaining charges due to the standard of malice and intent that accompanies it.
The verdict will be read aloud by Justice Lipson at 10 a.m. on Friday in courtroom 125 at 60 Queen St. W., Toronto.
This article initially referred to Energy Minister Chris Ballard, when we meant Chris Bentley. We apologize for the error.

A not-so-brief history of the gas plants trial saga

Read this for free.