Frank Ostrowski

Case Summary

In May 1987, Winnipeg man Frank Ostrowski was convicted of the first degree murder of Robert Nieman after an eight-week jury trial. Ostrowski was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years.1

Nieman had been fatally shot in September 1986.2 Robert Dunkley, the shooter, and Luis Correia, his accessory, were arrested on first degree murder charges.3 The prosecution’s theory was that Ostrowski, a hairdresser who also trafficked in cocaine, orchestrated Nieman’s shooting. The Crown argued that his motive was to silence a police informer, since he believed Nieman to have supplied information that led to his arrest on drug trafficking charges. Ostrowski acknowledged “that he was a drug dealer, but denied all involvement in the murder.”4

The Crown’s case against Ostrowski was chiefly comprised of dubious evidence from police and “jailhouse” informants. Star witness Matthew Lovelace, a drug dealer for Ostrowski, testified that shortly before the shooting, the latter had told him of his plan to have Nieman killed. In support of this position, Lovelace and police officers testified that some hours prior to the murder, Lovelace had called his police contacts to tell them that he feared for Nieman’s safety.5 When Lovelace could not reach the officers, he left a message to the effect that “there was going to be a hit or an attempt to kill Robbie Nieman”.6

Lovelace told the court that he had “never asked the police for any consideration in exchange for his information and cooperation”, which was confirmed under oath by his handlers.7 Ostrowski’s counsel cross-examined him on this claim, questioning Lovelace “at length about whether he had made any deal with the Crown or the police regarding his outstanding drug charges in exchange for his testimony against” Ostrowski.8 Lovelace maintained “that there was no deal.”9

Unbeknownst to Ostrowski and his defence counsel, Lovelace’s lawyer had in fact approached federal prosecutors prior to the trial.10 They had agreed that Lovelace’s drug charges would be dropped in exchange for his testimony.11 After Ostrowski’s conviction and subsequent, unsuccessful appeal (below), Lovelace was acquitted on his drug charges, as the federal Crown called no evidence and gave “no explanation to the court” for this decision.12

The jury at Ostrowski’s trial also heard evidence from Wayne Cory, an incarcerated (“jailhouse”) informant with prior convictions for fraud.13 Cory testified that Ostrowski had said in pre-trial detention that “Mr. Nieman was an informer, and . . . ‘they’ had no choice but to kill him because he was bringing down so many people in the ‘coke ring’.”14 Cory also “had his own charges stayed after he testified against” Ostrowski.15

In addition, the jury heard evidence from the shooter, Robert Dunkley. “[A]lthough the facts [were] . . . clear that he was guilty of murder in the first degree”, the Crown had entered into a plea bargain with Dunkley.16 He would “plead guilty to second degree murder and . . . testify” at Ostrowski’s trial; in  exchange, the Crown would drop the first degree murder charge and request parole eligibility starting 15 years into his life sentence. (In contrast, first degree murder parole eligibility is restricted to a minimum of 25 years.)17 Dunkley told police that a criminal associate, Jim Luzny, had hired Dunkley at Ostrowski’s behest and arranged for the murder weapon to be delivered.18

However, when Dunkley entered his guilty plea, the sentencing judge rejected the joint Crown and defence request for parole eligibility at 15 years and selected 20 instead. Dunkley took this as a betrayal in which “the Crown had welched on the deal.”19 At trial he “repudiated his prior statements” that incriminated Ostrowski, testifying that these were lies. As a result, the alleged associate Luzny was acquitted of first degree murder.20 Dunkley did, however, state that Nieman’s death “was a contract killing”, and that he “was hired to kill Mr. Nieman because [he] . . . was an informer.”21

In the end, Ostrowski was convicted largely on the word of: (1) incentivized informant Lovelace, who was acquitted on drug charges in exchange for his evidence; (2) “jailhouse” informant Cory, whose charges were stayed after he testified; and (3) Dunkley, the killer, who had his charge reduced.22 The senior Crown on this matter was George Dangerfield, who also prosecuted wrongful convicted persons Thomas Sophonow, James Driskell, and Kyle Unger.23

A two-to-one majority of the Manitoba Court of Appeal panel dismissed Ostrowski’s conviction appeal in 1989.24 Justice O’Sullivan, in dissent, found that the trial judge had erred in not properly putting the defence case before the jurors and would have ordered a new trial.25 Justice O’Sullivan criticized the Crown for its plea arrangement with Dunkley, stating that: “I must say that I think it is morally wrong for Crown counsel to reduce a charge of murder in the first degree to one of murder in the second degree . . . because he wants to have the evidence of the culprit available against other criminals involved in the case.”26 More broadly, Justice O’Sullivan observed that:

[T]here is a practice on the part of drug law enforcers to make deals with . . . many persons in the community who are trafficking in drugs with the full knowledge of law enforcement . . . and they are allowed to do so with impunity in the hope that their evidence as informers may enable the police to catch some of the higher-ups in the drug trade. I think such a policy deserves intense public scrutiny.27

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Ostrowski’s further appeal of his conviction in 1990.28

While serving his sentence, Ostrowski repeatedly attempted to rectify his wrongful conviction: “[a]s early as 1992, [he] . . . had his lawyer pursuing evidence to support his assertion that he was innocent. He requested the Winnipeg Police review his case on the basis that he was wrongfully convicted.”29 While “[a]n internal review was conducted that year . . . no basis was found to question the conviction.”30

In 2001, Ostrowski contacted the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC), now known as Innocence Canada.31 In 2004, the federal Crown disclosed its file pertaining to Lovelace. This file “revealed . . . [the] arrangement between federal prosecutors and Lovelace’s counsel whereby in exchange for his testimony” against Ostrowski, his drug charges did not move forward.32

In July 2009, Ostrowski applied to the Minister of Justice to have his case reviewed, to determine if there had been a miscarriage of justice. In December of that year, Ostrowski was released on bail pending  ministerial review of his case. He had spent 23 years in prison.33 The Minister of Justice eventually determined that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred, and directed the Court of Appeal to rehear Ostrowski’s conviction appeal.34

In 2018 – almost a decade since Ostrowski had filed his application – the Court of Appeal found that his conviction was indeed a miscarriage of justice.35 The Crown conceded that it failed to disclose important evidence to Ostrowski, breaching his constitutional right to a fair trial.36 It held that “by December 1986, there was a deal between Mr. Lovelace’s lawyer and the federal Crown . . . [and] that the defence lawyers were asking the provincial Crowns for disclosure of that deal, but . . . were consistently told that there was no deal.”37 In addition, the Crown had failed to disclose the report and personal notes of the officer who took Lovelace’s message the night before Nieman was shot. These undermined Lovelace’s claim to have told police that Ostrowski planned to kill the victim, since they made no reference to Nieman at all.38

With the Crown’s consent, the Court of Appeal quashed Ostrowski’s first degree murder conviction. The court found that a new trial would not be appropriate given that 32 years had elapsed since Nieman’s murder and Ostrowski had already spent almost a quarter-century in prison. The court stayed the proceedings against him in November 2018.39

In 2020, Ostrowski filed a civil suit against a number of parties including the federal government, the City of Winnipeg, Lovelace’s defence counsel (Hymie Weinstein), and several police officers. The court has since dismissed his claims against Weinstein and the federal Crown, and some of his claims against the police. No public record has been discovered regarding the balance of Ostrowski’s claims.40


[1] R. v. Ostrowski, 2018 MBCA 125 at paras 1, 5-6 [Ostrowski 2018]; R. v. Ostrowski and Correia, 1989 CanLII 7367 (MB CA), 57 Man.R. (2d) 255 at paras 1, 38 [Ostrowski 1989].
[2] Ostrowski 2018, supra note 1 at para 10.
[3] Ibid. at paras 10-11, Appendix A (s. 3); Ostrowski 1989, supra note 1 at paras 2, 9, 39.
[4] Ostrowski 2018, supra note 1 at para 5; “‘Glad this is almost over’: Crown, defence agree Frank Ostrowski’s murder conviction should be dropped”, CBC News (28 May 2018), online: <https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/frank-ostrowski-wrongly-convicted-dangerfield-trial-1.46805> (accessed 22 January 2023).
[5] Ostrowski 2018, supra note 1 at paras 6, 13, 16, 37, 59-61, 64; Ostrowski 1989, supra note 1 at paras 5, 33.
[6] Ostrowski 2018, supra note 1 at para 59.
[7] Ibid. at para 8; Ostrowski v. The Queen et al., 2009 MBQB 327 at paras 46-47 [Ostrowski 2009].
[8] Ostrowski 2018, supra note 1 at para 13.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid. at paras 14, 16.
[11] Ostrowski 2009, supra note 7 at paras 37-38.
[12] Ostrowski 2018, supra note 1 at para 15; Ostrowski 1989, supra note 1 at paras 1, 29, 37.
[13] Ostrowski 2018, supra note 1 at paras 43, 71.
[14] Ibid. at Appendix A (s. 1).
[15] Ibid. at para 71.
[16] Ibid. at paras 10-11, 74; Ostrowski 1989, supra note 1 at paras 41, 48.
[17] Ostrowski 1989, supra note 1 at para 41; Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 745(a).
[18] Ostrowski 2018, supra note 1 at para 11, Appendix A (s. 3); Ostrowski 1989, supra note 1 at para 39.
[19] Ostrowski 1989, supra note 1 at para 41.
[20] Ostrowski 2018, supra note 1 at paras 11, 74, Appendix A (s. 3); Ostrowski 1989, supra note 1 at para 41.
[21] Ostrowski 2018, supra note 1 at Appendix A (s. 3).
[22] Ibid. at paras 14-15, 71; Ostrowski 1989, supra note 1 at paras 33, 44.
[23] Ostrowski 2018, supra note 1 at para 5; “Retired prosecutor George Dangerfield behind 4 high-profile quashed murder convictions in Manitoba”, CBC News (29 May 2018), online: <https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/george-dangerfield-blaming-wrong-man-murder-1.4682564> (accessed 23 January 2023).
[24] Ostrowski 1989, supra note 1 at paras 1, 29, 37.
[25] Ibid. at paras 83-84.
[26] Ibid. at para 48.
[27] Ibid. at para 85.
[28] R. v. Ostrowski, 1990 CanLII 116 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 82.
[29] Ostrowski 2009, supra note 7 at paras 9-11.
[30] Ibid. at para 9.
[31] Ibid. at para 11.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid. at paras 1, 13-14, 59, 55.  
[34] Ostrowski 2018, supra note 1 at para 1.
[35] Ibid. at para 4.
[36] Ibid. at para 2.
[37] Ibid. at para 45.
[38] Ibid. at paras 17, 59-61.
[39] Ibid. at paras 2, 79.
[40] Ostrowski v. Weinstein et al., 2021 MBQB 269 at paras 1, 37; Ostrowski v. Weinstein et al., 2022 MBQB 3 at para 45.

 

 

Case Details

  • Full name:

    Frank Ostrowski

  • Gender identity:

    Male

  • Race/ethnicity:

    Unknown

  • Age - at the time of conviction:

    37

  • Charges - specific offences:

    First degree murder

  • Date of conviction:

    1987-05-23

  • Date wrongful conviction was overturned:

    2018-11-27

  • Sentence - total time served:

    23 years, 00 months, 00 days

  • Legal mechanism by which wrongful conviction was overturned:

    696/690 and new appeal with new evidence

  • Status of alleged crime:

    Unsolved

  • Compensation Received?

    Unknown

  • Guilty plea?

    No

  • Cause(s) of wrongful conviction:

    Ostrowski’s first degree murder wrongful conviction resulted from “jailhouse” and police informants’ testimony, in exchange for which they gained favourable outcomes in their own criminal proceedings. The Crown did not disclose the bargain made between its star witness and federal prosecutors, for his drug charges to be dropped after he testified.