Canadian True Crime - Kevin O'Leary's Boat Collision [2]

Episode Date: May 25, 2026

[Part 2 of 2] In 2019, a late-night boat collision involving Kevin and Linda O’Leary on Ontario’s Lake Joseph, left two people dead and sparked years of intense public scrutiny and conflicting narratives.In part two, we uncover why Canada’s most talked-about boating tragedies remained in the spotlight for years.---------------------------------------------------------IMPORTANT NOTES AND DISCLAIMERS:– This series does not frame this incident as a crime. While it was initially investigated and reported as a potential Criminal Code matter (per Toronto Life, August 24, 2020), the charges ultimately laid fell under the Canada Shipping Act.– If you know anyone related to this case, please respect their privacy.– The intention of this series is to look beyond the headlines, rumours and conspiracy theories surrounding a highly publicized boating tragedy, and carefully examine the evidence to better understand what happened. – Kristi Lee is not a lawyer, but a member of the general public reviewing this case through the lens of the open court principle. This series has been pieced together from the public record, including court documents, online news sources and trial reporting by media outlets including the National Post, CBC News and the Toronto Star.---------------------------------------------------------Look for early, ad-free release on CTC premium feeds: available on Amazon Music (included with Prime) and Apple Podcasts.Canadian True Crime donates monthly to those facing injustice. This month we have donated in Kevin O’Leary’s name to Feed Ontario - a charity that supports food banks across the province to help end hunger and poverty.Full list of resources, information sources, and more:www.canadiantruecrime.ca/episodes/212 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to Canadian True Crime, a completely independent project funded mainly through advertising. To listen, add free and early, subscribe to our premium feed on Amazon Music Included with Prime, Apple Podcasts, and Patreon. This podcast often has disturbing content and course language. It's not for everyone. Please take care when listening. This is part two, the final episode. This series has been pieced together from court documents, trial reporting, and the news archive. Just a reminder that Linda O'Leary's charge was not criminal, and her trial fell under the Canada Shipping Act. If you know anyone related to this case, please respect their privacy. People ask me all the time, why are you so tough? Did you learn that? I said, no, it's just dealing with the truth all the time. In business, you've got to deal with the truth. You can't make up stuff. It just happens to you.

Reality always comes and bites you in the hymen. So why not deal with it from day one? We left off on Saturday, August 24th of 2019, the night that Kevin and Linda O'Leary took their Cobalt water ski boat across Lake Joseph to attend a dinner party hosted by friends. Later that evening at about 1125 p.m., security footage showed them leaving to return home, with Linda driving the boat. her controversial businessman and reality TV star husband Kevin O'Leary sitting beside her and their family friend Alison in the back seat. It was a moonless night, a lake in complete darkness, according to Kevin O'Leary's testimony. They couldn't see anything as they were planing across the lake at speed,

the boat's hull lifting partly out of the water. Without warning, they hit something that he described as complete, completely invisible. Two passengers on the other boat suffered devastating fatal injuries. Retired accountant Gary Paltash died on the dock and mother of three Suzanne Brito passed away two days later. In this episode, we go inside what happened at the O'Leary cottage in the minutes and hours after the crash. The head-scratching moments and baffling decisions that would later become central to a courtroom battle. The court heard that Linda O'Leary was a fully licensed pleasure craft operator

and the boating guru of the family. But was she operating the vessel carelessly that night? Was she impaired? Was she travelling too fast in the darkness? And what about the other boat, the one owned by Dr. Irv Edwards, carrying 12 stargazing passengers, was that boat really?

just floating on the lake with no lights on at all. We'll continue to unravel the evidence and reconstruct the events of that night to answer the questions. Who was ultimately responsible for this tragic collision? And why have conspiracy theories persisted long after the case was legally closed? First, we go back to that night in the summer of 2019. The collision happened just 150 meters from shore on billionaire's row, the same stretch of lake where the O'Leary and Edwards' cottages sit. Just seconds before that, the O'Leary's son, Trevor, was outside by the fire pit with his girlfriend and three longtime friends, all in their early 20s. The following comes directly from trial testimony. Trevor O'Leary recognized the sound of his parents' speedboat engine.

approaching. They've got a view of the lake from where they are, and the group can see the light of the boat moving along the water. Then there's a loud bang or slam in the darkness. The speedboat stops. It clearly hits something, but they're not sure what, maybe a large rock. Floodlights suddenly come on, illuminating another larger boat that seems to appear out of nowhere. That, that's a lot of That's the Super Air Nautique, the Edwards boat. Trevor and his friends can hear the O'Leary's asking if anyone was heard. Linda apparently has a distinctive voice. They hear no response from the other boat and see it slowly move away from the scene.

They assume that no one is seriously injured. The speedboat then starts moving towards the dock and Trevor and his friends run down to meet it. He calls 911. First responders arrive at the O'Leary's cottage about 30 minutes later. One paramedic finds Linda O'Leary sitting on the dock, clutching a foot and ankle that has visible swelling. He assesses her for pain and injury. Linda declines to go to the hospital.

She's not seriously injured. The other paramedic assesses the O'Leary's family friend Alison, who has a gash to her head. She is taken to hospital where she'll be treated for a minor head injury. Two female constables with the Ontario Provincial Police arrive about 30 minutes after the paramedics. By this point, it's around 12.30 a.m. or an hour after the collision. One constable goes to speak with Kevin O'Leary and the other finds Linda. She's been helped into a bed in one of the bedrooms.

of their massive boathouse. Her leg is propped up on a pillow. Linda tells the constable that she was the one driving the boat and she's done nothing wrong. She says the other boat didn't have any lights on and she couldn't see it. She repeats this several times. And without any prompting,

Linda states that she has not consumed any alcohol. Linda seems upset and anxious, so the constable decides to leave her alone to collect her thoughts and goes to find the other senior officer. The constable says she returns to the boathouse bedroom just after 1am. It wasn't established how long she was gone for, but it was likely around 15 to 20 minutes.

This time, the constable goes over and stands next to the bed to go over what happened again. She detects a fairly strong, odor of alcohol on Linda's breath and asks her directly if she's had any alcohol. Linda says no. The constable tells her that her eyes seem glossy and her pupils are dilated. Linda's responses, Your pupils appear dilated to me. The constable feels like Linda's trying to deflect the attention. She tells the 56-year-old that she's now formed suspicion that she may have operated. operated the boat under the influence and asks her a second time if she drank any alcohol.

Now, Linda says that she consumed a vodka and water drink to calm her nerves, but it wasn't until after the collision and it's the only drink she's had. The time, Linda says she likely drank it between 1230 and 1am. That's just after the police arrived and includes the time when the constable left her alone to collect her thoughts. Linda is asked to provide a breath sample. She seems nervous and hesitant and wants to know if she's obligated to do it. The constable tells her that if she refuses, it will lead to a criminal charge. Linda appears shocked.

So she gives the breath sample. By this point, it's 1.25am, almost two hours since the collision. In Canada, it's a criminal offence to drive a vehicle, including a boat, with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 mils per 100 mils of blood or higher. That would result in an immediate arrest, likely criminal charges and a fine, plus transportation to the station for more accurate testing to confirm the result. But approved roadside screening devices are only designed for a quick preliminary assessment. They don't give a precise number. They're calibrated to sort the results into three simple categories, pass, warn or fail. A fail means anything above 0.08,

which is a criminal offence, and a pass means anything below 0.05. But in Ontario, there's a category in between, a warning. It's not a criminal offence. but there's consequences. At the time of the O'Leary boat collision, a breath sample that lands in the warning category results in an immediate license suspension for three days. Today, it's seven days. Linda O'Leary's breath test triggers this warning alert.

If she'd failed, she would have been taken straight to the station for that more sophisticated test that can be used as evidence at trial. But with a warn result, it's the officer's call about whether that's necessary, for example, if there's evidence of actual impairment. But there's another factor to consider. By this point, nearly two hours had passed since the collision. It'll be even later than that by the time they get to the nearest police station to take the more sophisticated test. Whatever the result, it'll be difficult to prove it was a reliable reflection of Linda's blood alcohol concentration when she was driving the boat.

Still, Linda will have her license suspended for three days. The constable can tell she's upset by the test result. She asks Linda how much alcohol was in that vodka water drink. Linda says she doesn't know because she didn't make the drink. Someone handed it to her. Who? She can't remember. All she knows is that it wasn't her husband or their friend Alison. By this point, the other female constable is standing in the doorway, overhearing this conversation. She sees the alcohol screening device with the red light and alert on it at the end of the bed.

She also notices a clear glass on the table beside the bed, about a quarter full of what looks like a clear light. substance. This constable would describe Linda as hostile and not cooperative. She was clearly done talking to the police. Trevor O'Leary and his four friends testified that after the collision, none of them served Linda any alcohol that night, and none of them saw her drinking any either. But one of those friends said he found a random glass of liquid on the counter, assumed it was water, and set the glass on the table next to Linda. He said he didn't know for sure it was water in the glass, though, nor did he know who put it there,

or whether it was even meant for her. This is an odd detail. He said he later noticed the glass was empty and refilled it with water. The court heard that Linda O'Leary refused to provide police with contact details of the hosts of the dinner party they came from, at least initially, and that slowed the investigation because it took police longer to identify and interview them about things including Linda's consumption of alcohol. The reason she didn't want to hand over those contact details remains unclear, because once

police did reach the dinner party hosts and guests, their accounts of Linda O'Leary being a model designated driver were strikingly consistent. The host of that dinner party, Leah, had testified that while she was making welcome cocktails for their guests, Linda approached her and asked for a weaker drink, so she only included half the amount of vodka. Leah noticed Linda's wine glass was upside down the entire dinner, and several guests remembered her saying she was always the designated driver. As for Kevin O'Leary, he said he drank alcohol that night. He's known as. as a wine connoisseur after all, but he strangely couldn't remember if his wife was drinking or not.

He speculated that Linda might have consumed one drink, but it was probably a watered down one. He said, She knows if she's the designated driver, she's got to be very conscious about consuming alcohol. Kevin also couldn't recall whether Linda appeared to be affected by alcohol in the hours before or after the crash. although he pointed out that he wasn't with her the entire time. Their son Trevor, along with one of his friends, emphasized that Linda was always adamant about not operating a boat while impaired and observing boat safety rules.

The Trevor group all described the events in a similar way, which also lined up with Kevin's testimony, perhaps too much. At trial, the prosecutor pointed out that it wasn't until the following day that Trevor and his friends gave their police statements. When Kevin was asked about whether he'd spoken to them about what they saw before that, he said he had not. The drink that Linda O'Leary said she was given after the crash, and was apparently responsible for the warning alert on her breath sample, remains a mystery. There's actually a special name for,

for situations like this, where a driver says they consumed alcohol after driving, but before they gave a breath sample. It's called the intervening drink defense, and according to the Department of Justice Canada website, the conduct is often intentional and done to interfere with the breath testing process. Here's how it works. There's almost always a gap between when a person stops driving, perhaps because of an incident and when the police arrive. And if the person says, I only drank alcohol after I stopped driving, that gap in time becomes a problem for a breath test. If evidentiary testing at the station confirms a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit, the driver can argue the alcohol wasn't in their system when they were actually driving.

As a side note, a driver could also claim that they only consumed alcohol just before they drove, and that's called a bolus defence. The driver can argue that they weren't actually driving impaired because the alcohol wasn't fully absorbed until later, which just happens to be when they were tested. Historically, both of these defences created reasonable doubt that potentially derailed the prosecution of a. an impaired driving charge.

But the criminal code was updated in 2018 to make these defences harder to rely on. That's the year before the O'Leary boat collision. Now, if a driver tests over the legal limit within two hours of driving, the court can consider it evidence they were also over the limit while driving. But what if a driver has an innocent drink

after driving and before the test? The Criminal Code recognises that this can happen, and in those cases the burden shifts. The driver has to prove they were sober when they stopped driving, and that when they drank the alcohol, they had no reason to think police would ask for a breath sample. So could this potentially apply to Linda O'Leary? Well, for one thing, this was hardly a routine trip home. There was a serious collision between two boats in the dark on the way. Linda and Kevin said they called out to ask if everyone on the other boat was okay,

and when they didn't hear a clear response, they seemed to have assumed that no one was seriously injured. This might have led them to believe there was no reason to think police would ask for a breath sample, but that seems like a risky assumption to make. People on their own boat were injured, and the collision was serious enough that 911 was called. At trial, the defence pointed to the paramedic who assessed Linda before the police arrived. His notes didn't mention any signs of impairment, and he testified that if he'd seen anything concerning, he would have written it down.

That was framed by the defence as support for Linda's claim that she only had. drank after she got home. But even if this innocent drink was the reason for her breath sample triggering an alert in the warning range, it raised another problem. Linda's timeline suggests she only had the drink after the police arrived, yet shortly after that, when the constable asked her outright for the first time if she drank any alcohol, she lied and said no. Frankly, the whole thing seems dodgy as hell.

From Linda's initial unprompted declaration to the police constable that she hadn't had any alcohol and hadn't done anything wrong, to her refusal to give police details of the people who hosted the dinner party, to her lying to the constable, an apparent hesitancy to give a breath sample, to her changing story that she actually did have a drink, but it wasn't until after she finished driving the boat, and she couldn't say how much alcohol was in that drink because someone handed it to her, although she couldn't remember who.

Then there's that random drink her son's friend said he found on the counter that he assumed was water and put it on the table next to her. It's never been established what was actually in that drink or where it came from. But at the end of the day, all of that is a moot point, because when Linda was asked to provide a breath sample almost two hours after she drove the boat, it didn't register a fail, just an alert in the warning range,

and there was no follow-up test at the police station. And while there were questions at trial about Linda's alcohol consumption both before and after the collision, she had not been charged with impaired driving. So Linda O'Leary, who was driving the boat, pleaded not guilty to operating a vessel in a careless manner under the Canada Shipping Act. Impaired driving was not part of the case. But what about speed?

The thing is, there's no posted speed limit on Lake Joseph and boat operators are expected to drive safely in accordance with the conditions. Several witnesses on the. the Edwards boat testified about their perceptions of the speed of the O'Leary boat that it came out of nowhere and was moving so fast. Distance travelled through water is typically measured in nautical miles or knots. I've converted it to kilometres per hour for simplicity. Retired denturist Murray Walmuth testified the boat came towards them recklessly and estimated it was going fast enough

for him to water ski at his usual speed of about 48 to 51 kilometres per hour. When Kevin O'Leary testified, the prosecutor pressed him on two points, his estimate of how fast they were travelling and how far away the Edwards boat was when he first noticed it. Kevin testified the speedboat was planing, and he estimated the speed to be roughly 22 to 32 kilometres an hour. But this was not consistent with the initial slower estimate he gave to police, which was 14 to 16 kilometres an hour. The prosecutor suggested to Kevin that he really had no idea how fast they were going. He responded, well, I know I wasn't doing 100 miles an hour and I know I wasn't doing zero.

Kevin testified he didn't realize anything was ahead of them until it was too late and his wife had only. only seconds or split seconds to react. He estimated they were about a foot and a half away from the Edwards boat when he noticed it. This isn't consistent with the initial estimate he gave to police, that they were about five feet away when he first saw something grey. The prosecutor suggested that if they'd been travelling more slowly on that pitch black night, there may have been more time to identify an object in the water, react, and quickly take action. Kevin pushed back. Not necessarily if it's completely invisible. You could probably still hit it at any speed. The prosecutor argued that boaters must be ready to detect and avoid crashing into things

unlit or not. But Kevin dug in. Nobody drives into a boat they can see. I mean, that's obvious we could not see it, it was completely unlit. Problem is, the witnesses on the Edwards boat would tell a completely different story. Back in a moment. Kevin O'Leary's testimony was that the Edwards' boat was completely invisible to them that night. No lights, nothing visible until they were only feet away when it was too late. Dr. Irv Edwards had testified that after their dinner part, he decided to take his guests out on his new Super Air Nortique,

a little way into the lake to go stargazing. There were 12 people on the boat, and Irv was driving at first, but shortly after they left, he handed the controls to Dr. Richard Rue, who proceeded slowly from there. At about 150 metres from the shore, just south of the tiny Emerald Island, Richard turned the engine off, and they were just floating on the calm water, enjoying the night sky. But did they really turn off all the lights on the boat as well? Not according to Irv Edwards.

He testified their lights were on, quote, A thousand percent they were. No normal person would turn the lights off at night. But it was Dr. Richard Roo behind the wheel at the time of the collision. He testified that the boat had all its navigation lights on at the time of the crash, as well as the internal control panel which he said provided quite a bit of light. In fact, all the witnesses from the Edwards boat were consistent in their descriptions too, that there were lights on the bow and the stern, navigation lights and internal lights,

and they were either on the entire time, or there was no recollection of them being turned off. So were those lights on or off? Which camp was telling the truth? Fortunately, there were two more pieces of video evidence. The first is from a security camera from the cottage of Dr. Irv Edwards. The timestamp is 10.42pm and it shows the Ayrnortique pulling away from the dock with a group of 12 going stargazing at the end of their dinner party. The security camera isn't on the dock, it's further back on the cottage, too far away to make out people on the boat that night. But it's visibly lit up with lights in several locations.

One seems to be at the stern or back of the boat. There's more lights that extend up around the wheelhouse, plus what seems to be an internal glow inside the boat. The Edwards boat moves slowly out into the lake, then the light of the light of. on the stern suddenly disappears. A minute or so later, most of the lights above the wheelhouse disappear. Only one light can be seen on the boat now, and about 30 seconds later, that one disappears too. It's now been about four minutes since the Edwards boat left the dock,

and it's no longer visible anywhere on the footage. And that's the end of it from this vantage point. After that, they indicated they were floating in silence and serenity looking at the stars about 150 metres from the shore. About 40 minutes later, the other dinner party across the lake has wrapped up and Linda O'Leary pushes their speedboat away from the dock. It's just a five-minute journey across Lake Joseph back to their cottage, which is in the same general area as the Edwards Cottage.

and the Edwards boat is directly in their path of travel. There's a second video capturing the collision from a distance. This one is from a camera at the O'Leary property that shines out into the lake. The timestamp reads 11.30pm, and the only visible light on the lake at that time is a small stationary light in the centre of the screen. It's actually a dock light. on a small island nearby called Emerald Island. It's the only light in the video footage that doesn't move. Then another light comes into view from the left.

That's the O'Leary Speedboat returning home. On the footage, it appears to travel towards the right as it gets closer to shore, passing the stationary dock light. Suddenly, the light lurches up and stops before, bouncing back in the darkness. A few seconds later, the light goes out. For the next 30 seconds, all that can be seen on the security footage is that stationary dock light in the distance.

But then, another set of light suddenly appears to the right of where the O'Leary boat was last seen. This is the larger Edwards' boat, and two distinct areas of light are visible on it. Here's how journalist Adrian Humphreys described what he saw on the video for the National Post. It is impossible to discern details in the distant scene caught on the security video. Small dots and pricks of light in the background stand out from the inky darkness, where what is the night sky and what is Lake Joseph's deep water are indiscernible. Humphreys points out that the lights from the Edwards boat cannot

not be seen until after the light from the O'Leary speedboat stops abruptly and is bounced back. At the trial, both the prosecution and the defence accepted that these dots of light depicted the collision just after 1130pm. That's not the end of the footage though. It shows the lights on the O'Leary boat come back on about a minute later, and both boats float, lights on, for another minute or so as each party deals with the immediate chaos of the crash. Then the Edwards boat starts moving to the left, passing by the O'Leary boat. By this point, it's been two and a half minutes since the collision. 30 seconds after the Edwards boat leaves,

the O'Leary boat can be seen taking off in the same direction before turning and moving toward the camera back to their cottage. It seems the police were right, both boats left to seek medical attention. And an interesting observation, at trial, Kevin O'Leary testified that the police told him at about 2 a.m. that someone had died on the other boat. When TMZ broke the story the day after that, Kevin O'Leary's brief statement included one striking claim

that the other boat had fled the scene of the accident. It was certainly a choice for him to phrase it as though the Edwards boat was at fault for leaving when he knew they were dealing with severe life-threatening injuries. Besides, boating experts have widely pointed out that there's really no such thing as leaving the scene when it comes to a boat collision. The boat could be taking on water,

so after making sure that all passengers are accounted for, it's wise to get to safety as quickly as possible. While there's no posted speed limit on Lake Joseph, there are strict rules about lighting, how a boat must be lit while on the water at night. If the vessel is on the move, navigation lights are a must, and they have to be visible from every direction,

according to the Canada Shipping Act. If the boat is anchored, it must display an anchor light so it can be seen on the water by others. The Edwards boat was apparently not anchored, but the passengers had been strikingly consistent in their testimony that the lights were on at the time of the collision. So how did they explain that surveillance footage that appeared to contradict them? boat owner Dr Irv Edwards testified that the lights were on when he was driving it initially and he didn't notice anything changed after he handed the controls over to Richard Rue. The guest witnesses on the boat effectively conceded that what the video showed was inconsistent

with their recollection but they insisted that what they remembered was their truth. Dr Richard Rue, who was driving the boat, maintained the navigation lights and the boat's control panel lights were on at the time of the collision. When he was asked if the video showed the lights were on, his response was, I know that I was on the boat and the lights were on my boat. But when he was taken through the footage frame by frame,

he acknowledged that the interior lights were not on. Then he conceded that he'd covered the control panel with his sweatshirt to dampen the glare from those lights so that they could see the stars better. He acknowledged that the boat had essentially become invisible to the camera, he said, but he would not concede that the navigation lights were off. You'll recall that when Richard Rue was first charged with failing to exhibit a stern navigation light, he announced through his lawyers that he'd be contesting the facts and vigorously fighting the charge. But about a year after that, he dropped the fight.

He paid the fine of $125, and a conviction was entered against him under the Canada Shipping Act. So by the time Linda O'Leary went to trial on the more serious charge of careless operation of a boat, Richard Rue had already resolved his own charge and accepted a conviction. So how could he still be insisting that the boat's lights were on? Rue explained at trial that his decision to not contest the charge was not the same as pleading guilty. He said he'd spent about a year and roughly $40,000 in legal fees trying to prove to others what he referred to as his knowledge of the truth. But on legal advice, he decided to drop it to avoid putting everyone through a long and traumatic

trial over a $125 ticket. He paid the fine, but maintained he had not admitted guilt. Richard Rue argued that his conviction for failing to exhibit a stern navigation light should not be treated as proof that the boat's lights were off. On a road collision, there's often physical evidence left behind that can help tell the story of what happened, including skid marks, but not so on water. About two weeks after the collision,

a team of specialists and investigators with the Ontario Provincial Police re-enacted what happened on Lake Joseph on a night with similar light and weather conditions. News reports suggest that the police use the action boat the O'Leary speedboat crashed into, the three-year-old Super Air Nortique owned by Irv Edwards. It's the bigger of the two boats at 23 feet long, compared to the O'Leary's Cobalt Speedboat at 20 feet. It was stopped in the same area and at about the same time as the collision happened. Standing in for the O'Leary's 20-year-old ski boat was a police boat, an O'P.U.S.

Harbourcraft. A number of simulations were carried out to experiment with what the O'Leary's might have seen when the Edwards boat was lit up, and again when all the lights were out, and how speed might have affected what they could see ahead. The officers and the police boat found no issues with visibility when the Edwards boat was lit up, but on that boat, an OPP officer testified that when the bright overhead light was on as required by law, quote, it was a very bright light and it irritated me to look into it. In his opinion, having that light on would have made it difficult for the group to stargaze that night.

For the next simulation, the Edwards boat was completely dark, no lights on at all. The police boat approached it at a speed of about 8.000. kilometers an hour, which is slightly less than Kevin O'Leary's lowest speed estimate. The Edwards' boat ahead was invisible in the darkness, and all they could see were two lights from the O'Leary's cottage on the shore. One officer testified it was very close before we saw the vessel. Then they dialed it up. The police boat began picking up speed until it was planing along the water, consistent with Kevin O'Leary's testimony. Although both boats were in communication with each other the entire time,

the court heard it was a nerve-wracking exercise. One officer testified, We were advised to travel at speed towards a known vessel without its lights on. Even when we knew it was there, it was shocking how close we got to it prior to actually seeing it. The court saw some of this reenactment video, from the police boat, showing it approaching at 32 kilometres an hour, the fastest of Kevin O'Leary's speed estimates. The video showed darkness, according to news reports. Then suddenly, the Edwards' boat was so

close that they could reach out and touch it as they passed. One officer testified his heart still races when he sees the footage. It was a little too close for conversation. It was a little too close for The police decided that was the end of the simulation. It was too dangerous. An inspection of both boats found obvious damage, but not as much as the specialists expected. They were both top-quality boats, and there was nothing wrong with the lighting systems on the Edwards Inn or Teak. Photos show the hull or underside of the boat intact and visibly undamaged, but on the bow of the boat, it looks like something has forcefully sliced through the fiberglass leading to the front seating area. Photos show areas of blood on the seat. On the O'Leary's Cobalt, photos show

extensive damage to the hull or underside, with a big chunk of fiberglass broken through and hanging down. The OPP concluded it was essentially a head-on collision, with the OPP. The OPP concluded it was essentially a head-on collision, with the O'Leary boat approaching at a slight angle. At the pointy end of the bow on that boat, there's a strong metal fitting used to lift it out of the water. That fitting was the first point of impact, and it sliced through the fibreglass of the Edwards boat, riding up over the bow and through the seating area.

That's where 48-year-old Suzanne Bredo and 64-year-old Gary Paltash were sitting, Both died from blunt trauma to the head. The OPP concluded it was unlikely that the Edwards boat had its overhead navigation light on, as that would have ruined the view of the stars. This effectively made the boat invisible at the moment of impact. So what about the speed of the O'Leary boat? An OPP video forensic analysts used timestamps from security footage to do

time and distance calculations. The O'Leary's left the dinner party at 1126pm, and at just after 1130pm, the light representing the O'Leary boat can be seen abruptly stopping and bouncing back, which marks the moment of the collision. But what happened in the four minutes in between is harder to pin down. The collision happened about three kilometres from the cottage the O'Leary's had left from, but this was not a simple point A to point B route across open water. Lake Joseph is sprawling and irregularly shaped, with bays, inlets, long arms and more than 60 small islands. And one of those islands, Round Island, sat in their path that night and they had to navigate around it. A GPS unit on the O'Leary boat might have provided more insight into the

route they took, the trajectory of the boat, and the specific location of the crash, which could have helped determine the speed. One of the OPP specialists testified he saw a mount and a plug for a GPS when he inspected the boat, but no actual GPS unit. It's not known if there was a unit on the speedboat that night. All the officer could say was that he was never given access to one. The court heard it was therefore impossible to determine a precise speed at impact, but time and distance calculations of the boat's average speed on the entire route home was estimated to be between 32 kilometres per hour, which was Kevin O'Leary's highest estimate and 48 kilometres per hour.

But once again, even if there was enough data to calculate an actual speed at impact, There is no posted speed limit on Lake Joseph. It's up to the operator to drive safely in accordance with the conditions. Now we get to perhaps the most enthralling part of this case, the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea, and the Canada Shipping Act's small vessel regulations. My dad loves this stuff. I promise to keep it brief, only the interesting parts.

According to the small vessel regulations, a person is prohibited from operating a vehicle in a careless manner without due care and attention or reasonable consideration for other persons. And with the collision regulations, Rule 6 specifies that every boat must travel at a safe speed for the conditions, which means considering factors like visibility, traffic on the water, how quickly the boat can stop or turn, weather and water can stop. weather and water conditions, nearby hazards and the effect of shore lights or the boat's own lights at night. A safe speed for the conditions means going slow enough to take action to avoid a collision and being able to stop within a reasonable distance if something appears ahead,

including unlit objects floating in the water that could pose a danger. For example, a large log. The other applicable rule is Rule 5. that boat operators must keep a proper lookout at all times, using sight, hearing and any other appropriate means to understand their surroundings and judge whether there's a risk of collision. The Ontario Provincial Police concluded

that if the O'Leary boat were going slower, it might have seen the Edwards boat earlier. Early police paperwork, as reported by Leah McLaren for Toronto Life, suggested investigators briefly considered dangerous operation charges under the criminal code, two counts causing death and two counts causing bodily harm. These are offences that carry serious jail terms. To fit the criminal charge of dangerous operation,

there needs to be evidence of a marked departure from what a reasonable person would do in that situation, not just a lapse in judgment or attention. Careless operation is a regulatory rule aimed at preventing unsafe boating. It prohibits operating a pleasure craft without due care and attention, jumping another boat's wake too close, playing chicken and swerving at the last moment, startling swimmers or kayaks by driving too close or too fast. Those are the kinds of maneuvers that boating safety courses

flag as careless, unsafe, in attentive or inconsiderate, but not criminal. But dangerous operation under the Criminal Code could include tearing across the lake and deliberately weaving between boats at night, or engaging in high-risk stunts that showed a blatant disregard for whether anyone lived or died. That's the level of danger and recklessness that crosses into criminal code territory. For the Ontario provincial police, the security footage was key. It appeared to show that Edwards' boats' lights being switched off, leaving it invisible in the dark and only coming back on about a minute after the crash.

That made it harder to frame Linda O'Leary's actions as reckless disregard for an obvious danger. Investigators were not looking at a clearly visible boat she simply failed to avoid. It was considered a lower level of fault than that, possible carelessness, but not wildly out of line with what any normal and reasonable person would have done. That's why the charge was under the Canada Shipping Act and not the Criminal Code. But that perhaps begs another question. If the security footage showed the Edwards boat was invisible when Linda O'Leary drove into it, why was she the one who faced the more serious charge?

The consequences were of course devastating, but in simple terms, Richard Rue failed to comply with a specific regulation, which was a ticketable offence. His conviction was for not following the rules about what boat lights needed to be on. Richard Rue may have created the hazard, but Linda O'Leary was the one who drove into it at speed. That's why she was the only one charged with careless operation of a vessel. So now we've come to the end of Linda O'Leary's 2021 trial. Over 13 days, federal prosecutors Samir Adam and Jonathan Thompson had called more than 20 witnesses. The defence, Brian Greenspan, only called one, Kevin O'Leary.

The verdict would be delivered by Judge Richard Humphrey. As a regulatory trial under the Canada Shipping Act, there was no jury like there is with a criminal trial. And the stakes were not that high. If Linda O'Leary were to be found guilty of careless operation of a vessel, the maximum penalty would be a fine of $10,000. chump change compared to Kevin O'Leary's estimated net worth, which is reportedly about 400 million. But witness testimony suggests that perhaps the most serious consequence she was facing was to her pride.

Witness after witness from Kevin, their dinner party hosts and other friends, to son Trevor and his friends, consistently describe Linda O'Leary as meticulous about boating standards, someone who was, conscious of how much alcohol she was drinking and would never take the wheel impaired. A conviction for careless operation of a vessel would likely dent her ego more than anything else. The prosecution summed up its case in closing arguments. Regardless of whether the Edwards boat had its lights on or not, Linda O'Leary still had a duty to operate carefully in the dark and keep a proper lookout, including for unlit objects. But according to Kevin's testimony, they assumed that if they didn't see any lights, there was nothing in their way. The prosecutor

pointed out, if you're boating in pitch black conditions, you cannot make assumptions of what may or may not be in front of you. Speed was the next issue. The police's reconstruction concluded that the Edward's boat would have been more visible to the O'Leary's if Linda had been driving at a lower speed. Instead, she planed the boat across the lake at a speed too fast for the pitch black conditions. As for her possible impairment, that wasn't the issue, the prosecutor said. The circumstances around it spoke to Linda's credibility. Despite the unanimous testimony about Linda as the conscientious boating guru, she attempted to deceive the police about whether she'd been drinking. And when confronted, she offered vague explanations and appeared to minimize or hide the truth.

This case was not about whether Linda O'Leary had good boating skills, the prosecutor said. It was about public safety that night. The collision and the deaths of Suzanne Brito and Gary Paltash were the tragic consequence of Linda O'Leary's carelessness. Therefore, she should be found guilty of careless operation of a vessel under the Canada Shipping Act. The defence argued that Linda O'Leary had been the target of a misguided prosecution that was based on conjecture and speculation.

Her defence counsel Brian Greenspan argued the court had seen not a scintilla of evidence that Linda operated the boat carelessly. She was, quote, doing all the right things at the right time when this terrible tragedy occurred. The defence pointed out there was strong video evidence showing the Edwards boat's lights were off at the time of the collision, which negated the testimony of the witnesses who insisted otherwise. There was no evidence to suggest the Edwards boat was anything other than invisible to Linda O'Leary that night. And about impairment, there was no evidence of impairment on Linda O'Leary's part, according to Greenspan. The video evidence showing Linda on the dock getting into the boat after the dinner party

showed her appearing to be functioning normally. And while her breath sample may have triggered a warning alert, the prosecution had called no evidence that proved what that warning alert actually meant, or whether it affected the way Linda operated the boat that night. The defence argued the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Linda O'Leary failed to exercise due care and attention operating the boat. Judge Richard Humphrey cited entirely with Linda O'Leary's defence. He rejected any suggestion she was impaired at the time or that alcohol played a part in the outcome.

quote, any alcohol ingested was minimal and she took pains to make certain that was the case. As for speed, the judge noted there was no evidence to prove how fast the boat was going or what would have been an appropriate speed to avoid the collision. And the police reenactment actually helped the defence, he said. Because even though they knew the unlit Edwards boat was ahead of them, They almost hit it as well. The judge concluded the video evidence made it clear that the O'Leary's boat was lit and visible, whereas the Edwards' boat was not.

An evidence showed Linda O'Leary was an experienced and careful boat operator who knew the water she was piloting the boat through that night. She, quote, "...took precautions to make sure her boat was properly equipped for night navigation. The boat was in good working order, and it had all requisite navigation lights activated. Judge Humphrey found that both Linda and Kevin O'Leary were on the lookout for potential risks which might interfere with their navigation.

But it appears the judge did not consider an unlit boat or other object to be one of those potential risks. He rejected the prosecution's argument that Linda should have anticipated the possibility of an unlit boat and reduced her speed, describing it as an expectation that, quote, almost suggests that no one should operate a boat at night under any circumstance. The judge acknowledged the very unfortunate circumstances of the collision and the tragic loss of loved ones, but he said the gravity of the outcome of a crash does not change how the standard of care from a driver is assessed by the court.

And in this case, perfection is not the standard of care, he said. It's what a reasonable, ordinary person would do. Judge Richard Humphrey concluded that Linda O'Leary was an experienced boater who took reasonable steps to operate safely that night and could not have known she'd collide with another boat with its lights off in the middle of the lake. She was found not guilty of careless operation of a vessel. In response to the verdict, the lawyer for the families of Gary Paltash and Suzanne Brito

issued a statement calling the acquittal a further disappointment. The family, of course, is upset. It's been over two years since the death of their innocent loved ones and there's been no accountability for this crash. Their lawyer, Patrick Brown, also referenced the family's civil lawsuit launched three months after the collision in November 2019. It and other lawsuits related to the case had been on hold pending the trial verdict. As a reminder, the lawsuit alleged that the deaths of Gary Paltash and Suzanne Brito

resulted from negligence in the operation of both the O'Leary and Edwards' boats. It named Kevin and Linda O'Leary, along with Richard Rue and Irv Edwards, and sought $2 million in damages, mainly related to the three young children who lost their mother. For the grieving families, this action was about civil justice to prevent death and curtail reckless and dangerous behaviour on the water, said their lawyer. Quote, The acquittal has no bearing on the victim's civil lawsuit. A different standard of fault applies,

and additional evidence will be heard by a different court. After the break, the fallout continues as the O'Leary's launch a $3 million lawsuit of their own for emotional distress and lost income. There's more backlash, a crypto-influencer who takes it too far, and a legal victory that kind of backfired. Even as Kevin O'Leary fought to protect his reputation against damage he said was caused by other people, he continued to do plenty of damage. damage to it all on his own, he just couldn't stop being Mr. Wonderful.

There was a wave of other court actions and countersuits. Things get a little lost in legal jargon after that, so I'll keep it high level. On the first anniversary of the crash, Suzanne Bredo's husband had launched another action on behalf of himself and their children, alleging negligence for wrongful death and claiming damages for the children's loss of their mother. Kevin and Linda O'Leary had launched a suit of their own, alleging that Irv Edwards and Richard Rue were negligent in the operation of the Edwards boat. The O'Leary's asked for a total of $3 million in damages. One million of that was for Linda O'Leary to compensate for pain, suffering, emotional distress and loss.

of enjoyment of life. Reportedly, Linda O'Leary did end up getting medical treatment for her right foot, and she lost cartilage and had three plates and screws inserted, which affected her joints and resulted in mobility issues. She also suffered psychological trauma and had not been able to work since the crash as vice president of marketing for her husband's family business, O'Leary Wines. The lawsuit also asked for $2 million in damages for Kevin O'Leary for loss of income because he was forced to cancel a number of paid appearances

because of the publicity generated by the crash. In January of 2006, Adrian Humphreys reported for the National Post that all those lawsuits had been settled. The details of those settlements were protected by a confidentiality agreement. but some parts needed to be filed in court to protect the interests of the minor children under the Family Law Act. And that court document is publicly available. It reveals that for Suzanne Brito's children,

the court had approved a settlement of $100,000 each. That amount was meant to recognize not only the loss of their mother's love, guidance and companionship, but also the financial support in everyday care she would have continued providing had she not been killed that day. Once the lawyers took out their legal fees, it netted out at a little over $72,000 each to be paid when the three children were 18 years old. It's not exactly a number that captures the value of a mother. The court document doesn't reveal who paid, the O'Leary camp, or the Edwards and Roo camp,

and about the other lawsuits, like the one filed by Linda and Kevin O'Leary seeking $3 million in damages, there's also no details available publicly about what exactly happened there because of the confidentiality agreement. But what the court document does reveal is that both parties denied liability in the crash, and whatever happened with that series of final settlements, no one would have had to pay more than $1 million. The lawyer for the family of Suzanne Brito

confirmed the closure was important to them. The lawyer for the O'Learys said that all parties were happy it was over. The conspiracy theories were what pulled me into this case in the first place, and I'll admit I came in with bias. I've covered enough cases involving rich and well-connected people, to know how often the official version of events is the tidiest one money can buy. And this case involved Kevin O'Leary, the man who spent years building a supervillain persona and seems to delight in being ruthless, blunt and unbothered by other people's feelings.

The man who claims he's only telling the truth, yet his entire brand depends on controlling the story and shaping reality to suit him. I was even more convinced there had to be something underneath. So I expected to find the usual signs, the faint outline of a cover-up, a version of events crafted to survive scrutiny, a few missing pieces, and a justice system nudged in a particular direction. I expected that whatever Kevin O'Leary said about it could not be trusted. Things went in a different direction.

This wasn't a David and Goliath. situation, more Goliath and a more famous Goliath. It's wealthy cottage owners from Billionaires Row, out on the lake with their guests, playing fast and loose with their expensive toys, then scrambling for expensive lawyers and crisis PR to get one up on each other, liability and mind. Remember how it was TMZ who first broke the story that Kevin O'Leary's boat had been involved in a fatal crash and immediately left the scene of the accident. TMZ confirmed that that tip came from someone connected to the owner of the larger boat, the Edwards boat. After the collision, they said there was enough light to see the people on the

boat that ran into them, and they recognized Kevin O'Leary and his wife. That's the definition of getting ahead of the narrative. Of course O'Leary was. Of course O'Leary would respond publicly, and of course the reputation he'd crafted so well would come back to haunt him. The public was overwhelmingly suspicious of what he had to say. The evidence shows that the witnesses from both parties told stories that were strikingly similar to each other. There's evidence of deception coming from both sides as they denied any liability in the crash. One boat had no lights on, yet in insisted they did. The other was going faster than ideal in the darkness, yet insisted they were

being careful. And in the middle of it all were two innocent people who likely thought that hit the jackpot getting out on the lake that summer day with those people and those boats. It's an awful, preventable tragedy, and somewhere beneath all the narratives and legal arguments sits a simple, painful truth. If the O'Leary boat had been going slower, the crash might not have been so devastating. Maybe it could have been avoided. Maybe the impact would have been survivable. Maybe Susanna Bredo and Gary Paltash would still be alive. But that's not the end of the legal fights related to this boat collision. There was one more lawsuit, and that involves a once-prominent crypto influencer in the U.S., known as Bitboy Crypto.

According to a recent court judgment from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, Bitboy, real name Ben Armstrong, maliciously published defamatory falsehoods intended to destroy Kevin O'Leary's reputation in a desperate attempt to regain relevance and notoriety, according to O'Leary's statement of claim. The court judgment outlines a series of more than 10 posts by Bitboy to Twitter, X or whatever, over about one week in March of 2025. In them, he falsely accuses Kevin O'Leary of murder and of paying millions to cover it up and alleged that Linda O'Leary had engaged in wrongdoing.

This went far beyond the boat collision, introducing the word murderer into the mix. which opened up a new can of worms. Over that week, Bitboy's posts escalated from defamatory accusations to taunting Kevin O'Leary for not suing him, to publishing O'Leary's private cell phone number and encouraging people to call a real-life murderer, which apparently they did. At the defamation trial a few months back,

O'Leary testified that this post went viral while he was live on Fox Business TV, and producers were suddenly in his ear asking him what was happening. Why was someone accusing him of murder? He says his phone was flooded with calls from people who believed the post, and his wife Linda called him in tears,

asking why they were being dragged through it again. He found himself having to explain, in real time, to Fox producers and business partners why he was being called a murderer online. Network colleagues didn't want to walk out of the building with him because of the attention, and it caused further issues with his reputation.

It also made him fear for his safety, and he had to spend $200,000 to hire additional security. Now this tweet reached a grand sum of 18,000 views before Twitter removed it for violating the terms of service. At the defamation trial, O'Leary was asked how many randoms called him and he said he received over 100 phone calls and WhatsApp calls. By the end of that week of escalating posts, Bitboy was openly daring O'Leary to sue him, saying,

You can't shut me up, I'm a rabid dog with my teeth sunk deep into your leg. So Kevin launched a defamation lawsuit. It revealed some new details about the boat collision and how the quote unsupported allegations that his wife had engaged in wrongdoing had already caused significant negative impact on his family and reputation. He said the production of Shark Tank was paused for six months, speaking engagements dried up, and potential business partners were wary of collaborating with him. The fallout suspended his life for 18 months.

and he became so wary of risk that he rarely drives a car anymore. After Linda O'Leary was cleared in court, his family spent years trying to move past the trauma, he said. But then, Bitboy's tweets revived false and damaging claims about the collision that further affected his reputation, which he said was central to almost every part of his business. It resulted in loss of income and mental anguish. O'Leary testified that what made the whole thing worse was that the Post didn't just target him.

They named his wife Linda and dragged her into it, which devastated her. Their adult children, who also had the surname O'Leary, saw these new accusations and had to answer questions about them. He said that for his family, it felt like reopening a wound they had spent years trying to move past. Kevin O'Leary testified that there was no way to know how many opportunities he'd lost as a result of Bitboy's tweets, only how many might have quietly evaporated. In his words, people may have simply decided, let's stay away from this, it's too controversial. He framed the defamation lawsuit as a necessary act of self-preservation, for his business, his family, and for the reputation he says he's built on telling the truth,

even when it's uncomfortable. When Bitboy or Ben Armstrong didn't show up to the court and didn't respond to O'Leary's allegations, it triggered a default judgment in Kevin O'Leary's favour. $2.8 million US dollars. That was late February of 2006. Almost a week later, Bitboy tweeted, Quote,

I apologize to Kevin O'Leary and Linda O'Leary for my false statements accusing them of killing two people in a boating accident, falsely accusing them of criminal responsibility, asserting that Mr O'Leary fled the scene or evaded accountability, and falsely claiming that he blamed the accident on Mrs. O'Leary. Each of these statements was untrue, unsupported by facts, and I therefore retract them in full. End quote.

Funny thing is, the final judgment in the defamation lawsuit didn't include a requirement for Bitboy to publicly apologize and retract his statements. It appears he did so in bad faith as a form of revenge. The tweet with Kevin O'Leary's phone number that seemed to have motivated him to launch the lawsuit reached 18,000 views and 26 retweets. But this so-called apology tweet went actually violent. more than 7.5 million views as of recording with 1.8,000 retweets. And the comments are exactly what it appears Bitboy was looking for, another pylon of sarcasm and suspicion aimed at Kevin O'Leary. There were posts quoting the CBC news headline that Linda O'Leary had alcohol on her breath

following the fatal boat crash. Others said they'd never heard about the boat crash, but now they were going to look it up. It's a classic example of the Streisand effect. The defamation lawsuit was meant to silence the allegations, but inadvertently ended up amplifying them, pushing the boat crash and conspiracy theories in front of millions of people who may never have heard about it otherwise.

Kevin O'Leary had effectively argued that BitBoy's reckless, inflammatory comments were intended to destroy his reputation, and it caused mental anguish not only to himself, but his wife Linda and his children. But the reality was that Mr. Wonderful had spent years building a reputation around being reckless and inflammatory all on his own. He cultivated a persona that invites suspicion, and that's the only reason those accusations stuck to him at all. That's the contradiction at the centre of his public image. The boat collision was just a lightning rod that brought his wife and children into it. Kevin O'Leary's family paid the price for the character he

built. They also profited from it. They have the option to retreat into their wealth and their circle of friends and move on. The families of the victims don't. Their loss is permanent. And nothing has changed since the trial. Kevin O'Leary has continued to lean heavily into the persona that made him famous. The stereotypical rich, ruthless businessman who says and does the outrageous thing, claims it's just being honest and then benefits from the attention. In early 2004, Kevin O'Leary reacted to the news that Donald Trump had been ordered to pay more than $400 million. A judge had found Trump and his company had submitted fraudulent information

on financial statements to inflate the value of his assets when applying for loans and business advantages. Accounting gymnastics on financial statements, you say. Of course, Kevin O'Leary was among a chorus of commenters who defended Trump. Here he is in a CNN segment with host Laura Coates, edited slightly for clarity and brevity. That didn't go over very well with the investment community because we're all asking each other, who's next? This was a victimless crime. Nobody lost any money.

I mean, who's next? The laws on the books, falsification of business records and second degree, issuing false financial statements, insurance fraud, conspiracy and all these different aspects of it. Those are actual crimes. I take it's your point is that these should not have been prosecuted. Everything you just listed off is done by, every real estate developer, everywhere on earth in every city.

This has never, ever been prosecuted. Leave it to Kevin O'Leary to be unaware enough to say the quiet part out loud. A scathing response from John Stewart on The Daily Show. There is a theory in law that if enough people commit a crime, it automatically becomes legal. You're familiar with the purge, are you not? Friking entitled arrogance. I don't know if you know this, but most people just can't commit fraud

and expect to face no repercussions, even if everyone's doing it. Because in their minds, in pursuit of profit, there is no rule that cannot be bent. There is no principle that cannot be undercut as long as you and your fucking friends making money. Kevin O'Leary's outrage was not about fraud itself. It's about fraud being punished when wealthy business. people like him do it. In June of 2025, months into Trump's second presidency, Kevin O'Leary once again ran interference

for him, this time as a panelist on CNN, discussing the outrage over the Jeffrey Epstein files. Clips edited slightly for clarity and brevity. This one starts with one of the panelists explaining the situation. Trump had campaigned heavily on a promise to release those files. But once he became president again and it's time to make good on that promise, he suddenly claims the files are a democratic hoax and don't matter. Bring it. Bring it. Bring it.

Well, yes. Bring it. Nobody gives a poop. You don't give a poop. Okay. The whole stuff is poop on a stick. Nobody gives... First case scenario, all this stuff's true.

Does that in any way affect the American economy or what's going on? No. There's more to life for the American economy. economy. There's justice and the fact that we might have pedophiles serving in our government right now to speak. That's the problem. That's horrible. I'm just saying, what people care about... Apparently, Kevin O'Leary doesn't have enough money yet, or fame. He accepted his first scripted acting role, playing a wealthy, arrogant businessman in the Oscar-nominated movie Marty Supreme. Apparently, he was pretty good at it, too. In a December 2025 Vanity Fair

interview, Kevin O'Leary joked that his asshole label was finally starting to work for him, but he added, quote, I am not an asshole, I just tell the truth, and some people don't like it. I think maybe I'm going to become the honorary chairman of all assholes everywhere after this, and it's a job I'm happy to take. In response to the release of the movie, Canada's version of The Onion, the Beaverton, published a parody article titled, Kevin O'Leary credits acting chops to years of convincing people he wasn't driving the boat.

It quotes him saying, From boardrooms with startups on the brink of an IPO to famously, That Lake in Ontario, I've spent years perfecting the art of being narratively nowhere near the helm when things go wrong. The parody article goes on to credit Linda O'Leary, quoting Kevin describing her as his long-time scene partner, who, quote, has an incredible instinct for stepping in at exactly the moment accountability becomes inconvenient for me.

That kind of timing can't be taught. And that's what happens when you spend years telling the world you're cold, calculating and always looking for the advantage. Eventually, the villain you play becomes the villain people see. I had so many Kevin O'Leary controversies to choose from, and another one cropped up right as I was producing this series. Massive data centers. He's backing two large-scale development projects, one in Alberta and one in Utah, which has been making headlines lately. It's called the Stratus Project, a 40,000-acre development in a high desert mountain valley that feeds the great salt.

Lake. On paper, a data center might sound like a garden variety warehouse full of computers, but this project is nothing like that. It's a sprawling industrial complex, projected to be twice the size of Manhattan, powered by its own natural gas plant and backed by a generous package of government tax breaks. A preliminary environmental assessment warns that this data center would consume an astonishing amount of energy. With the estimated impact, the equivalent of about 23 atom bombs worth of energy dumped into a fragile desert valley already in crisis every single day. Water is scarce, so it can't be used for cooling the data center. Instead, the plan calls for thousands of industrial fans blasting hot air. One expert compared it to a 400-acre hair

running non-stop in a valley that naturally traps heat. And the result? Massive ecological issues. Nighttime temperatures projected to rise by almost 7 degrees Celsius and the noise pollution of a constant industrial hum. That's just the beginning. Kevin O'Leary's got a data centre going in Alberta as well called Wonder Valley.

It won't be quite as colossal as the one in you, but it's massive and it's also in a drought-stricken region. The proposed site is near the city of Grand Prairie, which is within the traditional territory of the Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation and adjacent to their reserve. They say they first learned of the project from media reports and were definitely not consulted about it, which is in direct violation of their treaty agreement. Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation raised grave concerns about it. water and environmental impacts.

Kevin O'Leary just doesn't care. And guess what? The Alberta government conveniently decided his project was exempt from having a provincial environmental assessment. In Utah, the backlash has been intense. Local residents, environmental groups and activists have filed referendums, lodged official complaints and organized protests, all trying to stop.

the project and prevent the damage to Utah. So Kevin O'Leary has been making lots of public appearances to defend his project. Here's what he said in a video posted to Twitter. Well, I'm actually the only developer of data centers on Earth that graduated from environmental studies. So I'm pretty aware of what these concerns are. They are around air, water use, heat, noise, pollution. Okay, so he graduated in the late 1970s. He's waving around a nearly 50-year-old environmental studies degree as proof he should be trusted, despite his business record of being pro-fossil fuel, anti-regulation and pro-pipline. Historically, Kevin O'Leary has shown far more interest in removing obstacles to business

than listening to the communities or ecosystems affected by it. Here he is, flat out lying about who was protesting the Utah Data Center. We think over 90% of the protesters are actually not people that live in Utah or Boxelter County are being bust in. And so people live in Utah aren't stupid. They see this happening and they realize why am I letting people from don't even live in my state make decisions for me and I don't think it's going to work out for them. But there are professional protesters that are paid by somebody, I don't know who.

This is a neat little rhetorical trick. O'Leary isn't just dismissing the protesters. He's trying to condition Utah residents to waive off any criticism they hear as outside interference without even considering it. So instead of asking, are these concerns valid, he wants them to ask, who are these people to tell us what to do?

Here he is on Fox News. Who would want to stop us from having compute capacity? to develop AI, which adversary would want that? There's only one. It's China. On another Fox News appearance this month, O'Leary decided to dox the people behind one of the protest groups, elevate strategies, claiming they are not real Utah locals but Chinese operatives. So the people he doxed went public with a response video that went viral.

But wait, we found two cells inside of Utah. They're just spreading falsehood. Gabby Finlayson. Gabby, what are you doing? Well, hi, hello. It's me, Gabby Finlayson. What am I doing? You know, it's not every day you get called out

by first and last name on Fox News by a Canadian billionaire trying to ruin my state, but here we are. Kevin, are you okay? So these are proxies for the Chinese government's my argument, and if they're not, because I want them to be able to defend their name to Gabby, come out, come out, wherever you are. Okay, Kevin, go ahead. Mr. Wonderful's Nancy Drew Little Detective Agency,

Have at it, brother. For the record, we are not Chinese foreign operatives. Bye, Kevin. Put your dogs away and keep my name out of your fucking mouth. Kevin O'Leary spent years telling the world who he was, the guy who doesn't care about your feelings, only the money. When tragedy struck, he seemed surprised that people believed him. But to the public, it wasn't Kevin O'Leary the man on the boat that day.

It was Kevin O'Leary, the brink. He says the aftermath of the boat collision caused him mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of income, injury to reputation, and economic damages, and his wife went through pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and his children were dragged into it as well. But the experience does not seem to have changed how Mr. Wonderful moves through the world. He's 71 years old now. He has more money, fame, access, influence and platforms than most people could ever dream of. Yet the controversies keep coming. To utilize a phrase from my favorite TV show, he's not guilty of driving the boat. He's guilty of being Kevin O'Leary. That is his

crime. It is also his punishment. Thanks for listening. If you found this episode compelling, please tell a friend, post on social media or leave a review wherever you listen to podcasts. This series has been pieced together from court documents, the news archives, and most notably the trial reporting of Holly McKenzie Sutter for the Canadian press, Betsy Powell for the Toronto Star, and Adrian Humphreys for the National Post. For the full list of resources, visit Canadian True Crime.com.ca. and follow us on Facebook and Instagram for updates. Canadian True Crime donates monthly to those facing injustice. This month we have donated to Feed Ontario, food banks for ending hunger and poverty.

Audio editing was by Crosby Audio, and Eric Crosby voiced the disclaimer. Our senior producer is Lindsay Aldridge. Research, writing, narration and sound design was by me, and the theme song was composed by We Talk of Dreams. I'll be back with another Canadian true crime episode. See you then.