Case information

Criminal law - Unreasonable verdict - Second degree murder - Parties to offence - Co-principal liability - Group assaults - Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the law of co-principal liability, and in particular, with respect to the law on group assaults - Whether verdict unreasonable - Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 21(1)(a).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The appellant was tried by judge and jury and convicted of second degree murder in the death of a young man who was attacked and beaten by a group of people in an alley behind a Calgary nightclub. The man was first beaten by several individuals and then stabbed four times. There was a short break in the beating, during which time some bystanders called for help, but a second wave of assailants arrived shortly thereafter and continued the assault by kicking and punching the man as he lay in a pool of his own blood, pleading for his life. The Crown’s position was that the appellant was a stabber, but that even if his attack came after the stabbing and he was part of the second wave of assailants, the brutal nature of his attack was a significant contributing cause of the man’s death. The appellant appealed his conviction. While he did not dispute that there was evidence on the record from which a jury could conclude that he assaulted the deceased and committed an unlawful act, he argued that he could not have been found guilty of murder as a principal or co-principal because the death was caused by stabbing with a knife (and he was not the stabber), and that even if he were found to have assaulted the deceased, there was no evidence from which it could be reasonably inferred that he did anything to cause the deceased’s death. The appellant also argued that there was no evidence he had the requisite intent for murder. A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Veldhuis J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on co-principal liability under s. 21(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. In her view, there were errors in the trial judge’s treatment of the “group assault” pathway to conviction and because there was some evidence capable of supporting a conviction, a new trial was required.