Court nixes appeal on Métis killings
Three-judge panel quashes bid by father, son linked to 2020 incident
Appeals from a father and son who chased down and killed two Métis men in northeastern Alberta have been dismissed.
The Alberta Court of Appeal released decisions Monday in the cases of Roger Bilodeau and his son Anthony Bilodeau, who were convicted in the 2020 killings of Jacob Sansom and Morris Cardinal near Glendon.
Roger Bilodeau was found guilty of manslaughter in both deaths for initiating a chase of the two men, while Anthony Bilodeau was convicted of manslaughter and second-degree murder for shooting Sansom and Cardinal, respectively.
Roger Bilodeau was sentenced to 10 years in prison and was recently granted day parole. Anthony Bilodeau is serving life with no chance of parole for 13 years.
The two later launched appeals of their convictions. Anthony Bilodeau's appeal was unanimously dismissed Monday by the three-judge panel, while Roger Bilodeau's case was dismissed 2-1, increasing the likelihood of an appeal to the Supreme Court. Justice Dawn Pentelechuk was the dissenting judge.
Sarah Sansom, Jacob Sansom's widow, said she is relieved neither accused will face a new trial.
“With both of Roger's and Anthony's appeals bring denied, it is a huge win for us,” she said in a message. “We are hopeful that if Roger does take it to the Supreme Court that they will deny his request for a retrial.”
ANTHONY'S CASE
The deadly March 27, 2020, chase began with Roger Bilodeau's “unfounded belief that the victims were thieves,” the court of appeal states.
Bilodeau and his younger son Joseph Bilodeau set out in their truck that night after spotting Sansom's pickup on the road near Bilodeau's farm.
The victims, an uncle and nephew out hunting and visiting with loved ones, were chased three kilometres at speeds reaching 152 km/ h. The chase continued after Sansom pulled a U-turn to try to escape his pursuers.
During the chase, Bilodeau called his older son Anthony Bilodeau and asked him to bring a gun. He said he believed they were chasing “thieves.”
The chase ended at a T-intersection when Sansom stopped and stepped out of his vehicle. Roger Bilodeau attempted to hit him with the truck, telling RCMP he wanted to “smoke” Sansom because he was “friggin' mad.” Sansom smashed the passenger side window of Roger Bilodeau's truck with his fist before Anthony Bilodeau arrived and shot both men dead. Their bodies lay in the roadway until a passerby found them the next morning.
Both Bilodeaus claimed they were stressed about rural crime and perceptions about ineffective RCMP response times. They testified they acted in self-defence — a claim jurors ultimately rejected.
Anthony Bilodeau's appeal argued Court of King's Bench Justice Eric Macklin improperly instructed jurors regarding the law of self-defence. His lawyers, Deborah Hatch and Caitlin Dick, also claimed Macklin was wrong to limit Bilodeau's ability to call expert evidence about the “human reaction to stress” and local perceptions about rural crime.
On self-defence, Anthony Bilodeau argued Macklin was wrong to restrict jurors from relying on evidence about “what Roger said and (Anthony) heard just before he arrived at the scene of the shooting.” The defence argued comments Roger made to Anthony during the phone call “were of critical importance to establish self-defence.”
Court of Appeal Justices Michelle Crighton, William de Wit and Alice Woolley, however, did not conclude Macklin's jury charge was so limiting.
“(Anthony) testified to what he heard on the telephone call and how it affected him,” the court said. “At no time did the trial judge instruct the jury that they could not consider this evidence.”
The court also found none of Macklin's rulings limited Anthony's ability to make “full answer and defence.” Macklin was right to disallow testimony from an expert witness who trains “police officers and civilians to properly respond to dangerous and dynamic situations,” the court found, as well as to stop a neighbour of the Bilodeaus' — a former RCMP officer — from opining on rural crime rates and RCMP response times.
“The appellant does not indicate what important evidence was excluded,” the Appeal Court wrote.
ROGER'S CASE
Roger Bilodeau did not directly kill either victim. Instead, he was convicted as a party to the crimes under section 21 of the Criminal Code “for having formed an intention in common with Anthony to carry out an unlawful purpose,” the Appeal Court summarized.
Roger Bilodeau's appeal focused on whether Macklin improperly instructed the jury about the law around establishing a “common unlawful purpose.”
Writing for the majority, Court of Appeal Justices Frans Slater and Jolaine Antonio found nothing in the jury instructions that unduly harmed Roger's right to a fair trial.
While there were some legal errors, “many” ultimately benefited Roger by raising the bar for the Crown. “No substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred,” they wrote.
Pentelechuk, however, found the issues were significant enough to merit a new trial.
She noted the Crown alleged the common unlawful purpose evidenced by the phone call was possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and assault. The legal elements of those offences were brushed over in jury instructions, Pentelechuk said.
This “created a real risk that the common unlawful purpose alleged by the Crown ... merged into the secondary offence (murder).”