Case information

Criminal law — Charge to jury — Defences — Self-defence — Principal — Parties to offence — Common unlawful purpose — Possession of weapon for dangerous purpose — What must a jury be instructed when assessing whether an accused (said to be a principal) formed a common unlawful intention with a co-accused (said to be a party) in determining whether the principal acted in self-defence? —What does a functional charge to the jury need to contain to adequately address self-defence in cases dealing with party liability? — Does R. v. Kerr, 2004 SCC 44, stand for the proposition that possession of a weapon (that would otherwise be for a dangerous purpose) can only be for a defensive purpose if the conflict or threat is unavoidable? — If so, how does that principle apply where self-defence is raised, and that analysis imposes no mandatory duty upon an accused to retreat?

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.

After a trial in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, the applicant, Anthony Michael Bilodeau, was convicted by jury of second degree murder and manslaughter for the shooting deaths of two men. The applicant and his father were tried together and the Crown alleged that the applicant shot both individuals and that his father was a party to the offences. The main issue at trial for the applicant was whether he was acting in self-defence or defence of others.

The applicant appealed his convictions on grounds that the trial judge improperly instructed the jury regarding self-defence and regarding the elements of the predicate offence. The applicant further argued that the trial judge limited his ability to make full answer and defence. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, satisfied that no appellate intervention was warranted in the case.