Case information

None.

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 Statement of Facts is derived from the decision of the Court of Appeal. The deceased was Joseph Garon, an inmate at the Edmonton Institution. Joseph Garon suffered stab wounds in a fight shortly after 8 a.m. on Sunday, January 16, 2000 in the eatery/dining area of Unit B at the Edmonton Institution. He was transported to hospital where he was pronounced dead later the same morning.

Identification of the Appellant as the deceased’s assailant was not in dispute. The Appellant, who at the time was serving a sentence for armed robbery and other offences, testified on his own behalf. He knew the deceased to be a member of an inmate group called the Indian Posse. This was confirmed by Charles Stephenson, who was qualified as an expert in prison subculture and who had occupied the position of Preventative Security Officer at the Edmonton Institution since 1992. The Appellant, who worked in the prison kitchen, testified that on the evening prior to the physical altercation, the deceased demanded coffee from the Appellant and told that if the deceased did not receive any coffee the guard would find the Appellant with his head smashed.

The next morning, the Appellant set up the dining room for breakfast. He grabbed his weapons which he had hidden under a sink (a metal knife that he made from a big spoon and an ice pick made from an oven rack). He concealed the weapons in his pants and remained vigilant as various prisoners, including members of the Indian Posse, entered the dining room. The Appellant heard the dining room door shut and saw the deceased was coming at him with a homemade knife. The Appellant pulled out his steel knife. During the altercation, they both attempted to stab each other. The deceased started to walk out of the dining room where he collapsed. On cross-examination, the Appellant acknowledged that he pulled out the second weapon, but did not have the opportunity to hand the weapon to another prisoner.

The trial judge accepted the Appellant’s evidence that he was defending himself and concluded that the Appellant’s perception of an armed attack on his life was justified. Accordingly, he acquitted the Appellant of second degree murder on the basis of self-defence. On the charge of possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, the trial judge held that the Appellant possessed his weapons for purposes of self-defence and on that basis, found him not guilty. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that self-defence had been made out and appellate interference was not warranted. On the other charge, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and substituted a conviction for possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.