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 following facts were taken from the judgments of the Alberta Court of Appeal. A small oil company had a surface lease for an oil well on the Appellant’s farm. Many discussions had taken place about possible pollution caused by the well. On the morning in question, representatives of the oil company were on the land with the Appellant’s consent. The Appellant had a civil discussion with Patrick Kent, an official of the oil company, about remedying the pollution. The Appellant then went into his house to have lunch. Seeing Kent near his home and apparently on his land, the Appellant came out of his house. He held a loaded 9 mm. semi-automatic pistol. Bystanders saw the men talking, but did not hear their words. Then the Appellant fired a number of shots into the victim, four of them into his head.

After the shooting, the Appellant returned to the house and asked his wife to phone 911. He told the 911 operator that he did not remember what had happened but that he must have shot the victim and that he “lost it there”.

The Appellant was charged with first degree murder. The Appellant conceded that he shot and killed Kent with a gun he owned and was carrying at the time. He alleged, however, that the shooting occurred in response to Kent’s bizarre, insulting and threatening behaviour. Early in the trial, the defence advised the court that provocation was its primary defence. Later in the Crown’s case, during an application to admit similar fact evidence, the defence told the trial judge it would be relying on three defences: provocation, self-defence and defence of property. At this point, the issue of whether provocation should be left with the jury became linked to the Crown’s application to introduce similar fact evidence. The trial judge did not instruct the jury on provocation and the Appellant was ultimately convicted of second degree murder.

On appeal, the majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Conrad J.A. in dissent would have allowed the appeal and direct a new trial on the basis that there was evidence which, if believed, gave an air of reality to the defence of provocation.

Criminal law - Sentencing - Whether evidence of prior acts of bad conduct which did not lead to criminal convictions may be taken into account and considered by a sentencing judge in the course of the sentencing proceedings - If they may, what are the legal principles which are to be applied and followed in that situation?
Roberts was convicted of second degree murder and the jury recommended a period of parole ineligibility of 20 years. At the sentencing hearing, Roberts was given the mandatory life sentence. The trial judge set the period of parole ineligibility at 15 years. Roberts appealed to the Court of Appeal of Alberta. His appeal was dismissed.

The trial judge referred to aggravating factors that would warrant a longer period of parole eligibility:

I have earlier addressed some of those factors in this case. I find two to be unusually aggravating. The first is the manner in which Mr. Roberts confronted and killed Mr. Kent, who was completely unarmed and apparently unaware, at least initially, that Mr. Roberts had a gun with him. I refer to what I have described as the execution style of this killing. The second factor is the previous instances where Mr. Roberts pointed firearms at other men during disputes with them on his property and expressly or implicitly threatened to shoot them.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Roberts’ argument that the evidence of the two prior events should not have been considered during sentencing.