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.

Criminal law - Trial - Defence of intoxication and accident - Appeal of an acquittal - Adequacy of trial judge’s reasons - Appellate review - Whether the Court of Appeal correctly determined that the reasons for judgment are inadequate - Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that, even viewed in light of the record, the reasons do not demonstrate the rationale for the judge’s conclusion with sufficient particularity to allow for proper appellate scrutiny of the verdict.

Bradley Gene Walker, a 27 year-old resident of Moose Jaw, shot and killed his common law spouse, Valerie Reynolds, on August 30, 2003. In consequence, he was charged with second degree murder under section 235 of the Criminal Code. He was tried by a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench sitting without a jury. The judge acquitted him of murder but convicted him of manslaughter, contrary to section 236 of the Code, and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of five and a half years.

The Attorney General then appealed on the ground that the trial judge failed to either adequately or accurately address the underlying issues. It was unclear from the judge’s reasons whether his doubt about whether the accused had the intent required for murder was based on the evidence of intoxication, or accident, or both. This lack of clarity, combined with the judge’s treatment of the defence of intoxication, underlay the appeal. The majority of the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge’s reasons were not only deficient, but so deficient as to prejudice the right of appeal and preclude meaningful appellate review. They held that the trial judge erred in law in acquitting the accused of murder and ordered a new trial. Jackson J.A., dissenting, concluded that the appeal from acquittal should be dismissed on the basis that the reasons were sufficient to permit review of the acquittal based on a defence of drunkenness.