Background
Roger Patrick Bilodeau became involved in a car chase with two men. During the chase, he called his adult son and asked him to come help, directing him to bring a gun. The situation escalated from a chase into a direct confrontation, during which Bilodeau’s son fatally shot both men. The son was subsequently convicted of second degree murder and manslaughter for those killings.
Bilodeau was tried separately and convicted by a jury of manslaughter as a party to his son’s offences. The Crown’s theory was that Bilodeau had formed a common intention with his son to carry out an unlawful purpose — specifically, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and the commission of assault — and that the fatal shootings were a foreseeable consequence of that common unlawful purpose.
Bilodeau appealed his conviction to the Alberta Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial judge erred in law in the jury charge on three grounds: insufficient direction on the elements of the offences constituting the common unlawful purpose, misdirection on his potential party liability, and improper instruction on the co-conspirators’ exception to the hearsay rule. The Court of Appeal rejected all grounds and affirmed the convictions (2024 ABCA 148).
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously dismissed the appeal in a brief oral judgment delivered by Chief Justice Wagner. The Court adopted substantially the reasoning of the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the convictions.
The Court confirmed that the trial judge’s jury instructions contained no prejudicial error with respect to party liability under a common unlawful purpose, the required elements of the predicate offences, or the application of the co-conspirators’ hearsay exception. Bilodeau’s manslaughter convictions accordingly stand.
Key Takeaways
- A person who recruits another and directs them to bring a weapon to an ongoing confrontation can be convicted as a party to offences committed by that person under the common unlawful purpose provisions of the Criminal Code.
- Trial judges must adequately direct juries on the elements of the offences alleged to form the common unlawful purpose, but failing to do so is not automatically reversible error — prejudice must be shown.
- The Supreme Court endorsed the Alberta Court of Appeal majority’s analysis, signalling agreement with the approach taken to party liability and jury instructions in this context.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the broad reach of party liability under Canada’s common unlawful purpose doctrine. Where an accused sets events in motion by arming an associate and directing them into a volatile confrontation, criminal responsibility for the lethal outcome can attach even if the accused did not personally fire a shot.
For defence counsel, the case underscores the difficulty of challenging jury instructions on party liability at the appellate level: an error must not only be identified but shown to have caused prejudice. The Supreme Court’s summary dismissal adds weight to the Court of Appeal’s analysis as persuasive authority for future cases involving analogous fact patterns.