R v Bilodeau, 2023 ABKB 13

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: R v Bilodeau, 2023 ABKB 13 Date: 20230109 Docket: 200585503Q1 Registry: Edmonton Between: His Majesty the King Crown - and - Anthony Michael Bilodeau Accused _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Sentencing of the Honourable Justice Eric F. Macklin _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On May 31, 2022, a jury found Anthony Bilodeau guilty of second-degree murder in the death of Maurice Cardinal and guilty of manslaughter in the death of Jacob Sansom. [ 2 ] Mr.

Bilodeau will be sentenced to life imprisonment for his conviction on second-degree murder in the killing of Maurice Cardinal. This Court must determine the appropriate period of parole ineligibility between 10 and 25 years for Mr. Bilodeau pursuant to s 745.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada . Mr. Bilodeau used a firearm in the killing of Jacob Sansom and accordingly, must serve a minimum period of imprisonment of four years for manslaughter under s 236(a).

This Court must determine the appropriate period of imprisonment for this offence which will be served concurrently with the life sentence for second-degree murder. [ 3 ] The Crown seeks a period of parole ineligibility for the second-degree murder conviction in the range of 15 years. It further seeks a concurrent sentence in the range of 12 to 15 years for the manslaughter conviction.

The Crown also seeks ancillary Orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition pursuant to s 109 of the Criminal Code and a mandatory DNA Order pursuant to s 487.051. [ 4 ] The Defence argues that the appropriate period of parole ineligibility for the second-degree murder conviction is the statutorily mandated minimum period of 10 years and that the appropriate sentence for the manslaughter conviction is the statutorily mandated minimum period of incarceration of four years to be served concurrently with the mandatory life sentence for the second-

degree murder conviction. II. Background Facts [ 5 ] Jacob Sansom and Maurice Cardinal were out hunting near Glendon, Alberta on March 27, 2020. They killed a moose which they then took to a friend’s home where they skinned it and cut it into a number of parts which were then bagged for distribution to a number of families for food. [ 6 ] They left their friend’s home in the evening and began driving along Range Road 484. Mr. Sansom was driving, and Mr. Cardinal was in the passenger seat. Sometime around 9:30 PM, they stopped briefly at the entrance to the driveway of the home of Roger Bilodeau.

They were seen by Roger Bilodeau who believed they were there for a nefarious purpose, such as scouting out the location for a possible later break-in and robbery. [ 7 ] Roger Bilodeau and his 16-year-old son exited the house and got into Mr. Bilodeau’s truck. They began chasing the Sansom vehicle and, over the course of about 7 km, reached speeds of up to 150 km/h. [ 8 ] During the pursuit, Roger Bilodeau contacted his son, Anthony Bilodeau, who lived nearby, and asked him to join the pursuit and to bring a gun.

Anthony Bilodeau did so. [ 9 ] The Sansom vehicle arrived and stopped at the intersection of Range Road 484 and Township Road 622. Roger Bilodeau pulled his truck in front of the Sansom vehicle. Jacob Sansom exited his vehicle and began walking towards the Bilodeau vehicle. Roger Bilodeau then attempted to reverse his truck into Jacob Sansom. [ 10 ] Anthony Bilodeau arrived at the intersection around 9:45 PM. As he exited his truck, Mr. Sansom began walking towards him. Anthony shot Mr. Sansom in the chest. The three Bilodeaus gathered briefly at or near Roger’s truck.

Anthony then shot Maurice Cardinal three times. [ 11 ] The Bilodeaus then left the scene. They made no effort to contact anyone who could provide assistance to Jacob Sansom and Maurice Cardinal. They both died at the scene. Their bodies were discovered hours later, close to 4:00 AM on March 28, by a passerby who did call for assistance. III. Range of Possible Sentences [ 12 ] The purpose and principles of sentencing are set out in ss. 718 , 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada .

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to have respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society.

When imposing sanctions, the Court should strive to achieve the objectives of denouncing unlawful conduct; deterring the offender and other persons from committing offences; separating offenders from society where necessary; assisting in rehabilitating offenders; providing reparations for harm done to victims or to the community and; promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community. [ 13 ] T here is one fundamental principle in sentencing: The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

The gravity of the offence is largely defined by the minimum and maximum sentences set out in the Criminal Code . Other sentencing principles include that of parity which mandates that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences in similar circumstances and that of totality which provides that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh.

Importantly, it must always be borne in mind that sentencing is a highly individualized process and the Court must consider all relevant mitigating and aggravating circumstances as well as factors relating to the offender’s personal circumstances. [ 14 ] Counsel have provided many case authorities on sentences imposed in cases of second-degree murder and cases of manslaughter. Applying the parity principle is difficult, however, as there are no cases presented which involve offenders similar to Anthony Bilodeau committing similar offences in similar circumstances. [ 15 ]

Section 235 of the Criminal Code of Canada mandates a sentence of life imprisonment for second degree murder.

Section 745.4 gives this court discretion to impose a period of parole ineligibility within a range of 10 to 25 years, having regard to the character of the offender, the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission and the recommendation, if any, made by the jury. The jury in this case made no recommendation. [ 16 ]

Section 236(

a) provides that a person convicted of manslaughter where a firearm is used is liable to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years. The offence of manslaughter covers a wide range of cases. Different degrees of moral culpability fall along a continuum between cases classified as near accident at one extreme and near murder at the other. The sentencing court must determine the rung on the moral culpability ladder the offender reached when the unlawful act was committed.

This is to ensure that the sentence imposed fits the degree of moral fault of the offender for the harm done: R v Laberge , 1995 ABCA 196 para 6 . [ 17 ] The Crown has provided authorities it says support a 15-year period of parole ineligibility for the second-degree murder conviction and a 12–15-year period of incarceration for the manslaughter conviction. The defence has provided authorities it says support a minimum 10-year period of parole ineligibility for the second-degree murder conviction and a 4-year period of incarceration for the manslaughter conviction, to be served concurrently.

IV. Anthony Bilodeau’s Actions [ 18 ] Anthony Bilodeau’s involvement in the tragic shooting and killing of Maurice Cardinal and Jacob Sansom began with a phone call he received at home from his father, Roger Bilodeau. Roger was in his vehicle, with his 16-year-old son, and engaged in a high- speed pursuit of the Sansom vehicle initiated by him due to an unfounded and erroneous conclusion about the intentions of its occupants. [ 19 ] The phone call to Anthony took place as Roger’s vehicle and the Sansom vehicle were heading north past Anthony’s home.

Roger told Anthony that he was involved in a pursuit of “the thieves” and told Anthony to assist and to grab a gun. [ 20 ] The pursuit continued until Jacob Sansom brought his vehicle to a stop at the intersection of Range Road 484 and Township Road 622. At that point, Roger Bilodeau pulled his truck in front of the Sansom truck, partially blocking the potential travel or escape route for the Sansom vehicle. Mr. Sansom exited his vehicle and began walking towards the Roger Bilodeau vehicle. Roger Bilodeau tried to back his vehicle into Mr. Sansom. Anthony Bilodeau showed up within a few minutes.

He had brought a gun, as instructed. [ 21 ] Anthony Bilodeau testified before the jury that he came upon the scene and saw Roger Bilodeau being assaulted by Jacob Sansom. He loaded his rifle. He then got out of his vehicle. He then racked his rifle and said “hey, that’s enough”. Jacob Sansom came towards him with his fists clenched and he saw Maurice Cardinal not far away with a shotgun. He testified that Jacob Sansom kept coming towards him and he was able to see that Maurice Cardinal’s shotgun was equipped with a magazine.

As Jacob Sansom got closer, Anthony Bilodeau raised his gun, pointed it and shot Jacob Sansom in the chest. He said he believed he was going to be killed. Shortly thereafter, he saw Maurice Cardinal near the Sansom truck and then reaching in. He testified that he shot Maurice Cardinal because he thought Maurice Cardinal was reaching for a weapon and was going to shoot him. He stated that at all times he was acting in self- defence to protect himself, Roger Bilodeau and Joseph Bilodeau. [ 22 ] The defence of self-defence was testified to by Anthony Bilodeau and forcefully argued by his counsel to the jury.

Had the jury fully accepted the position of the defence, Anthony Bilodeau would have been acquitted of any offence in relation to the killing of Jacob Sansom. He was not acquitted but, rather, was convicted of manslaughter, a lesser included offence to the charge of second degree murder. In finding him guilty of manslaughter, the jury may have accepted that Mr. Bilodeau believed that force or the threat of force was being used against him or his family and that he was acting to defend or protect. The jury may then have determined, however, that his shooting of Mr.

Sansom in the chest was an unreasonable use of force in the circumstances and not proportionate to the threat of force against him or his family. It is somewhat speculative to try and determine the avenue by which the jury reached its decision but regardless of which avenue was followed, the jury concluded that Anthony Bilodeau was guilty of manslaughter. [ 23 ] The defence of self defence in relation to the shooting of Maurice Cardinal by Anthony Bilodeau was wholly rejected by the jury. The jury clearly rejected Mr.

Bilodeau’s testimony that he saw Maurice Cardinal near the Sansom truck, then beside it and reaching in for what he believed to be a weapon and that he shot Maurice Cardinal because he thought Maurice Cardinal was going to shoot him. The jury was obviously satisfied that Mr. Bilodeau committed the unlawful act of shooting Maurice Cardinal causing his death and that he either meant to cause Mr. Cardinal’s death or he meant to cause him bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause his death. He was not acting in self-defence. [ 24 ] Anthony Bilodeau shot Mr.

Samson once, in the chest, within a few seconds of arriving at the scene. Mr. Bilodeau and the other two Bilodeaus then gathered briefly at Roger’s truck following which Mr. Bilodeau moved towards Mr. Cardinal. He shot Mr. Cardinal three times, at least one of which was in the back and possibly when Mr. Cardinal was already on the ground. V. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Aggravating Factors [ 25 ] Of course, the ways in which Anthony Bilodeau killed Jacob Sansom and Maurice Cardinal are aggravating in and of themselves.

He brought a gun at the direction of his father without questioning its need or the full circumstances existing at the time. Within seconds of arriving at the scene of the incident, he loaded and racked his rifle and shot Jacob Sansom in the chest. After a brief pause, he shot Maurice Cardinal 3 times. Two innocent men, doing nothing more than celebrating a successful day of helping provide food to others, lay dead within minutes of his arrival. [ 26 ] There are other aggravating factors to consider. Like his father, Mr. Bilodeau made no attempt to seek medical assistance for Mr. Sansom and Mr.

Cardinal who were left to die alone on the road, in a ditch, at an isolated rural location. Concerned about the possibility of having been seen or being identified on a surveillance video, he drove to another location where he modified the appearance of his truck by removing the light bar from the front bumper which he then disposed of at a dump. He also cut up the gun that was used into multiple pieces using a plasma cutter and disposed of the pieces at a different dump. I do recognize that he ultimately did advise the RCMP what he had done and advised of the locations where he disposed of the evidence.

Mitigating Factors [ 27 ] Anthony Bilodeau is 34 years old and has been married to Michelle for over 10 years. They are the parents of a 10-year-old daughter. The Court has been provided with about 34 positive character references from family, including Michelle, his mother, grandparents, siblings, cousins, uncles, aunts and in-laws. References have also been provided by friends, community members and employers. Anthony has been described as reliable, trustworthy, caring, honest, kind, trusting and gentle. He is hard working and dependable.

He has been a productive and significant contributing member of his immediate family, his extended family and the community as a whole. He has strong family and religious values. He has never exhibited violent or aggressive tendencies and has no criminal record. As the Crown has conceded, Anthony Bilodeau has led a pro-social life and was clearly a person of prior good

character. [ 28 ] Anthony Bilodeau has been in custody since March 31, 2020. For a significant portion of that time, he was housed at the Red Deer Remand Centre. He was clearly considered an exemplary inmate and is described by the Head of Programs at the Centre as “...a model inmate. He received no institutional charges or informal discipline...[H]e was an excellent unit cleaner who was polite and respectful to staff.

He attended chapel services and met one on one with the centre Chaplain while at RDRC.” [ 29 ] Anthony Bilodeau is clearly remorseful and deeply regrets his involvement in the tragic events of March 27, 2020 and the deaths of Jacob Sansom and Maurice Cardinal. I have no doubt that he is an excellent candidate for rehabilitation. [ 30 ] The defence introduced an expert report from Dr. Marc Nesca, a clinical forensic psychologist who completed a risk assessment analysis of Mr.

Bilodeau and concluded that “violence in this case is linked to a set of exceptional circumstances, rather than reflecting engrained psychological traits, an empirically anchored analysis of risk failed to identify the presence of a single risk factor for future violence. These results necessarily identify Mr. Bilodeau as posing a Low Risk of violent recidivism.” [ 31 ] I question the relevance of such a report and opinion at this sentencing stage. First, I have no doubt that a risk assessment performed on Mr. Bilodeau before the incident of March 27, 2020 would have resulted in the same opinion.

That is, and notwithstanding that it may have been exceptional circumstances that conflated to cause Mr. Bilodeau’s response, it is highly unlikely that any risk assessment before the incident would have ever disclosed the risk that he would react in the way that he did. [ 32 ] Second, a risk assessment is more cogent and probative when considering whether Mr. Bilodeau is a good candidate for parole. It is the Parole Board of Canada that must consider a risk analysis in determining Mr.

Bilodeau’s eligibility for parole at the expiration of his parole ineligibility period and to impose or vary conditions for release. That is, the Board must consider whether the offender would present an undue risk to society if granted parole: Corrections and Conditional Release Act , S.C. 1992, c. 2 0 . [ 33 ] The report and opinion submitted at this sentencing stage does not assist this Court as it does not impact on the consideration and application of the sentencing objectives and principles set out in the Criminal Code .

While it may tangentially relate to the objective of rehabilitation, I have considered all of the other mitigating factors presented and as indicated above, I believe Mr. Bilodeau’s prospects for rehabilitation to be excellent. [ 34 ] The defence has further submitted that this Court should consider both self-defence and provocation in assessing Mr. Bilodeau’s moral blameworthiness. There was no evidence led directly or specifically on the issue of provocation. The defence did not raise the question of provocation nor place it before the jury.

The facts surrounding the killing of Maurice Cardinal belie any suggestion of provocation at the time he was shot. The jury rejected the defence of self-defence in relation to his killing. Its rejection of the defence of self-defence to the second-degree murder charge necessarily means a wholesale rejection of any facts that may have been seen as possibly supporting that defence. [ 35 ] Regarding the killing of Jacob Sansom, it is also clear that the jury did not accept the defence of self-defence as providing a complete defence or acquittal.

Rather, the jury could have concluded that Anthony Bilodeau reacted with unreasonable or excessive force, thereby negating the defence. I have considered the possibility that Mr. Bilodeau initially believed he was acting in self-defence though, again, the defence was ultimately rejected by the jury. VI. Victim Impact Statements [ 36 ] The following is a

summary of the victim impact statements given at the time of sentencing of Roger Bilodeau as set out at R v Bilodeau , 2022 ABQB 576 paras 39-43 . [ 37 ]

Section 722 of the Criminal Code provides that for the purpose of determining the sentence to be imposed on an offender, the court shall consider victim impact statements describing the harm done to, or loss suffered by, the victim or victims of the offence. [ 38 ] On March 27, 2020, Jacob Sansom was 39 years old. He was a husband, son, brother, father, nephew, and uncle. Maurice Cardinal was 57 years old. He was a father, step-father, grandfather, brother and uncle. Maurice was the uncle of Jacob. They were close. [ 39 ] The Court heard a number of Victim Impact Statements from different family members.

They spoke eloquently and passionately about Jacob Sansom and Maurice Cardinal as both important members of their families and as stalwarts of their community. They spoke of the grief and sorrow, heartbreak and loneliness suffered by all as a result of the loss of Mr. Sansom and Mr. Cardinal to their families. They all suffer from fear and anxiety and some from depression and PTSD.

They spoke of the impact of both on all members of their families and extended families as educators and role models for their culture and their ways of life. [ 40 ] Jacob Sansom and Maurice Cardinal were also pillars of their community. They supported not only their families but also the community at large by doing things like providing fresh meat for families in need. They were hunters and teachers for their families as well as their community. They were described as men who “honoured mother Earth” and were “knowledge keepers” of their culture.

They inspired many. [ 41 ] No sentence imposed by this Court can ever provide justice in the eyes of the victims’ families and friends for their devastating loss. No sentence can alleviate the heartbreak, pain and hurt suffered by all of the many members of the victims’ families and their friends. VII. The Appropriate Sentence

[ 42 ] I will first address the fact that, despite having the opportunity, the jury made no recommendations regarding parole ineligibility. It has been held that the jury is, therefore, deemed to have recommended the 10 year minimum: R v Osei-Agyemang , 2011 ABCA 2 para 14 . [ 43 ] Regardless of whether the jury recommendation is deemed to be the minimum or the members of the jury do make recommendations, it is the function of the sentencing judge alone to consider all factors relevant to sentencing in order to arrive at the appropriate period of parole ineligibility.

In doing so, the sentencing judge may consider the recommendations of the jury but it must be emphasized that jury recommendations, deemed or not, are made with no training, experience or knowledge as to the factors to consider and how to apply the principles and objectives mandated by the Criminal Code of Canada and relevant jurisprudence . Only the sentencing judge has this ability. [ 44 ] In arriving at the applicable period of parole ineligibility, I have considered the character of Anthony Bilodeau, the nature of the offences of second-degree murder and manslaughter committed by Mr.

Bilodeau and the circumstances surrounding the commission of these offences. I have also considered the authorities provided to me by counsel as well as the objectives and principles of sentencing as set out in the Criminal Code of Canada . [ 45 ] I pause for a moment to emphasize that the determination of the period of parole ineligibility on the life sentence for second- degree murder means only that Mr. Bilodeau will have the right to apply for parole at the expiration of that period. It does not mean that he is entitled to be granted parole or that he will get it.

That is to be determined by the Parole Board which will assess Mr. Bilodeau’s risk at that time and, if to be released, the terms and conditions of release it deems appropriate. Importantly, and regardless of the Parole Board’s decision, Mr. Bilodeau will serve a life sentence. [ 46 ] The actions of Anthony Bilodeau and Roger Bilodeau on March 27, 2020 had tragic consequences: the deaths of two innocent men, Jacob Sansom and Maurice Cardinal.

While those tragic consequences cannot unduly distort determination of the appropriate penalty, they must still be taken into account in considering the proportionality of the sentence and the need to satisfy the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. [ 47 ] While Anthony Bilodeau is an excellent candidate for rehabilitation, and rehabilitation is still an important objective to strive for, its importance in cases such as this is subordinate to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. Anthony Bilodeau’s unlawful conduct and the harm done must be denounced in strong terms.

As well, and while I am confident that Mr.

Bilodeau is adequately deterred from committing any offences in the future, it is important that other persons be deterred from committing offences. [ 48 ] In relation to the killing of Jacob Sansom and considering all of the circumstances and factors outlined above, I believe that Anthony Bilodeau’s moral blameworthiness places him on a rung at the lower end of the highest Laberge category. [ 49 ] A fit and proper sentence to impose upon Anthony Bilodeau for committing the offence of second-degree murder of Maurice Cardinal is life imprisonment with parole ineligibility set at 13 years.

A fit and proper sentence to impose upon Anthony Bilodeau for committing the offence of manslaughter in the death of Jacob Sansom is 8 years, to be served concurrently with the sentence for the second-degree murder. Setting the parole ineligibility period at 13 years reflects consideration of the relevant principles and objectives of sentencing while recognizing that 2 innocent men were killed. VIII. Credit for Pre-Sentence Custody [ 50 ] Anthony Bilodeau has been in custody since March 31, 2020.

As he has been convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, he will receive credit for the time he has spent in custody pursuant to s 746 of the Code . He is not entitled to any enhanced credit due to the conditions in remand, COVID restrictions or any other factor. XI.

Conclusion [ 51 ] Anthony Bilodeau is sentenced to life imprisonment for second-degree murder in the death of Maurice Cardinal and must serve a period of incarceration of 13 years before he is eligible for parole. [ 52 ] Anthony Bilodeau is sentenced to a period of 8 years incarceration for manslaughter in the death of Jacob Sansom, to be served concurrently to his sentence of life imprisonment. [ 53 ] Anthony Bilodeau is prohibited from possessing any firearm pursuant to s 109 of the Criminal Code of Canada and must provide a sample of bodily substance reasonably required for the purposes of forensic DNA analysis pursuant to s 487.01.

Heard on the 6 th day of January, 2023 Delivered orally on the 6 th day of January, 2023 Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 9 th day of January, 2023.

Eric F. Macklin J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Jordan Kerr Alberta Crown Prosecutor’s Office for the Crown Brian Beresh, KC Beresh Law for Anthony Michael Bilodeau