R v Belyea, 2024 ABKB 67

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: R v Belyea, 2024 ABKB 67 Date: 20240202 Docket: 211015755Q1 Registry: Medicine Hat In the Matter of R v Belyea Between: His Majesty the King - and - Deborah Muril Belyea _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Justice D.K. Miller _______________________________________________________ I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] This trial concerns the death of Alfred Belyea. He and his wife, Deborah Belyea, lived in a small hamlet known as Suffield

in the County of Cypress in southern Alberta. The body of Alfred Belyea was found by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”)on Friday, October 15, 2021, at an abandoned farmyard near Piapot, Saskatchewan, some 170 Kilometers away from Suffield, Alberta.Alfred Belyea’s body had both arms cut off and they were never found. [2] It is unclear when he died, but he was last seen by his golfing buddies on Thursday, October 7, 2021, and his wife, DeborahBelyea, says she was with him on Friday, October 8, 2021.

Deborah Belyea was subsequently arrested and charged with second degreemurder and indecently interfering with a human body. [3] There are three areas of concern to the investigators: 1. The Belyea residence in Suffield, Alberta; 2. An abandoned farmyard a few miles off the Trans Canada Highway, near Piapot; and 3. The Volkswagen Golf vehicle of Deborah Belyea. II. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW A. Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt [4] In every criminal case the accused person enjoys the presumption of innocence.

Deborah Belyea enters the proceedingspresumed to be innocent and the presumption of innocence remains throughout the case unless the Crown is able to prove each and everyelement of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. If they are able to do that, then the Crown has proven her guilt. [5] Two rules necessarily flow from the age old and inviolable principle of the presumption of innocence. One is that the Crownbears the burden of proving guilt. The other is that the guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

These rules are linked with thepresumption of innocence to ensure that no innocent person is convicted. [6] The burden of proof rests with the Crown throughout and never shifts. There is no burden on Deborah Belyea to prove herinnocence.

She does not have to prove anything in a criminal trial. [7] The trial judge keeps these two principles at the forefront in deciding any criminal case. [8] In this case the principle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt must also be examined in light of the very important evidentiaryprinciples involving circumstantial evidence. [9] Deborah Belyea can only be convicted of the charges before the court if, on all the evidence presented in this case, the trialjudge, as the trier of fact, is not left with any doubt as to her guilt. [10] Deborah Belyea has no onus of proof or obligation to explain anything or onus to disprove anything.

In a criminal trial theburden of proof or onus rests entirely upon the prosecution and the standard of proof that the prosecution must reach is proof beyond areasonable doubt.

The onus of proof is always on the Crown from beginning to end and it never shifts, and the Crown must prove eachelement of the offence to that evidentiary standard. [11] The principles just outlined are age old in the Anglo-Canadian justice system and the principles have been conciselysummarized by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R v Lifchus, [1997] 3 SCR 320, [“Lifchus”] at para. 36,summarized as follows: a. the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is inextricably intertwined with that principle fundamental to all criminal trials, thepresumption of innocence; b. the burden of proof rests on the prosecution throughout the trial and never shifts to the accused; c. a reasonable doubt is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice; d. rather, it is based upon reason and common sense; e. it is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence; f. it does not involve proof to an absolute certainty; g. it is not proof beyond any doubt nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt; and h. more is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty – a jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guiltymust acquit.

B. General Overview of the Evidence [12] The evidence before this court consists of 18 witnesses, nine of which are members of the RCMP, six lay witnesses and threetechnical or expert witnesses. I summarize the testimony of 17 of those witnesses. The Crown’s case is largely circumstantial. TheAccused, Deborah Belyea, did not testify.

[ 13 ] Circumstantial evidence is contrasted with direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be as equally valid as direct evidence and circumstantial evidence can, by drawing an inference, prove any fact as can direct evidence. Any element of an offence can be proven by either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. The difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is often explained using this example: Suppose the factual question to be proved is whether it is raining outside. A witness could testify she saw it raining outside. That is direct evidence of the fact that it is raining.

A witness could also testify that she saw someone enter the building wearing rain boots, a raincoat and carrying an umbrella and all items were dripping wet. It is a reasonable inference to conclude from observing that person that it was raining outside. This is an inference drawn from the circumstantial evidence. [ 14 ] There are some witnesses that gave direct evidence relating to facts that may relate to elements of the offence. In each case the testimony of those witnesses must be assessed or weighed in terms of credibility and reliability.

As each witness’ evidence is reviewed it should be assumed that the witness is found to be generally reliable and credible unless comments contrary to that are mentioned. III. THE OFFENCES [ 15 ] Deborah Belyea stands charged: Count 1 That she, between the 7 th day of October, 2021, and the 11 th day of October, 2021, both dates inclusive, at or near Suffield, Alberta, did unlawfully cause the death of Alfred Belyea, thereby committing second degree murder, contrary to Section 235(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada .

Count 2 That she, between the 7 th day of October, 2021, and the 11 th day of October, 2021, both dates inclusive, at or near Suffield, Alberta, did indecently interfere with the human remains of Alfred Belyea by improperly disposing of his body, contrary to

Section 182 (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada . [ 16 ] The relevant Criminal Code provisions for Count 1 are summarized as follows: a. Section 222(1) a person commits homicide when he causes the death of a human being by any means, whether directly or indirectly. b. Section 222(2) homicide is either culpable or non-culpable, and under s. 222(4) both murder and manslaughter constitute culpable homicide. c.

Section 229 culpable homicide is murder : a. Where the person who causes the death of a human being i. Means to cause his death, or ii. Means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not. d. Section 231(1) murder is first degree murder or second degree murder. e. Section 231(7) all murder that is not first degree murder is second degree murder. f. Section 235(1) every one who commits first degree murder or second degree murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life. [ 17 ] Count 2 ,

Section 182 (

b) of the Criminal Code provides: 182 Every person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on

summary conviction who (

b) improperly or indecently interferes with or offers an indignity to a dead human body or human remains whether buried or not. [ 18 ] The Crown must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the actus reus of murder – that is, the accused was a significant contributing cause of the victim’s death: R v Nette , 2011 SCC 78 at paras 71-72 . [ 19 ] The Crown must also establish the necessary mens rea. Under s. 229(

a) of the Criminal Code , the crime of murder requires proof that an accused person possesses a specific state of mind, also known as specific intent. [ 20 ] For culpable homicide to constitute murder, the burden is on the Crown to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, one of two possible states of mind on the part of an accused. The Crown must prove either that the accused intended to cause the death of the deceased or that the accused intended to cause the deceased bodily harm, which she knew was likely to cause his death and was reckless whether death ensued or not.

[21] Recently, the Alberta Court of Appeal stated in R v Newborn, 2020 ABCA 120 at para 66: [66] Murder is classified as a specific intent offence. The intent cannot be inferred merely from the fact of the killing. Thesignificance of this classification is that where a person is unable to form the specific intent required to commit the offence of murder,then the offence is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused is guilty of manslaughter. That is, manslaughter does notrequire murderous intent: R v Sarrazin, 2011 SCC 54 (S.C.C.) at para 18.

Manslaughter requires objective foresight of the risk of bodilyharm which is neither trivial nor transitory; foreseeability of the risk of death is not required: R v Creighton, (SCC),[1993] 3 S.C.R. 3, 83 C.C.C. (3d) 346 (S.C.C.); R v DeSousa, (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944, 9 O.R. (3d) 544 (S.C.C.). IV. LEGAL ISSUES [22] The issues this court must decide can be reduced to answering the following questions relating to Count 1: 1. Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Deborah Belyea committed an unlawful act? 2. Has the Crown proven that Deborah Belyea’s unlawful act caused Alfred Belyea’s death? 3.

Has the Crown established that Deborah Belyea had the intent required for murder? [23] Issues relating to Count 2 are directly related to the outcome and answers to questions posed relative to Count 1. V. THE EVIDENCE A. Uncontested Evidence [24] The identity of the Accused, Deborah Belyea and the jurisdiction of the alleged offence located in the Judicial District ofMedicine Hat is agreed to by the defence.

The continuity chain of seizure, exhibiting, processing and storage of all real evidence seizedat the Suffield residence, the Piapot scene, and the Volkswagen Golf vehicle at the Redcliff RCMP garage are all agreed to by defence aswell. [25] The Crown was not required to strictly prove continuity of all these items, including those items of evidence sent to the RCMPForensic Science Laboratory in Surrey, British Columbia and Edmonton, Alberta. [26] As well, all photographs taken by RCMP members and members of the Medicine Hat City Police are agreed to as authenticand are admitted into evidence without the Crown being forced to prove authenticity. [27] Finally, all DNA samples appropriately taken from several individuals and the identity of the individuals in the reportsreferenced by initials on specific samples provided to the labs are agreed to. [28] All these admissions are agreed to by Deborah Belyea through her defence counsel for the purpose of dispensing with formalproof by the Crown as provided by

Section 655 of the Criminal Code. [29] The qualifications of the following three experts were admitted at trial and their right to give appropriate opinion evidence intheir field of expertise was agreed to by defence. These experts are: 1. Jacqueline Mack – as an expert in toxicology and medications; 2. Laura Reader – expert in the area of collection, presence and analysis of DNA and appropriate matches and inclusions; and 3. Dr. Andreea Nistor – expert in forensic pathology, including the cause, manner, mechanism and circumstances of death. [30] Again these admissions relative to the experts were made by the accused through counsel pursuant to

Section 655 of theCriminal Code. B. Witnesses 1. Cst. Adam George [31] Cst. Adam George is a 15 year veteran of the RCMP, and in October of 2021 was stationed in Redcliff, Alberta. Thisdetachment covers Suffield, which is approximately 50 kilometres away. [32] On the morning of Tuesday, October 12, upon arriving for duty, Cst. George was assigned a missing person’s complaint. Theprevious night (Thanksgiving Monday) Deborah Belyea had reported her husband, Alfred Belyea, missing and he had been missing,according to her, since the previous Friday, October 8. [33] On the afternoon of October 12, Cst.

George met with Deborah Belyea and took a statement from her to assist in looking forAlfred Belyea. He was treating the interview with Deborah Belyea as an opportunity to gain information relevant to her missing husband.At the time of their meeting she had an oxygen tank with her and she walked slow and unsteady and appeared fragile. While speakingwith Cst. George she became emotional and cried at times during the statement. She told Cst. George that on the previous Friday, sheand Alfred had taken a drive towards Blood Indian Campground. When they got there, they had a conversation and they discussed that

she was wanting to go away for a while and wanted to spend some time with their daughters. The officer’s understanding was that they were having some difficulty in their relationship and she was wanting some time and space to be alone.

They returned from Blood Indian Campground, and in the evening, prior to bed, Alfred told Deborah that he planned to go with someone named “Dan” or “Don” for the purpose of looking at some land that this “Dan” or “Don” owned, and that it related to an opportunity for a grant for some gravel that he was hoping to receive. [ 34 ] Deborah Belyea advises that when she woke up Saturday morning he was already gone. She did not see him at all on Saturday, and when she went to bed that night she said that she left the light on in the house.

When she woke up on Sunday morning, she said that the light was off so she had assumed he had come home that night. However, when she woke up on Sunday morning he was gone again. She told Cst. George that she does use sleeping pills so it would not have been abnormal for her not to hear him if he came in late and left early. She did not see him at all on Sunday, and as far as she could tell he did not come home Sunday night. She did not see him Monday during the day and that evening she was speaking with her daughter, Trina Belyea, who strongly encouraged her to report him missing.

She said that she intended to wait another day, until Tuesday morning, but at her daughter’s insistence she called the police Monday evening. [ 35 ] She was at home all weekend waiting for Alfred to come home and she did not leave the house at all. [ 36 ] The last time she said that she saw Alfred was Friday evening before bed, and while he normally always has his cell phone with him it was left at the house as was his vehicle. This was admittedly unusual she said because he always has his cell phone with him. She assumed that he had been picked up by “Dan” or “Don” to go look at the land.

The reason his vehicle was at the house was because the person that was picking him up was the one that did the driving. This was admittedly an unusual practice for Alfred. She thought all his medication was left in his own separate bathroom and he had not taken it with him and he needed it daily. She did not go into his private bathroom, and she acknowledged that Alfred Belyea was very private about his health and medical matters. [ 37 ] Alfred Belyea was a member of council for Cypress County.

He had quite an active social life in terms of golf and darts in addition to his council duties. [ 38 ] The information Cst. George gained was included in his report and it was used to determine if and where they would start the search to look for Alfred Belyea as a missing person. The interview lasted just over 50 minutes and it took place at the RCMP Detachment in Redcliff. 2. Jodi Wilson [ 39 ] The youngest of the Belyea’s three daughters testified. Jodi Wilson is 41 years of age and lives in Prince George, British Columbia. She described their family as very close.

While all three daughters lived in three difference locations in British Columbia, as of October 2021, all five – meaning mom (Deborah Belyea), dad (Alfred Belyea), and the three daughters would have weekly zoom calls each Tuesday at 6:00 pm. This was a practice started in early 2020 at the beginning of COVID. [ 40 ] Over and above the family’s weekly zoom calls, Jodi would text, call, or Facebook message both her father and mother several times per week. She would have more contact with her father because she was closer to him and in her words “my dad was my person”.

She confided in him, looked up to him, and sought his approval in everything she did. [ 41 ] After the family zoom meeting on Tuesday, October 5, the next time Jodi heard from her father was Friday, October 8. She recalls it clearly because it was her 15 th Anniversary, and she received a “Happy Anniversary” text from her father at around 9:00 or 10:00 that morning. [ 42 ] It was her practice to speak with her mother every few days by phone, text, and Facebook messenger as well. The next call she had with her mother after the family zoom meeting on Tuesday was on Wednesday before the Thanksgiving weekend.

The conversation was about Christmas ornaments. That conversation was through Facebook messenger. [ 43 ] She next spoke with her mother on Friday evening that week and it was a text exchange wishing her a “Happy Anniversary”. Her mother said they were watching a movie, and she would call her the next day. This was a normal text conversation between them. The next day she recalls a Facebook messenger conversation with her mother late morning. The topic of conversation was her son’s fever and an eventual diagnosis of him having COVID.

As a mother, and given the climate of fear at the time, Jodi said this was a real concern and “COVID was intense at that point”. [ 44 ] Over the Saturday and Sunday she may have had more than one conversation with her mother through Facebook messenger. All of the conversations were about Jodi’s son’s state of health. The calls were via video, followed up by text. She did not speak to her father on those days, nor did she talk to her mother about him. [ 45 ] Her next call with her mother took place when she called on her parents’ land line on the evening of Monday, October 11.

She spoke to her mother and discussed her son’s health and COVID. After speaking to her mother for a while she asked to speak with her father. The responses she got from her mother was “she thought he was outside”, “I don’t know”, and “he’s outside”. Then her mother started to get upset and emotional and said that she had to go and terminated the call. After the call with her mother ended and Jodi was not able to talk to her dad she became “really worried for my dad”. [ 46 ] She then phoned her older sister, Trina Belyea.

She called Trina because she worries the least and she asked her to phone their mother. [ 47 ] On Tuesday she had a further Facebook messenger conversation and call by text and video with her mother. The topic of these calls was regarding the whereabouts of her dad. [ 48 ] She stated that her mother, Deborah Belyea, was very sad and distraught, and she had been waiting for him at home, she had

left lights on for him and there was a spare key outside. [ 49 ] She testified about her mother’s limitations in terms of her mobility and the fact that she had largely been housebound for the year leading up to the Thanksgiving weekend. 3. Trina Belyea [ 50 ] Trina Belyea is the oldest child of the family and resides in Ladysmith, British Columbia. She also testified and spoke of her parents’ health issues. Her dad had high blood pressure and had prostate issues requiring him to use a catheter. Her mother suffered from depression, had breathing issues, and was also struggling with heart and lung issues.

She seemed to go to a lot of doctors, and they could not definitively deal with her numerous medical conditions. [ 51 ] In addition to the weekly family zoom meetings she would also talk to her father two to three times per week, typically. She had a daytime call with just her father by phone the day of the family zoom call. She had to cut that conversation short because she was busy at work. She recalls her father expressing concerns about her mother’s health and he told her he was going to get her in to see a doctor.

She also recalls a zoom call initiated by Jodi with her mom and sisters on either the Saturday or Sunday of the Thanksgiving weekend. She also had a call with her mom on the landline on Thanksgiving weekend and they discussed COVID. Trina felt her mom was rude and had to end the call with her mom as she “couldn’t listen to the COVID stuff”. [ 52 ] Trina’s next call with her mom was 9:00 pm on Monday night. Her mom said that she was going to bed and that she had just taken all her medication and that meant she would be knocked out quite quickly.

Her mother told her that her father was out in the shop and when Trina insisted on talking to him her mother’s reply was “she did not want to do this, that she would do… wanted to do it in the morning and I said, what? Like I need to talk to dad and she said that he didn’t… he hadn’t come home and she hasn’t seen him.” [ 53 ] Deborah Belyea in this conversation also acknowledged that the last time she would have seen Alfred “would have been Friday night”. She also said that someone picked up Alfred Saturday morning and she was not sure if he had come home Saturday night or not.

At this point on Monday evening, Trina told her mother that she needed to call 911 and report her father, Alfred Belyea, as a missing person. If she did not do it Trina would make that call. Her mother said that she would do it and the conversation with Trina ended. [ 54 ] Trina had another call with her mother later that evening and her mother said that the police were on their way. When the police arrived, Trina and her mother were on the phone again and the police spoke with Trina and she was able to ask the police some questions. Trina stayed on the line with her mother when she spoke to the police.

After that call Trina and her two sisters checked with all the hotels in the Medicine Hat region and her father was not registered at any of them. [ 55 ] Trina made the decision to come to Alberta on Wednesday, October 13, and after she landed in Calgary, she went to the Redcliff RCMP Detachment and spent time there with the police. She then stopped at her parents’ house and spoke to her mom for about 10 minutes. Her mom was very upset, emotional and crying, and Trina gave her a big hug. From there Trina travelled to the Blood Indian Campground and looked around.

This was the last location that her mother told her that they had gone on the previous Friday. Later in the afternoon, or early evening, she returned to her parents’ home in Suffield. She spent time with her mom who continued to be upset and emotional. Deborah Belyea communicated to Trina that she had no idea where Alfred could be. Trina checked to make sure that her mom was taking the correct medication for her breathing and related issues. She stayed at her parents’ house that night. [ 56 ] The next day, October 14, Trina stayed with her mom at the house. They went nowhere and there were no visitors.

They went to bed Thursday evening. During the night Trina could not sleep and got up and did work on her laptop. Her mother also woke up in the middle of the night and Trina went into her room. Trina was told by her mother about a dream that she just had where she saw Alfred waving goodbye to her. In the dream he was in the doorway of an older homestead type house and he was smiling and waving goodbye. Deborah Belyea could not remember anything more about the dream and went to the living room and she and Trina visited in the middle of the night.

Trina eventually fell asleep in a chair and after some time awoke to see and hear that her mother was writing something out on the table. Her mother then went back to bed to sleep and she indicated she was hoping to go back into her dream so that she could talk to Alfred again. Deborah Belyea having dreams was not an unusual occurrence, according to her daughter. [ 57 ] Trina then picked up the paper her mom was writing on the table. The paper was a letter written to her three daughters.

It contained a map from the home in Suffield to Medicine Hat, Irvine, Walsh, Alberta and onto Maple Creek and Piapot, Saskatchewan. There was also a road outlined after Piapot. The letter said: I love you all so much. You’ve all turned out to be lovely, loving girls. We are so proud. And then Trina, Robin, and Jodi. I love Alf with all my being and I always have. I just want to be close to our girls and grandkids. I love and cherish you, love you, and never hurt you. Please do not hate me. I needed to be loved and wanted, your dad to hold me, but he never did anymore.

I have days when I sit here by myself and which I was with everyone -- and wish I was with everyone or dead. And now I wish I had just died. I don’t remember what happened, but I will eventually, I am sure. Just remember, I love you. The paper giving you everything is in my tall brown cupboard on the top shelf. I love you all, very much. I did not mean for this to happen. I don’t ever -- even know for sure I did anything, but I want your dad home. I love him. Please help my -- I am so sorry. I was such a burden to your dad. No wonder he didn’t like me. I know he loves me just as much as I love him.

I’m forgetting and doing stupid things and making his life hell. He wouldn’t let me breathe. So sorry. Love everyone. She was also directed to a cabinet in the master bedroom where Deborah Belyea told her that the wills of her mother and father were stored. [ 58 ] Upon finding and reading this letter in the early morning Trina then called the RCMP at the first opportunity Friday and told them about it. The police were at the residence within an hour and Trina handed the letter over to them. That day Deborah Belyea slept most of the morning and seemed to be heavily medicated.

In the afternoon on Friday, Deborah Belyea was awoken by Trina and was extremely groggy and medicated. Trina tried to help her get up and get ready and dressed. While doing that, Sgt. Hoysradt of the RCMP

Major Crimes Unit arrived and eventually arrested Deborah Belyea for the murder of Alfred Belyea. [ 59 ] Trina was able to retrieve her personal belongings from the house that day. 4. Shandel Dupal [ 60 ] The Court heard from Shandel Dupal. Shandel Dupal testified that she has known Deborah Belyea for about five years and became acquainted through embroidery. She describes herself as being a friend of Deborah Belyea. She would drive to Deborah Belyea’s home on a regular basis, probably monthly, and would speak to her weekly.

She also knew Alfred Belyea, though more as an acquaintance. [ 61 ] On the Thanksgiving weekend Shandel Dupal indicated that she texted with Deborah Belyea on the Sunday. On Monday Deborah Belyea messaged her, in the morning, to come to her home for a visit. She arrived later that morning and went into the living room. Shandel Dupal indicated that Deborah Belyea was quieter than normal and there was little conversation. Shandel Dupal left after only about 15 minutes at Deborah Belyea’s request. When leaving, Deborah Belyea asked her to take a bag of garbage out for her, which was not unusual.

Shandel Dupal intended to take it to the outside bin, but when she was unable to locate it, just decided to take the garbage home. She indicated that this garbage bag was black and not very heavy. [ 62 ] After leaving, Shandel Dupal returned home to Medicine Hat. She forgot about the bag in the trunk due to being distracted and did not dispose of it. Deborah Belyea phoned her the next day, Tuesday, at about 10:00 am, and asked if she wanted to come over to quilt and stay the night. Shandel Dupal stated that the communication may have been by text, but that she clearly remembers a phone conversation.

She did not know that Alfred Belyea was missing at the time, and that the primary purpose of going to Deborah Belyea’s home was for embroidery and friendship. She believed that Deborah Belyea and Alfred Belyea may have been experiencing typical marital problems; but nothing too serious. [ 63 ] Shandel Dupal arrived at Deborah Belyea’s home later on Tuesday. She indicated that Deborah Belyea acted similarly to the previous day, being quiet and somewhat downcast.

Shandel Dupal also stated that Deobrah Belyea mentioned that her husband had not returned home, that he may be missing, and that he had left previously to repair a cattle guard with a Dan or a Don. [ 64 ] A police officer later appeared about 40 minutes after Shandel Dupal arrived. The officer took some information, and Shandel Dupal noted that Deobrah Belyea did not seem concerned, which was not out of the ordinary, since Alfred Belyea had a history of long work hours. Shandel Dupal noted that the officer was there for some time. More police officers and others attended at the residence.

Shandel Dupal remembers that they stayed up until around 10PM that night and indicated that both she and Deborah Belyea were crying and upset. They did prepare food that night together. [ 65 ] Shandel Dupal stayed the night, sleeping in the guest bedroom on the main floor, arising at about 8AM, and was up shortly before Deborah Belyea. Shandel Dupal stated that she was at the residence on Wednesday, October 13 until about 6:30 that evening. The two had breakfast, and Shandel Dupal did not want to leave until Deborah Belyea’s daughter arrived.

Shandel Dupal also stated that there was no toilet paper in the bathroom when she was at Deborah Belyea’s residence that morning, so she went downstairs to look for toilet paper, which was not an abnormal occurrence. She did not find any toilet paper, which she thought was unusual, considering that Alfred Belyea usually was particular about having toilet paper in the home.

Shandel Dupal stated that everything in the home seemed normal, in that she did not notice anything indicating deep cleaning, or any blood or damage. [ 66 ] Shandel Dupal stated that neither she nor Deborah Belyea left the residence until about 5:00 pm, except when a police officer took her outside without her oxygen. Shandel Dupal stated that when she returned, Deborah Belyea was shaking and was not feeling well.

On cross-examination, Shandel Dupal confirmed that Deborah Belyea usually required assistance with mobility, even when moving her quilting bags, which she believed were about the weight of a litre of milk. Deborah Belyea asked if she had gotten rid of the garbage bag, but she had not done so yet, and there was no further conversation about the bag. Around 6:30 pm, Shandel Dupal had to leave to make supper for her own family, and she also began to feel uncomfortable with how the day was developing.

Shandel Dupal then states that she talked to her husband, and that because of the nature of the day, she believed she needed to look in the bag. She did so, moving some chairs off of the bag, and opened the tied shut bag, and she states she was the only person to touch it. Shandel Dupal stated that there was a wet smell when she opened the bag and thought that it might just be some things that she could wash for Deborah Belyea and return to her. In the bag, there was a white kitchen bag, and some clothes.

When Shandel Dupal opened the white kitchen bag, she saw white in the bag, and blood, and she then shut the bag and called the police. They arrived and collected the bag in about 15 minutes on Wednesday evening. [ 67 ] The evidence of Shandel Dupal was difficult to follow. She seemed to jump from one incident to another without chronological or logical connection. She mentioned visits on the Tuesday by a police officer when no one else did. She was quite emotional and confrontational when asked relatively straight forward questions. This occurred when questioned by both the prosecution and defence.

This court has trouble accepting the whole of the testimony of this witness, especially as to the comings and goings at the Suffield residence on the Tuesday and Wednesday. However, I do accept her evidence that she received a black garbage bag from Deborah Belyea. I also accept that she turned over the black garbage bag and contents to the Medicine Hat City Police and that she did not tamper or deal with the contents of the bag in any way. 5. Sgt. Alan Rivard and Staff Sgt. Michael Courty [ 68 ] Sgt. Alan Rivard and Staff Sgt. Michael Courty testified of their involvement on October 15.

Early that morning they received a call or email from Medicine Hat Police Service indicating that the Medicine Hat Police Service had received custody of a black garbage bag with what appeared to be a women’s clothes with blood, dirt and vegetation on them. The Medicine Hat Police Service received the bag from Shandel Dupal. The RCMP had also received an early morning call from Trina Belyea. As a result of the call they arrived at the Belyea home before 8:00 am and received from Trina a lengthy hand written letter and map that she had received from Deborah Belyea over the night.

As a result of meeting with Trina in Suffield, and receiving the letter and map, both officers left Suffield, stopped at the Redcliff RCMP Detachment briefly and continued on to Piapot. About five minutes off the Trans Canada Highway the

officers arrived at an abandoned farmyard with several buildings. At this farmyard the officers quickly found a municipal grey garbage bin that appeared to have a human body tightly wrapped in a blue blanket and black plastic garbage bags. All items of concern were found near the same abandoned building. [ 69 ] Sgt. Rivard and Staff Sgt. Courty secured the abandoned farmyard, called in patrol members to watch the scene and reported their findings to the Major Crimes

Section of the RCMP before leaving the site. 6. Cpl. Tommy Thifault [ 70 ] Cpl. Tommy Thifault of the RCMP in Regina, Saskatchewan, testified that on October 15, he travelled to the scene of the abandoned farmyard near Piapot. He took photographs, catalogued and marked the evidence. He also took samples of a reddish liquid from a black garbage bag and a blue rug found near the garbage bin and confirmed presumptively that it was human blood. [ 71 ] He also attended at the autopsy on October 18 and took photos at the autopsy at the direction of the Forensic Pathologist, Dr. Andreea Nistor. 7.

Manon Bax [ 72 ] A long-time friend of Deborah Belyea, Manon Bax testified that on the Thanksgiving Sunday she stopped in Suffield to visit her. Manon was on her way home from Sherwood Park to her home in Stirling. Manon and Deborah Belyea had been friends for over 20 years and they spent much time together over a joint hobby of quilting. She spent 30 to 60 minutes at the Belyea’s house in Suffield. She acknowledged that the topic of discussion was Manon’s grandchild primarily, but they did discuss Deborah Belyea’s health.

She noticed some antique furniture was missing from the house since the last time she was there. As well she noticed that an area rug in the living room was missing. The reason she noted it was because the rug often had dog hair on it which bothered Manon Bax. In addition, she noticed a bottle of bleach at the entry way when she came in. [ 73 ] She observed Deborah Belyea had her oxygen tank with her and she was using it.

When it came time for her to leave, she indicated that Deborah Belyea disconnected her oxygen tank and walked down the stairs of her house with Manon and followed her to her car to say goodbye and give her a hug. Manon did not discuss with Deborah Belyea anything about her husband, Alfred, nor did Deborah Belyea say much at all. She noted that Deborah Belyea seemed extremely sad and recalled that she had complained about Alfred being very controlling. She did recall a luncheon meeting they had with their husbands several weeks before where Alfred Belyea said he was seeking another term on Cypress County Council.

Deborah Belyea was not happy about that. [ 74 ] Manon Bax was challenged on cross-examination that Deborah Belyea could not have walked out to her car. She was adamant that that in fact was what happened. I accept the evidence of Manon Bax that Deborah Belyea did follow her to her vehicle as she testified. 8. Richard Oster [ 75 ] Richard Oster is a member of the Cypress County Council and currently serves as Deputy Reeve. He was a colleague of Alfred Belyea. Alfred Belyea had been a Cypress County Councillor several years prior to 2021 and represented the Suffield District of the County.

They served together for the better part of two terms. They worked together on various projects for the County, attending County meetings at least two times per month and attended two major conventions per year in Edmonton. Richard Oster also knew Deborah Belyea through her attendance with her husband at various conventions.

During the last term of council, which would have ended in October 2021, Richard Oster and Alfred Belyea got to know each other quite well through their work and meetings for the County, but also golfed together at least two times per week – every Monday morning and on Thursday or Friday. [ 76 ] On Thursday morning, October 7, he, Alfred Belyea, and two other councillors golfed together. Alfred Belyea was having a good time that day as he had won the round. They had a tee time booked for the following Monday morning, October 11. On Monday morning Richard Oster texted Alfred Belyea and received no reply at 8:30.

He called Alfred Belyea an hour later and left a voice message and received no returned phone call. [ 77 ] Richard Oster described the general practice of councillors for the County in terms of their work. Councillors would not be picked up by a constituent in the constituent’s vehicle. The practice was that they would always meet a constituent at the scene of the project or complaint. That was so that they had the freedom to leave when they wanted to and were not captivated by the constituent, but rather had control over their own schedule.

Richard Oster was not aware of Alfred Belyea ever going to a constituent’s complaint in that person’s vehicle and examining an issue. [ 78 ] Richard Oster, along with Daniel Hamilton, picked up Trina Belyea at the Calgary Airport on the Wednesday of that week and brought her down to Redcliff RCMP and Suffield. 9. Daniel Hamilton [ 79 ] Daniel Hamilton is the current Reeve of Cypress County and has been on the County Council for 11 years. He first met Alfred Belyea when he joined County Council.

He also spent many meetings together with Alfred Belyea and attended the same major conventions in Edmonton, one in spring and one in fall. He also golfed with him numerous times. He would be in touch with Alfred Belyea over County business several times a month and his last personal contact with Alfred Belyea would have been the Tuesday Council meeting on October 5. [ 80 ] Daniel also testified that it is not typical for a County Councillor to go on County business in a constituent’s vehicle.

If there was a County issue over a road or project the councillor would always review it by meeting the constituent at the site. The councillor would always be in control of his own vehicle and drive it.

[ 81 ] Daniel was contacted late Monday evening, October 11, by the RCMP and advised that Alfred Belyea was missing. As Reeve of Cypress County he was involved in the search for the ensuing three days. [ 82 ] On Tuesday, Daniel stopped at the Belyea home and got the keys for the Suffield Community Hall from Deborah Belyea. He checked the Hall to see if there were any traces of Alfred Belyea having been there. He found no signs that he had been there. [ 83 ] In his interactions with Deborah Belyea, Daniel Hamilton noticed that she was crying and upset and she stated that Alfred Belyea would be coming home. 10.

Jacqueline J. Mack [ 84 ] Jacqueline J. Mack was qualified as an expert witness in the area of forensic toxicology and entitled to give opinion evidence in the area of the presence and affects of toxic substances in the human body, including medications. Forensic toxicologists analyse body fluids for the presence of alcohol and drugs – common prescription and non-prescription drugs and certain intoxicants. Virtually all analysis in this area is done through the examination of bodily fluids. [ 85 ] Exhibit #7 is the Toxicology Report authored by Jacqueline Mack.

This report is based on samples of bodily fluids obtained by the RCMP Major Crimes Unit.

She received four vials of chest blood and a jar of urine, all of which she examined. [ 86 ] Her conclusions after analysing the bodily fluids were that the following substances were present in Alfred Belyea’s body at the time of his death: - Morphine (MS Contin) - Codeine - Zopiclone/Eszopiclone - Diphenhydramine (Benadryl) - Bupivacaine (Marcaine) - Acetaminophen (Tylenol) - Acetone - Isopropanol [ 87 ] The opinion expressed by Jacqueline after her analysis and conclusions is as follows: “The intensity of any intended or adverse effects experienced after using psychoactive drugs will vary and is dependent on the drug used, the dose consumed, the route of administration and the tolerance of the individual to the drug.

Tolerance refers to a reduced drug response over time after repeated use of the same dose. Tolerance may occur to both the desire and undesired effects of drugs and may develop at different rates for different effects. Therefore, a higher dose may be required to achieve the desired effects. Drug interactions may occur if a person has two or more drugs in their blood at the same time. The effects of the drugs, when combined, may become greater or last longer than their respective individual effects.

These interactions depend on many factors including dosage, the times drugs were taken relative to each other, and the person’s individual response to the drugs. The potential interactions are complex and difficult to predict. Individuals who are tolerant to these drugs may be less vulnerable to potential additive effects.” 11. Cst. Anthony Stone [ 88 ] Cst. Anthony Stone is a 10-year member of the RCMP, and as of October 2021 he was with the RCMP Major Crime Unit. With respect to this investigation, he was assigned to be the scene manager at the Piapot farmyard.

The scene manager organizes and assesses all of the resources at the scene in terms of Exhibit Officer, Forensic Identification Services, and Coroner. He assesses the over- all scene and instructs which items are to be seized and processed. [ 89 ] On October 15, shortly after 11:00 am, Cst. Stone received a phone call advising of the discovery of human remains near Piapot relating to a missing persons case out of Redcliff. He arrived at the Piapot scene at about 2:15 pm after departing from Calgary just before lunch. The scene was secured at the time.

The Coroner from Saskatchewan had already arrived, and the Forensic Identification Team was on site. Individuals present at this time included Sgt. Wilson, Cst. Melony Hamill, Cpl. Thifault, and his assistant. [ 90 ] They arrived at the farmyard scene using a hard packed long rural driveway with a ditch on each side. He noted the tracks to an outbuilding but could not differentiate tread marks. All tire tracks ended at the first outbuilding which was the northeast building at the farm site and no tread marks going any further. Cst.

Stone next approached the outbuilding and noted a grey garbage bin laying on its back with the bottom of the bin facing the building and the open top of the bin facing north. The bin had a human body inside, wrapped in blankets and garbage bags. It was noticeable that the body did not have arms. [ 91 ] The surrounding area of the garbage bin included a black garbage bag which contained a red liquid and lumps of organic matter. The bag and contents were seized and went with the body to the autopsy.

All of the investigators used sterile gloves in handling anything that was seized to ensure no contamination of the seized items. [ 92 ] In the outbuilding there was one very large rectangular blue rug and three mats. The blue rug contained red stains which

turned out to be presumptively blood. [ 93 ] Under the Coroner’s direction they removed the body from the garbage bin and placed it in the sterile body bag. Another blue rug (or blanket) was wrapped around the lower part of the body and tied with white rope. The upper half of the body was wrapped in a black garbage bag with duct tape around it. [ 94 ] The garbage bin was a typical grey municipal garbage bin with two handles on the top back of the bin and wheels on the bottom of the bin on the same side.

They are designed such that they can be tilted and moved without too much difficulty using the wheels. [ 95 ] At this point the wrapping was not taken off the body. It was left to be removed at the autopsy. They placed the body in the body bag – which was a white plastic bag with a zipper, and the zipper was then secured with a tag to seal and lock it. [ 96 ] At this point, Cst. Stone started processing other contents of the garbage bin.

Items found included: - a white large lid (Sterilite) underneath the body with numerous red stains; - a blue Rubbermaid bin lid with red stains; - A&W empty beverage cups; - empty “Certified” antifreeze container; - weather stripping; - a couple of plastic bags with blood stains; and - a plastic picnic table cloth. [ 97 ] Near the outbuilding a roll of duct tape with red stains was found in the grass and was seized. Nothing else of interest was found in any other outbuilding. Measurements of tire marks were made. Swabs were taken by Cpl. Thifault, and Cst.

Stone exhibited and marked all exhibits. [ 98 ] The funeral home took the body bag to Regina, Saskatchewan, for the purposes of an autopsy. They were accompanied by a police officer, which is required by Saskatchewan law. [ 99 ] On the evening of October 15, after seizing and completing the investigation at the Piapot site, Cst. Stone returned to the Redcliff RCMP detachment along with Cst. Hamill. That evening they placed all the information from the exhibits into a database. [ 100 ] On the morning of October 16, Cst.

Stone returned to the detachment and was advised that a further garbage bag had been turned into the Medicine Hat City Police by a friend of Deborah Belyea. The contents of that garbage bag appeared to be women’s clothing with red stains. He seized that garbage bag from the Medicine Hat City Police and exhibited the women’s clothing, as well as rags with red stains and a roll of paper towel. The clothing had red stains, mud and dirt on them. There were nail clippings and skin shavings inside a hand towel, which had garden symbols.

The hand towel was virtually identical to a hand towel that had been found and seized in the Belyea residence. A piece of white rope with red stains were also found in the bag. This white rope was similar, if not identical, to what was found with the body in the garbage bin. [ 101 ] Cst. Stone then attended at the Suffield residence and seized the blue Volkswagen Golf vehicle and had it towed to the RCMP Detachment in Redcliff. He assisted Cpl. Neri in searching the Volkswagen Golf at the Detachment. Cst. Stone also searched the surrounding area of the house in Suffield.

He noted that the Belyea residence only had a blue recycle bin and did not have a grey garbage bin at the residence. [ 102 ] After processing and searching the Volkswagen Golf he was able to determine that the bin the size of the garbage bin fit into the hatchback and the trunk lid could close. This was determined by using the recycling bin, which fit into the hatchback of the Volkswagen Golf. 12. Cst. Melissa Archambault [ 103 ] Cst. Melissa Archambault has been a RCMP member for over 15 years and since 2018 she has been with the Forensic Identification Unit. On October 16 she was asked to assist Cpl.

Jacques Neri at the Belyea residence in Suffield. She video recorded and photographed the Belyea home. She also assisted in performing presumptive tests for blood throughout the home, and where appropriate and necessary, conducted swabs for DNA analysis.

She determined that there were four areas in the house where there may have been blood: - the living room floor; - the stairway going up to the main floor; - the landing at the entry; and - the kitchen counter. [ 104 ] A further area of a cushion in the master bedroom was also suspected to have traces of blood. [ 105 ] The test used to determine the location of blood was the BLUESTAR test and a further Hemastix test was utilized as well. She,

along with Cpl. Neri, were equipped with a sterile suit which covered their head and body to their feet, and extreme caution was used to make sure that the investigation was conducted in a very sterile manner. [ 106 ] Upon Cst. Archambault’s arrival at the Suffield residence she noticed a blue item wedged in between the cement pad and the front entrance, just below the door. That blue item turned out to be a plastic handle from a large plastic tub and contained red stains.

The red stain was determined to have a positive presumptive test for blood. [ 107 ] Typically, if there is a presumptive result for a red stain to be blood then the investigators do a further test known as a Hemastix test where a reagent is used to determine if it is blood. If it is positive, then a sterile swab is used with two or three drops of sterile water and that is sealed and sent for further testing for DNA. [ 108 ] Cst. Archambault collected what ultimately was determined to be DNA from positive reactive sites on the living room floor. [ 109 ] Cst.

Archambault also assisted in examining and searching the blue Volkswagen Golf vehicle that had been seized and taken to the RCMP Detachment. She obtained swabs from every area of the vehicle that was found to have red stains, for DNA evidence. [ 110 ] Three areas marked in the hatchback of the Volkswagen Golf with markers “A”, “B” and “C” were all processed and tested positive for blood by BLUESTAR and Hemastix testing. A total of eight areas in the Volkswagen Golf were examined for possible blood. Not all suspected areas of blood and DNA are necessarily swabbed due to limitations placed on them from the lab. 13.

Cpl. Jacques Neri [ 111 ] Cpl. Jacques Neri has been a member of the RCMP for 33 years and for the past 18 years has been a member of the Forensic Identification Unit. His duties in this role are to assist other investigating officers to examine the crime scenes for physical evidence, such as fingerprints, footprints, body fluids for DNA, etc. [ 112 ] On Saturday, October 16, he was contacted to assist in searching the Belyea residence pursuant to a search warrant. He and Cst. Archambault arrived at the Suffield residence, in the afternoon and they received and reviewed the Search Warrant.

Before entering the home, they put on sterile protective suits covering their body and boots. Once the scene had been photographed and video recorded they entered the house to begin their search. [ 113 ] The two identification officers spent a total of three days at the house and searched the garage and outbuildings on October 17 and 18. The first day was dedicated to the house. The residence is a split-level home with an upper floor and a lower basement and the entry level midway between the two floors. [ 114 ] Cpl. Neri’s first goal was to look for any visible signs of a struggle. He found no such signs.

The house was very orderly and very clean. [ 115 ] They next looked for blood stains which can be difficult to visualize, especially if the surface had recently been cleaned. They have investigative tools to assist in detecting for blood that is difficult or impossible to see by the naked eye. They used a chemical spray known as BLUESTAR which when sprayed produces a chemical reaction with blood and causes the blood to glow with a blue colour.

This test is not absolutely determinative of human blood but rather presumptively indicates that blood is there, and it requires further testing to determine if it is blood or if DNA can be extracted. [ 116 ] A follow-up tool is used called Hemastix strips that also indicates presumptively if there is blood. After these two tests are used and it is shown to be blood then swabs are taken to submit to the lab for DNA analysis. Hemastix are used to confirm obvious red blood stains on areas that indicate blood by the BLUESTAR method. [ 117 ] There were no obvious red stains visible to the naked eye.

To swab for DNA is to take a Q-Tip type stick and swab and apply a couple of drops of sterile water and slide it into a case or container. That package is then sealed and placed in a paper bag which is sent to the lab for analysis. [ 118 ] Areas of interest for possible blood are identified and marked and the scene is measured. [ 119 ] These officers also seized various items of fabric and rope from the quilting room in the basement. [ 120 ] Cpl. Neri also observed on the entry step or platform, which is a concrete pad, clear markings where previous carpets or mats were located.

He also confirmed that the blue plastic handle found by Cst. Archambault wedged in the crack below the door contained red stains. [ 121 ] Many knives were found on the kitchen counter and in the cupboard, including some that were recently washed in the dishwasher. Various medications were found in the bathroom, including over the counter and prescription medications, many of them noting Alfred Belyea as the recipient. Some of those same drugs, or residue from those drugs, were found in Alfred Belyea at the time of the autopsy. These included sleep medication, Tylenol and Advil.

Considerable number of pill bottles of varying types were found throughout the house, all prescribed to Alfred Belyea or Deborah Belyea. [ 122 ] Also found in the house were blankets and white towels with flower sayings, flowerpots and garden themes, identical to a towel found in the black garbage bag given to the Medicine Hat City Police by Shandel Dupal. [ 123 ] Cpl. Neri checked the area surrounding the Belyea home in Suffield and noted that at least two of the neighbours had a grey garbage bin with a black lid for garbage and a blue recyclable bin of the same size.

The Belyea residence only had the blue recycling bin at their home and no grey garbage bin with a black lid. The grey garbage bin and the blue recycling bin are the same size and the blue bin fit into the Volkswagen Golf through the hatchback, and the hatchback could be closed.

[ 124 ] Cpl. Neri and Cst. Archambault stayed at the residence the first day. They returned the second day to the residence and then attended at the detachment to work on the Volkswagen Golf. [ 125 ] Cpl. Neri processed evidence seized from the residence and the Volkswagen Golf, and he also later examined many exhibits seized at the Piapot scene, from the residence, and the car. He compared items seized at the Piapot scene, and they were similar to items found in the Belyea residence. These included: (

a) An empty jug of “Certified” anti-freeze found in the garbage bin, with the body of Alfred Belyea. It was identical to the several jugs of the same product found in the Belyea garage; (

b) The plastic lid for a storage bin with the brand name “Sterilite” and red markings had one of the handles missing. The blue handle found underneath the entry door at the house perfectly fit the lid found with the body in Piapot; (

c) The Rubbermaid Roughneck bin lid with red stain was similar to other Rubbermaid Roughneck bins found in the garage; (

d) Mats and paper towels; (

e) Garbage bag with duct tape from Piapot; (

f) A large reddish-brown blanket with paisley type designs was seized with the body at the Piapot scene, and it also had a large red liquid stain which appeared to be blood. That same fabric was found in the basement fabric room of the Belyea residence and a long remnant of that fabric is exactly the same width of the blanket of the exact same pattern. In addition, the underside of the blanket had yellow fabric lining and that lining appears to perfectly match one of the strips of yellow fabric found in the quilting room of the Belyea residence. (

g) A considerable amount of white braided rope, much of it soaked in a red substance was found in the garbage bin with the body at Piapot, loose and tied around the body. A supply of identical white braided rope was found in the basement of the Belyea home and in the bag of clothes given to Shandel Dupal. Comparatively measured, the rope from each location is the same size and braid. 14. Sgt. Candice Hoysradt [ 126 ] Sgt. Candice Hoysradt, as part of the RCMP Major Crimes Unit, did the actual arrest of Deborah Belyea on October 15. She observed Deborah Belyea moving very slowly due her heavy medication.

She was able to get out of the police car with assistance at the detachment, and any unsteadiness on her feet at that time was due to her medication. Sgt. Hoysradt was with Deborah Belyea throughout the time she was in RCMP custody on October 15 and 16 and saw her walking and moving around on her own without assistance, albeit slowly. [ 127 ] As well, in March 2022 Sgt. Hoysradt met with Deborah Belyea and observed that she did not have an oxygen tank with her and walked short distances unimpeded. [ 128 ] Sgt.

Hoysradt observed Deborah Belyea in January of 2023 at the preliminary inquiry and noticed that she walked down the hallways of the courthouse without assistance and without her oxygen tank. Deborah Belyea was also able to navigate a spiral staircase at the courthouse without assistance and oxygen. [ 129 ] While St. Hoysradt was not specifically called to give evidence relevant to Deborah Belyea’s mobility originally, I do not find her testimony suspect at all. I accept Sgt. Hoysradt’s evidence in this regard. 15.

Laura Reader [ 130 ] Laura Reader is employed with the RCMP and works in the National Forensic Lab in Edmonton, Alberta. She has been there for 20 plus years and is an expert on the collection, presence and analysis of DNA and the

interpretation and comparison of forensic DNA typing profiles as well as the statistical significance of matches or conclusions. Ms. Reader testified remotely. [ 131 ] Ms. Reader was qualified as an expert entitled to give opinion evidence on the collection, presence and analysis of DNA, and the

interpretation of the statistical significance of the presence of DNA. She has been so qualified in 30 previous court cases. In relation to this case, she received numerous exhibits from the Piapot scene, the Suffield residence and the Volkswagen Golf vehicle. Her role was to serve as the reporting scientist assigned to this case and she looked at the raw genetic information provided to her by the DNA analyst and determined the profiles, the number of contributors or people in that profile, and separated those mixtures and compared profiles to known samples.

If a match was made, she calculated the statistic probability of the identified DNA. [ 132 ] Each person’s DNA is genetically different and is created at conception and is unique to that individual. Because everyone’s DNA is different, it is helpful in forensic analysis. Deoxyribonucleic Acid or DNA is the building block of the human body; every cell contains DNA. The DNA in a person’s blood is the same as the DNA in their saliva, skin tissue, hair, and bone.

DNA does not change throughout a person’s life. [ 133 ] Comparing or looking for identification through DNA is based on looking at questioned samples (suspect samples) and known samples. In this case there was several samples of blood retrieved from the crime scenes. These were the questioned samples. These samples were them compared to “known samples”.

When all the matches of the suspect samples with the known samples are made, a calculation is then made based on statistically appropriate case and an analysis is used to determine who the major contributor of the DNA is in a case where there is more than one person’s DNA. [ 134 ] The exhibits submitted to the lab by the investigating officers were properly identified, tracked and stored in their computer system. The first person dealing with the exhibit is the search technologist who is a biologist by training. Their job is to examine the

exhibit for biological material. The next person handling the exhibit is the DNA analyst whose job it is to take the item identified by the biologist and generate the raw DNA information and determine how much DNA there is, and to create a DNA profile. This then goes to the reporting scientist, Ms. Reader in this case. She then reviews the profiles and determines if she can separate out the contributors and if there are matches to known samples. The reporting scientist then prepares a report.

This process is double checked by others in the lab to ensure that proper procedures have been followed. [ 135 ] In this case three reports concerning DNA were issued by Ms. Reader and these included her conclusions and opinions: 1. A seven-page report dated 2022-01-18 (Exhibit 8 of the Trial). This report covered five areas sampled by the investigating officers. The first is the handles from the garbage bin found at Piapot and the roll of tape found near the garbage bin. Alfred Belyea’s DNA was found on each of the items tested. The second is the shoes seized at the Belyea residence.

Insufficient sample, in this case, led to no matching DNA. The third area examined was a sample from the white rope found with Alfred Belyea’s body at the Piapot scene. His DNA was found from the red stains on the white rope. The fourth area was the samples of red substances which are presumptively blood from the jeans and cardigan given by Deborah Belyea to Shandel Dupal, and ultimately seized by the Medicine Hat City Police. Alfred Belyea’s DNA was found on both items of clothing. A fifth area was a blood stain from the trunk of the Volkswagen Golf and it revealed the DNA of Alfred Belyea. 2.

A four-page report dated 2022-04-05 (Exhibit 9 of the Trial) A further analysis revealed that Deborah Belyea’s DNA was also on the jeans and cardigan sweater found in the garbage bag given to Shandel Dupal. The right handle of the grey garbage bin found at the Piapot scene was also found to have Deborah Belyea’s DNA on it. As well the steering wheel of the Volkswagen Golf had Deborah Belyea’s DNA on it. 3. A three-page report dated 2022-08-15 (Exhibit 10 of the Trial) This report identifies the blue rug found at Piapot with the body of Alfred Belyea to have contained the DNA of Alfred Belyea.

Further, the blue handle found wedged between the front door, step and the house found and seized by Cst. Archambault had the DNA of Alfred Belyea on it. 16. Dr. Andreea Nistor [ 136 ] Dr. Andreea Nistor is a forensic pathologist employed with the Saskatchewan Health Authority, specifically the Saskatchewan Coroners Service since 2016.

She works at the Pasqua Hospital in Regina, Saskatchewan. [ 137 ] She was qualified as an expert witness entitled to give expert opinion evidence on forensic pathology, including the cause, manner, mechanism and circumstances of death and the effects on a body over time. [ 138 ] Over the course of her career Dr. Nistor has performed up to 1700 autopsies and has been qualified as an expert witness to give opinion evidence in court over 50 different times. [ 139 ] On Monday, October 18, Dr. Nistor performed an autopsy on Alfred Belyea.

She authored a nine-page report and attached to the report was a two-page medical imaging report, a four-page toxicology report and a two-page dental examination. The report and attachments were entered as Exhibit 14 of the trial. The body of Alfred Belyea was removed from the morgue by Dr. Nistor and the outer white body bag, which had been sealed by the police, was opened. Inside was an inner white body bag soaked in blood. In that body bag was found a small amount of dirt and dried plant material as well. Dr.

Nistor found the body of Alfred Belyea lying on its side with knees flexed, wearing only a pair of black and grey pajama pants.

The body of Alfred Belyea was wrapped in several layers: • Dark blue blanket wrapped around the legs with abundant dirt and dried plant material on it; • Multiple large black plastic bags (“garbage bags”) wrapped around the body including a loose bag with red tie over the head; • Many pieces of metallic grey duct tape securing the plastic bags to each other and to the body; and • Long white rope, dirty and blood stained, tied with multiple knots around the body over the plastic bags, blanket and tape. [ 140 ] Blood-soaked paper towels covered the forehead of the deceased and the site of the left arm amputation.

Along with the body was a large plastic bag containing a liquid and clotted blood and a razor blade. [ 141 ] Dr. Nistor explained her five-stage process of conducting an autopsy, concluding with her opinion. Dr. Nistor’s opinion as to the cause of death is stab wounds to the neck and torso (or chest). Specifically, she opines: “The cause of death of this 72-year-old man is attributed to multiple stab wounds of the neck and chest. The neck stab wound perforates the left internal jugular vein causing excessive blood loss.

The chest stab wounds cut into major internal organs including heart and left lower lobe of lung causing left hemopneumothorax and contributing to the excessive blood loss.

Toxicology shows the presence of multiple drugs with sedative effects in the postmortem blood: morphine, codeine, zopiclone, diphenhydramine and bupivacaine. Diphenhydramine is an over-the-counter medication used to relieve symptoms of allergies and cold, also known as Benadryl. Bupivacaine is an anesthetic used in dental/medical procedures. There are no medical records to indicate that decedent underwent a medical/dental procedure in the days prior to death or that he was prescribed morphine, codeine or zopiclone.” VI.

ARGUMENT OF THE CROWN [ 142 ] Crown argues that based on the totality of the evidence, albeit the bulk of it circumstantial, they have proven each and every one of the elements of second degree murder and indignity to a human body, beyond a reasonable doubt. They argue that: 1. The murder took place in the Belyea residence in Suffield. In support of that proposition the Crown points to the evidence of the presumptive pool of blood on the living room floor which contains Alfred Belyea’s DNA. His body being found in pajama style pants showed that his death occurred in his home.

Evidence of blood down the stairs and the missing area rug all point to the fact his body was dragged out the front entrance and a massive clean up required the area rug to be removed. 2. The murder took place some time after October 7 and before October 15, 2021. Likely it was before Sunday evening when Manon Bax visited the Suffield home and noticed that there was a bottle of bleach in the entry way and the area rug had been removed. 3. The cause of Alfred Belyea’s death is clear, that he died as a result of four stab wounds – one through the neck and three to the chest.

These clearly were not self inflicted, and it is clear with these types of injuries that cause death, the requisite intent for second degree murder can be found. 4. The Crown argues that Deborah Belyea was the only one that had the exclusive opportunity to murder Alfred Belyea. Her story was that she remained in the residence all weekend and she was the only person there. She had the exclusive opportunity to carry out the murder. She drove the vehicle in which Alfred Belyea’s blood was found and was used to transport the Belyea garbage bin with Alfred Belyea’s body in it to Piapot. 5.

A number of pieces of circumstantial evidence from the bag of bloody clothes given to Shandel Dupal, as well as the quilt and plastic lids from the garbage bin with Alfred Belyea’s body all point to Deborah Belyea as the person responsible for his death. 6. The letter Deborah Belyea wrote to her daughters with a detailed map showing where Alfred Belyea’s body was located clearly indicates and speaks to her state of mind and knowledge of the location of Alfred Belyea. VII. ARGUMENT OF DEBORAH BELYEA [ 143 ] Counsel for Deborah Belyea argues that the Crown has failed to prove its case on several fronts: 1.

This is a circumstantial case and because there are gaps in the evidence, areas or issues the Crown has not proven therefore should result in an acquittal for Deborah Belyea. R v. Bjornson , 2018 ABCA 202 [ Bjornson ] at paras 21-22 is cited for the proposition that known gaps in the evidence could in fact result in an acquittal. 2. The Crown has not definitively proven the time of death. Given the understanding that Deborah Belyea expressed to her family members and the police as to Alfred Belyea leaving Saturday morning, the Crown has therefore not been able to show a clear, isolated window of opportunity. 3.

The Crown’s theory is that Alfred Belyea was murdered in his home, however there is little, if any, evidence that the murder took place in the Belyea residence. 4. The defence challenges the effects and conclusions of the use of the investigative tool BLUESTAR by the police. It is not conclusive of blood, necessarily, and there are any number of other items that the investigative tool BLUESTAR may react to. That was admitted and acknowledged by the police witnesses. 5.

The Crown did not itemize and eliminate all the other possibilities of the death of Alfred Belyea and again failed to clearly establish exclusive opportunity. 6. Notwithstanding the evidence of Dr. Nistor that a sharp knife is capable of cutting through a bone, the Crown has failed to produce a weapon or provide any evidence of the weapon used to kill Alfred Belyea and subsequently cut off his arms. 7. The letter written by Deborah Belyea is not a confession and can be classified as a continuation of the dream experience by Deborah Belyea.

It just happened to be the ultimate destination of an old house at Piapot, a short distance from where the Belyea’s lived prior to moving to Suffield. 8. Finally, given Deborah Belyea’s physical limitations and her need for an oxygen tank with her 24/7, she simply could not do all the physical acts required to commit the murder, cut off the arms, and transport the body almost two hours away. VIII. THE LAW [ 144 ] It is important to remember that a trial judge’s assessment of the circumstantial evidence is based on the case as a whole.

While looking at minor pieces of evidence in isolation may not be convincing, it is important to step back and take a broad view of all of the evidence. In other words, the ultimate decision of a trial judge must be contextual in the sense that the evidence is looked at wholistically

and small items of evidence are not examined singly to see if they meet the standard of reasonable doubt. [145] Again, it is important to be reminded that the onus of proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt for the Crown is in relation tothe elements of the offence – not individual pieces of evidence. [146] Counsel have referred the court to the decision of R v Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33 [Villaroman]. The issue in this case wascircumstantial evidence. In other words, was the Trial Judge wrong to exclude from consideration innocent explanations which had nofoundation in the evidence.

This case necessarily forced the Supreme Court of Canada to review what is known as the Rule in R v Hodge(1838), 168 ER 1135 (Eng. CCR) [Hodge] where the trial judge instructed the jury that in order to convict, they must be satisfied “notonly those circumstances were consistent with the accused having committed the act, but they must also be satisfied that the facts weresuch as to be inconsistent with any other rational conclusion than that the accused was the guilty person”.

Over time, this type ofinstructional warning has been required for consideration by triers of fact. [147] There have been slight variations over the decades and Justice Cromwell in Villaroman recites the history of the Rule inHodge. [148] An approach to drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence is found in R v Tombran (ON CA), [2000]OJ No 273, leave to appeal to SCC refused 27969 (November 30, 2000), a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal and one that has beenreferenced approvingly by the Supreme Court of Canada: The modern approach to the problem of circumstantial evidence, enunciated clearly in Cooper, supra, and reiterated and reinforced byFleet, supra, is to reject a formulaic approach and to deal with all the evidence in terms of the general principles of reasonable doubt.Trial judges are given a degree of latitude to formulate the appropriate instruction as befits the circumstances of the case.

Trial judgesare not required to adopt any specific language or wording, provided the charge conveys to the jury in a clear fashion the central point,namely, the necessity to find the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. In particular, trial judges are not required to deliver tothe jury a general, abstract lecture on the nature of circumstantial evidence or on the steps of logic to be followed in assessingcircumstantial as distinct from direct evidence. An academic exercise along those lines may well confuse rather than assist the jury.

Trialjudges are entitled to conclude that the essential message of the need to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt can be better conveyedin other ways. [149] Justice Cromwell, throughout Villaroman, seeks to make the distinction between inferences to be drawn from thecircumstantial evidence and the burden of proving a case to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

The reasoning process needs to becarefully followed so that the trier of fact does not “fill in the blanks” too quickly and thereby overlook other reasonable alternativeinferences. [150] Defence urges the court to consider “other reasonable possibilities” or “other plausible theories”. The gaps in evidence and thefailure of the Crown to prove actual time of death leads to other theories or other possibilities that should lead to a doubt in the court’smind, argues the Defence.

The Alberta Court of Appeal has in fact used that type of approach in acquitting an accused person inBjornson. [151] The task of the trier of fact is to delineate the line between a “plausible theory” and speculation. In my view, the Defence isasking the court to speculate.

The Alberta Court of Appeal in R v Dipnarine 2014 ABCA 328 [Dipnarine] rejects this type of argumentand is referenced as a good example of reasoning by Justice Cromwell in the Villaroman decision at para 56: The court stated that “[c]ircumstantial evidence does not have to totally exclude other conceivable inferences”; that the trier of factshould not act on alternative

interpretations of the circumstances that it considers to be unreasonable; and that alternative inferences mustbe reasonable, not just possible. [152] In making the distinction or drawing the line between speculation and reasonable inferences the court must look at all theevidence. The Supreme Court of Canada in Villaroman and the Alberta Court of Appeal in Dipnarine both clearly state that the courtneed not follow speculative scenarios but rather simply look at the entirety of the evidence. IX.

FINDINGS OF FACT [153] It is clear that sometime between October 8 and October 15, Alfred Belyea died of four stab wounds – one to the neck/jugularand three to the chest. These stab wounds could not have been self inflicted.

It is also clear that in his system he had a large amount ofsedative drugs. [154] It is also clear that the blood of Alfred Belyea was found on the living room floor of the Belyea home, and on a small bluehandle wedged in front of the door, that clearly appears to match a Sterilite lid that was discovered with the body of Alfred Belyea in thegarbage bin at the Piapot scene. [155] As well, Alfred Belyea’s blood is found in and around the trunk or hatchback of the Volkswagen Golf, a vehicle in which agarbage bin, the size of the one Alfred Belyea’s body was in, would fit. [156] Further, the Belyea’s neighbours each had two bins – a regular greyish garbage bin and a blue recycling bin.

As of October 15,the Belyea residence only had a blue recycling bin. The companion garbage bin is exactly like the one found with Alfred Belyea’s bodyin it at Piapot. [157] The white rope found in the Belyea basement fabric room is identical to the rope found wrapped around the blue blanket inwhich Alfred Belyea’s body was found and in the bag of bloody women’s clothes and cloths given to Shandel Dupal. [158] A large brownish paisley quilt blanket with yellow liner was found with Alfred Belyea’s body. It was soaked in blood. Identical

fabric was found in the Belyea fabric room, and when compared, it appears that a strip of the brown paisley fabric is the exact width ofthe blanket found at the Piapot scene. The area rug in the living room had been removed, according to Manon Bax, from the last time shevisited the Belyea residence. A large blue area rug, with blood, was found near the body at Piapot. [159] It is clear that Deborah Belyea gave a bag full of clothes and cloths with her DNA on them, as well as the blood of AlfredBelyea and his DNA, to Shandel Dupal.

This was given by Deborah Belyea to Shandel Dupal on Monday, October 11. [160] There is no doubt that the handwritten letter with a detailed map, written by Deborah Belyea in a medicated slumber, early inthe hours of Friday, October 15, provided the police with an opportunity to discover Alfred Belyea’s body. The amount of time it tookthe police to discover the body is slightly more than the time it took from receiving the letter and driving the approximate 170 km,thereby showing that the directions were very clear. X. W(

D) ANALYSIS [161] While Deborah Belyea did not testify, nor did she call any evidence, her version of events on the Thanksgiving weekend of 2021did come before the court. It is before the court by way of the evidence of her daughters and Cst. George. Therefore, it is important forthe court to address the principles arising out of R v W(D), [1991] 1 SCR 742, [W(D)]. The Alberta Court of Appeal hasupdated the appropriate approach to this issue in R v Ryon, 2019 ABCA 36 and R v Achuil, 2019 ABCA 299. Justice Renke has furtherdistilled the updated approach of W(

D) in R v Hermkens, 2021 ABQB 1016. Applying the law to this case I must examine theexculpatory evidence which is before the court on behalf of Deborah Belyea. Again, in examining the version of events of DeborahBelyea the court must still look at all of the evidence. In the context of what I have found to be facts, largely established by inferencedrawn from circumstantial evidence I do not accept or believe the version of events purported by Deborah Belyea, nor does that versionof events leave the court in any doubt, whatsoever. The interpl

[…]