R. v. Bilodeau
- Citation
- 2025 SCC 2
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 19 February 2025
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment Rendered and Appeal Dismissed
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 19 February 2025
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment Rendered and Appeal Dismissed
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal is dismissed because the Supreme Court concluded, following the Alberta Court of Appeal majority reasons, that the trial judge's jury instructions were legally adequate, contained no prejudicial error on party liability or hearsay, and the convictions for manslaughter were therefore safe and must be upheld.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; convictions for manslaughter affirmed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Convictions upheld
02
Material facts
Parties
Roger Patrick Bilodeau
Appellant Counsel: Caitlin A. DickHis Majesty The King
Respondent Counsel: Matthew GrienerAttorney General of Ontario
Intervener Counsel: Samuel GreeneAmounts and remedies
- Docket Number: 41,320
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment Rendered and Appeal Dismissed
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial judge erred by providing insufficient direction as to the elements of the offences said to be part of a common unlawful purpose
- 02
Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury about the accused's potential liability as a party to the offences
- 03
Whether the instruction on the co‑conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule was appropriate and non‑prejudicial
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant submitted the trial judge's jury charge was legally inadequate by failing to properly instruct on the elements of the offences forming the alleged common unlawful purpose, by misdirecting the jury about party liability, and by improperly instructing on the co‑conspirators' hearsay exception, resulting in a prejudicial and unsafe conviction.
- Respondent
- The Crown maintained the jury instructions were adequate, contained no prejudicial error, and supported safe convictions; the Court of Appeal's majority reasons confirmed no reversible error.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s.21 and common law
Liability as a party requires proof of having formed an intention in common to carry out the unlawful purpose or to assist in its commission
- 02
Common law appellate jurisprudence (standard applied by the Alberta Court of Appeal majority)
Appellate review of jury charge errors asks whether any instructional deficiency was prejudicial and rendered the verdict unsafe
- 03
Common law hearsay exceptions
The co‑conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule may admit statements made in furtherance of a joint unlawful enterprise where the threshold reliability and nexus are established
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the Supreme Court concluded, following the Alberta Court of Appeal majority reasons, that the trial judge's jury instructions were legally adequate, contained no prejudicial error on party liability or hearsay, and the convictions for manslaughter were therefore safe and must be upheld.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; convictions for manslaughter affirmed.
- Appeal dismissed
- Convictions upheld
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 19 February 2025
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 19 February 2025
R. v. Bilodeau Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2025-02-19 Neutral citation 2025 SCC 2 Case number 41320 Judges Wagner, Richard; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Côté, Suzanne; Rowe, Malcolm; Martin, Sheilah; Jamal, Mahmud; O’Bonsawin, Michelle On appeal from Alberta Subjects Criminal law Notes Case in Brief SCC Case Information Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Bilodeau, 2025 SCC 2 Appeal Heard: February 19, 2025 Judgment Rendered: February 19, 2025 Docket: 41320 Between: Roger Patrick Bilodeau Appellant and His Majesty The King Respondent - and - Attorney General of Ontario Intervener Coram: Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Rowe, Martin, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ. Unanimous Judgment Read By: (para.
1) Wagner C.J. Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports. Roger Patrick Bilodeau Appellant v. His Majesty The King Respondent and Attorney General of Ontario Intervener Indexed as: R. v. Bilodeau 2025 SCC 2 File No.: 41320. 2025: February 19. Present: Wagner C.J. and Karakatsanis, Côté, Rowe, Martin, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal of alberta Criminal law — Charge to jury — Party liability — Common unlawful purpose — Accused involved in car chase with two men — Accused asking adult son to come help and bring gun — Chase turning into confrontation and culminating in son fatally shooting both men — Son convicted of second degree murder and manslaughter — Accused convicted by jury of manslaughter as party to son’s offences for having formed intention in common with son to carry out unlawful purpose of possession of weapon for dangerous purpose and committing assault — Accused appealing conviction on basis that trial judge erred in law in charge to jury by providing insufficient direction as to elements of offences said to be common unlawful purpose, misdirecting jury in relation to accused’s potential party liability, and instructing jury on co-conspirators’ exception to hearsay rule — Court of Appeal holding that trial judge’s instructions to jury contained no
prejudicial error — Convictions upheld. APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Slatter, Pentelechuk and Antonio JJ.A.), 2024 ABCA 148, 70 Alta. L.R. (7th) 180, 437 C.C.C. (3d) 475, [2024] 8 W.W.R. 48, [2024] A.J. No. 498 (Lexis), 2024 CarswellAlta 1100 (WL), affirming the convictions of the accused for manslaughter. Appeal dismissed. Caitlin A. Dick, for the appellant. Matthew Griener, for the respondent. Samuel Greene, for the intervener. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [1] The Chief Justice — We are all of the view that the appeal should be dismissed, substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (2024 ABCA 148, 70 Alta. L.R. (7th) 180). Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Deborah Hatch Law, Edmonton. Solicitor for the respondent: Alberta Crown Prosecution Service, Edmonton. Solicitor for the intervener: Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.