 |
| John L. Hill |
Although Bauman did not testify, it was established that Linda and Cheyenne moved with Bauman to the Township of Wellesley, Ont. Bauman was the family’s only financial supporter. Linda suffered from chronic pain and worked irregularly. The Crown argued that financial stress damaged the relationship and that Bauman had expressed a desire for a new life. Just before Linda and Cheyenne disappeared, Bauman also started an online relationship with a woman overseas and sent her large sums of money, which later turned out to be part of a fraud.
Bauman was the sole person to provide an account of the events on July 16, 2011, the day Linda and Cheyenne disappeared. He stated he returned home around 3 a.m. after a trucking trip, slept on the couch and later discovered that Linda and Cheyenne were no longer there. He claimed Linda had emptied his bank account and maxed out his credit cards, but banking records proved this was false. Bauman gave inconsistent explanations to others about their disappearance and never reported them missing to the police.
ersa prasetyo
Bauman left the house in late 2011 and later moved to Valleyview, Alta., where he began a relationship with Lolene Condon. In 2015, Linda’s son Andrew reported his mother and sister missing to the police, leading to an investigation. A search of the former home uncovered hundreds of charred bone and tooth fragments in two barrels in the backyard. Bloodstains on the bedroom floor were identified as Linda’s. Crown experts testified that some fragments were likely human, and that a finger bone probably belonged to Linda. The defence disputed these conclusions and suggested the bones could be historical rather than human remains from the victims.
Investigators also discovered that part of the bedroom carpet had been cut out and the floor underneath painted over. DNA analysis showed that Linda could not be ruled out as the source of the blood on the floorboards. Defence counsel argued there was no evidence Bauman had painted over the blood and that the amount found was too small to prove death by blood loss.
Police later carried out an undercover operation in Alberta. An officer posing as a trucking manager befriended Bauman, who claimed that Linda had left him and stolen a large sum of money. A second undercover officer pretended to be a private investigator searching for Linda because she was entitled to an inheritance. When confronted, Bauman denied knowing their whereabouts. However, after being told police had found evidence linking him to their deaths, Bauman started planning with the first undercover officer to seriously harm or kill the supposed investigator. He described burning the body in a barrel and disposing of the teeth afterward.
Bauman was arrested the following day with a steel barrel in the back of his truck. The Crown also relied on statements Bauman later gave to Lolene Condon. When she asked if Linda and Cheyenne were still alive, Bauman shook his head “no,” cried and admitted he had lied when he previously claimed Linda had left him.
To support its theory that Linda and Cheyenne were deceased, the Crown presented evidence that no one had heard from them since July 16, 2011; they had not travelled internationally, used health services, refilled prescriptions, filed tax returns or received benefits; Cheyenne never returned to school; and her previously active Facebook account had not been used after July 15, 2011. Together, this evidence was shown to the jury as proof that both had vanished permanently.
Bauman’s appeal was heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal, with its decision delivered on March 9 (R. v. Bauman, 2026 ONCA 173). A common theme in the appellant’s submissions was that the trial judge failed in his gatekeeper role by making several rulings on admissibility during the trial. Bauman raised eight grounds of appeal. He argued that the trial judge improperly admitted evidence from the undercover investigation as prejudicial bad-character evidence and incorrectly allowed some of his statements to “UC2,” whom he claims was a person in authority, without proof that they were voluntary. He also challenges the admission of statements attributed to Linda and Cheyenne. Additionally, he contends that the judge should have stayed the proceedings because finger bone evidence was destroyed during forensic testing, misapplied the litigation privilege and should have directed a verdict of acquittal on the first-degree murder charges. Lastly, it was argued that the jury instructions on after-the-fact conduct were inadequate and that the judge should have recused himself due to a conflict of interest.
The Court of Appeal rejected each of these, citing extensive case law. Perhaps the most contentious of the holdings was that the trial judge accepted there was evidence of planning and deliberation leading to the first-degree murder charge. Bauman argued that the trial judge should have directed verdicts of acquittal on the two charges of first-degree murder, contending there was insufficient evidence that the killings were “planned and deliberate.” At the end of the trial, the defence admitted there was evidence of second-degree murder but not of planning and deliberation.
The Court of Appeal dismissed this argument. The established test for applying a directed verdict is whether there is any evidence that a properly instructed jury could reasonably use to convict. The court held that the trial judge correctly found there was evidence capable of supporting an inference of planning and deliberation. This included evidence of Bauman’s deteriorating relationship with Linda and the motive it created. There was also testimony suggesting he obtained a second steel barrel before the disappearances, supporting an inference of preparation to dispose of two bodies, and his conduct and statements afterward to undercover officers indicated he had already carried out a planned killing. The legal standard for a directed verdict is a matter of judge-made law. In R. v. Barros, 2011 SCC 51, the court stated, “A directed verdict is not available if there is any admissible evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, which, if believed by a properly charged jury acting reasonably, would justify a conviction.”
Because this evidence could reasonably support the inference that the murders were planned and deliberate, the issue was properly left to the jury. The court therefore dismissed this ground of appeal.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.