Court of Appeal orders new trial in London rooming house second-degree murder case

Law360 Canada (April 24, 2026, 8:14 AM EDT) --

John L. Hill

In October 2017, tensions escalated at a rooming house on Lansdowne Avenue in London, Ont., after disputes erupted among Raymond Beaver, his niece, Melissa George, and her boyfriend, Daniel Cavanagh.

A tenant in the house accused Beaver of smoking crack cocaine. Beaver punched his accuser in the head. The resulting animosity in the dwelling led Beaver to ask whether he could leave his basement apartment and move in with George and Cavanagh. A refusal led to heated electronic exchanges between Beaver and the people he asked to live with. George and Cavanagh also became angry and exchanged hostile messages with Beaver, including threats from Cavanagh.

On the night of Oct. 2, George helped organize a group of seven people, some armed, to go to the house. The group forcibly entered the house with a plan in place. According to a witness’s later statement, the plan was to confront occupants in different parts of the home. While some members went upstairs, others, including Cavanagh, went to the basement where Beaver was located.

During the invasion, Beaver was stabbed six times and died of a fatal chest wound. Evidence strongly indicated that Cavanagh was the stabber, including his admissions afterward that he had killed Beaver. George was present and fled the scene with the others. The knife, purchased by Cavanagh earlier that evening, was later recovered with Beaver’s blood on it.

After the incident, the participants dispersed. One witness reported that George appeared hysterical and urged others to leave quickly. Police were called, and Beaver was found dead in the basement.

Several individuals involved were later charged. A key witness, Nicholas George, pleaded guilty to manslaughter and testified at trial. Another participant also pleaded guilty to the same charge.

Melissa George denied any intention to kill Beaver and had no anticipation that he would be killed. Nonetheless, she was found guilty of second-degree murder by a jury in the Superior Court of Ontario.

She appealed her conviction to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Her counsel on appeal, James Lockyer and Jessica Zita of the Toronto law firm Lockyer Zaduk Zeeh, argued that the jury had been misled by the trial judge’s instructions.

The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed in a decision delivered on Feb. 19, 2026 (R. v. George, 2026 ONCA 115). The Appeal Court found multiple serious errors in the jury instructions that undermined the fairness of Ms. George’s murder conviction:

The court found that after-the-fact conduct was misused. The trial judge failed to explain that George’s post-offence behaviour, such as fleeing, later misleading the police, lying and minimizing her involvement, could only support the Crown’s theory that the killing was planned. The jury was wrongly left free to use this evidence to infer guilt of murder, even if they rejected the notion of planning. In reality, the evidence could not reasonably support that she intentionally aided an unplanned killing; at most, it supported manslaughter.

There was also improper guidance on inferences. The judge improperly suggested that failing to help the victim indicated intent to kill, thereby intruding on the jury’s role and ignoring the need to assess such inferences on a case-by-case basis.

The trial judge also gave a faulty W.(D.) instruction (R. v. W. (D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742): the jury was not clearly told that even if they did not fully believe George’s exculpatory statements, those statements could still raise a reasonable doubt about murder. The instructions were confusing and failed to distinguish between different levels of liability (murder vs. manslaughter).

However, there was no error on the principal liability. It was acceptable to let the jury consider whether George was the actual stabber, as there was at least some evidence supporting that possibility. Even though the evidence was stronger that Cavanagh stabbed Beaver, it was still permissible for a jury to consider her involvement in the death.

The Appeal Court rejected using the curative proviso. The evidence of murder was not overwhelming. While there was strong evidence for manslaughter, it was open to the jury to doubt that George planned or intended the killing.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, the second-degree murder conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

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.