Law360 Canada (September 28, 2026, 1:31 PM EDT) --
 |
| John L. Hill |
A criminal conviction is meant to bring finality. But finality should never become more important than getting the decision right. That is an important lesson from the decision of Justice Minister Sean Fraser to refer the murder convictions of Odelia and Neressa Quewezance to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.
The sisters were convicted in 1994 of the murder of Joseph Dolff, a 70-year-old man who died after being stabbed at his Kamsack, Sask., home. Odelia was 21, and Neressa was 18. Both received life sentences. Their ordinary appeals were dismissed by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in 1995. Ordinarily, that would have marked the end of the judicial process.
But a wrongful conviction does not become a just conviction merely because the ordinary appeal process has ended.
Feodora Chiosea: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
On Sept. 24, Fraser ordered a new appeal after a conviction review under s. 696.1 of the
Criminal Code. The federal Department of Justice said the minister had found reasonable grounds to conclude that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred and that new information had emerged that had not been before the courts at trial or on the original appeal.
The minister was careful to point out that the referral does not determine whether the sisters are guilty or innocent. That question belongs to the courts. That distinction is important. A mechanism for correcting wrongful convictions should not itself become a substitute for a trial or an appeal. Its purpose is to ensure that a potentially unsafe conviction can be brought back before a court when significant new information warrants it.
The circumstances of the Quewezance case make the referral particularly significant. The sisters were arrested the morning after Dolff’s death. According to Innocence Canada, they remained at the Kamsack RCMP detachment for five days despite a judge’s order that they be taken to a detention centre away from the detachment. Police maintained that during five days of questioning, the sisters confessed to involvement in the stabbing.
Their 15-year-old cousin had confessed to stabbing Dolff.
More than three decades later, the sisters remain in prison while continuing to maintain their innocence.
Their case was brought to Innocence Canada in 2020-21 by David Milgaard, himself one of Canada’s most prominent victims of wrongful conviction. Innocence Canada applied to the justice minister in December 2021, asking that the convictions be referred to the Court of Appeal.
The fact that it has taken almost five years for that request to reach this stage illustrates another problem: correcting a wrongful conviction can itself be an extraordinarily lengthy process. That is why the Quewezance case speaks to a broader principle about limitation periods and criminal appeals.
I recently
wrote about that principle in a column concerning
R. v. Willis, 2026 NSCA 57. There, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dealt with a man who had been convicted of second-degree murder and failed to file his notice of appeal within the prescribed 25-day period. The court ultimately extended the time and permitted the appeal to proceed.
Willis involved a missed appeal deadline. The Quewezance case involves something different: a conviction that has already passed through the ordinary appeal process and is now being returned to the courts through the statutory conviction-review mechanism.
But the underlying principle is similar. Procedural rules exist for good reasons. They promote finality, certainty and the orderly administration of justice. But they are means to achieving justice, not ends in themselves. When there are reasonable grounds to believe a conviction may be unsafe, the passage of time should not, by itself, prevent the justice system from examining the claim.
This is especially important in a criminal case. A missed deadline in an ordinary civil dispute may have serious consequences, but a wrongful criminal conviction can deprive an innocent person of decades of liberty. The difference is fundamental.
Of course, a competing concern exists. If every conviction could be challenged indefinitely without a proper threshold, criminal litigation would never end. Witnesses disappear, memories fade, evidence is lost, and victims and their families are entitled to finality.
The answer is not to eliminate finality. It is to ensure the door remains open where there are reasonable grounds to believe something has gone seriously wrong.
The federal government’s own description of the conviction-review process recognizes this balance. Under s. 696.1, a minister may order a new trial or appeal after the ordinary rights of appeal have been exhausted where there is a reasonable basis to conclude that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred. The process involves investigating the information supporting the application before making a referral.
Parliament has also recognized that the existing system needs improvement. The federal government says the ministerial review process is to be replaced by the Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission under the
Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard’s Law. The new commission is intended to provide a more independent, accessible and supportive process for people who may have been wrongfully convicted.
That development matters because the burden of proving a wrongful conviction can fall on the very person least equipped to do it: someone already in prison, often without the financial resources or investigative support needed to uncover new evidence.
The Quewezance sisters were fortunate to have persistent advocates. Milgaard brought their case to Innocence Canada. Counsel James Lockyer and Saskatchewan Legal Aid lawyer Deanna Harris assisted. Others, including Sen. Kim Pate and retired Justices Harry LaForme and Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré, supported their efforts.
Not every prisoner claiming innocence will have that kind of assistance.
That is another reason the system for reviewing possible miscarriages of justice matters.
This case is also significant because the sisters are Indigenous women. Their case should not be treated as proof that every conviction of an Indigenous accused is suspect. Nor should their Indigenous identity determine the outcome of their appeal. But it does underline the importance of ensuring that the justice system has an effective mechanism for reconsidering convictions where credible concerns arise, particularly where those concerns involve marginalized accused persons who may face additional barriers in obtaining legal and investigative assistance.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal will now have the opportunity to examine the new information and determine what legal consequence, if any, it should have. That is precisely where the matter belongs.
The lesson is not that every old conviction should be reopened. It is that the justice system should never confuse finality with correctness. Odelia was 21 when she went to prison. Neressa was 18. They are now 55 and 52. More than 30 years of their lives have passed.
Their statement following the minister’s decision was simple: “We have never stopped fighting.” That persistence reminds us of something the legal system should never forget. A conviction may close a case, but it cannot make a potential miscarriage of justice disappear.
Where there are reasonable grounds to challenge the safety of a conviction or sentence, there should be a way to have that challenge heard, regardless of how much time has passed. Justice requires finality. But justice also requires the courage to correct an error when there are good reasons to believe one has occurred.
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). His most recent book, Acts of Darkness
(Durvile & UpRoute), was shortlisted as one of five nominees for the Crime Writers of Canada’s Brass Knuckles Award for Best Nonfiction Crime Book.
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.