New trial ordered: Appeal Court unclear what trial judge found as fact along causation pathway

Law360 Canada (September 18, 2025, 1:26 PM EDT) --

John L. Hill

The obituary for 27-year-old Arley John Cook of Black Lake, Sask., states that his funeral mass will be held on Dec. 21, 2021, but does not mention the cause of his death. In fact, the cause remains unresolved after the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ordered a new trial for Jerrick Stalthanee, who was previously acquitted of manslaughter in Cook’s killing but was later found guilty of the lesser offence of aggravated assault in an unreported Saskatchewan King’s Bench decision. The Court of Appeal’s decision was issued on Sept. 17, 2025 (R. v. Stalthanee, 2025 SKCA 88).

It was acknowledged that Cook and Rodney Broussi had been drinking heavily on Dec. 13, 2021, when Stalthanee arrived home on his snowmobile. Stalthanee’s sister returned home after the three men had left. Upon entering the house, she noticed that the porch and kitchen doors were open, items had been moved around, and chairs had been knocked over. She also saw blood on the floor and doorknobs.

Broussi testified at trial and recounted that he had passed out but was awakened by what he described as the sound of a metal frying pan hitting something and that he saw Stalthanee strike Cook on the head with an object.

Broussi had to hold onto Cook as Broussi walked him home. Broussi also testified that Stalthanee revved his snowmobile and collided with Broussi, causing Broussi to let go of Cook, who then fell into a snowbank. Cook appeared to be walking fine when Broussi delivered him home.

Dana Cook testified that her brother returned home around 9:30 p.m. Cook told her he was tired and then walked down the hallway to his bedroom without incident. Dana had no reason to be concerned about his health or safety. During the night, Dana heard Cook fall out of his bed. When she checked on him, he was lying face down on the floor. She heard him snoring and saw his feet move. However, at around 9 a.m. the next morning, Cook’s parents found him lying face down on the floor of his bedroom. There was vomit on his right hand and blood around his nose and mouth. He was dead.

At trial, the judge found that the Crown’s case depended on being able to prove that the cause of death was Stalthanee’s conduct that caused or contributed to Cook’s death. The defence had argued that Cook had aspirated his stomach contents into his lungs, but a forensic pathologist ruled out aspiration as a cause of death. A toxicologist also ruled out alcohol poisoning as the reason for death. Nonetheless, the judge said there was an absence of evidence to rule out extreme intoxication as a cause of death.

The Crown appealed, claiming that the trial judge’s decision rested on speculation. However, a successful appeal of an acquittal requires a wrong decision on a question of law and not just an unreasonable verdict (R. v. Biniaris, 2000 SCC 15; R. v. Hodgson, 2024 SCC 25).

The trial judge accepted that death resulted from axonal damage, which is the disruption of the long part of a nerve cell that transmits signals to the brain. A severe blow to the head or other neurological conditions can cause this. The trial judge believed he could not rule out extreme intoxication as a cause of death.

The trial judge erred in believing that Stalthanee’s action must be solely responsible for Cook’s death. It would be enough for the Crown to show that the blow suffered by Cook could be a contributing cause of his death. The cause of death was not a simple yes-or-no matter requiring acceptance of the medical evidence of the effects of blunt force trauma and dismissing the influence of alcohol intoxication.

The medical evidence did not support the trial judge’s consideration of alcohol poisoning. His reasoning was based on conjecture regarding what the untendered evidence might have said about the effect of alcohol on Cook six to seven hours before he died. Reasonable doubt can stem from a lack of evidence, but “reasonable doubt cannot … arise from speculation about what uncalled evidence might have been, or why the evidence was not called” (R. v. MacKenzie, 2020 ONCA 646). The trial judge was required to evaluate whether the Crown had established causation based on all the evidence relating to the question (R. v. Manasseri, 2016 ONCA 703; R. v. Tebo, [2003] O.J. No. 1853), and not from speculation.

The Appeal Court held that, in this case, it is unclear what the trial judge ultimately found as fact along the causation pathway.

The lack of this determination hindered the Appeal Court from exercising its powers to enter a conviction on the manslaughter charge. The aggravated assault charge was dismissed, and a new trial was ordered. The issue to be decided will be the cause of death.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill 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.