Manitoba Court of Appeal determines frustration and fear, not drugs, led to murder

Law360 Canada (March 23, 2026, 3:14 PM EDT) --

John L. Hill

Jon Preston Hastings was convicted of first-degree murder in a King’s Bench judge-alone trial (R. v. Hastings, 2024 MBKB 171). Although conceding that the evidence established an intent to commit murder, Hastings argued that the trial judge erred in finding planning and deliberation, which are essential elements for a first-degree murder conviction. The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal (R. v. Hastings, 2026 MBCA 11).

The main witness was Hastings’ girlfriend, S.B. She testified that on May 8, 2022, she was at Hastings’ shack when he became paranoid and repeatedly accused her of infidelity. He then violently assaulted her. According to her testimony, Hastings slapped her, cut and struck her with weapons, bound her with tape and confined her for about 18 hours while threatening her with knives and an axe. During the ordeal, S.B. identified the deceased as someone she had seen, after which Hastings said he had messaged the man to come to the shack.

When the deceased arrived, S.B. testified that Hastings immediately attacked him with an axe and a knife, continuing the assault for about 20 minutes and saying he would let him “bleed out.” After the man died from severe blunt and sharp force head injuries, Hastings wrapped the body in plastic. He briefly allowed S.B. to leave on the condition she return, but she instead sought help, which led to the discovery of the body and Hastings’ arrest.

At trial, Hastings admitted guilt for the offences against S.B. and acknowledged causing the deceased’s death but argued that the Crown had not proven the intent or planning required for murder, claiming intoxication and impulsivity. He said he had consumed several pills from a bubble pack, although there was no proof that he had done so. The trial judge rejected this, finding no evidence of actual intoxication and concluding that Hastings’ behaviour was driven by jealousy and fear of police, not drugs. The judge held that Hastings intended to kill the deceased and that the killing was planned and deliberate, relying in part on evidence that he lured the victim to the shack and prepared weapons in advance.

Hastings’ appeal of his conviction for first-degree murder focused on demonstrating that the trial judge misunderstood key evidence regarding drug use and paranoia. This misunderstanding resulted in an incorrect conclusion that the killing was premeditated and deliberate. He argued that the judge ignored evidence indicating intoxication, which could have affected his capacity to plan.

Specifically, Hastings argued the judge erred by interpreting evidence about pills as uncertain, when it indicated multiple pills had been consumed; and by misattributing his paranoid behaviour to jealousy and fear of police, rather than possible drug-induced intoxication.

The appellate court dismissed these arguments. It determined that the evidence regarding pill consumption was vague and, even if misinterpreted, not significant because there was no evidence about the nature or effects of the pills. Two band constables did not observe any impaired behaviour when they went to the shack looking for S.B.

The Appeal Court held that the standard for establishing a misapprehension of evidence is strict. It must significantly influence the judge’s reasoning and should not be mistaken for a different interpretation of the evidence (R. v. Lohrer, 2004 SCC 80).

The court also found that other evidence showed Hastings did not appear intoxicated and was functioning normally before and after the killing. The accused’s paranoia could reasonably be explained by jealousy and fear, and the trial judge was not obliged to accept speculation that it was drug-induced.

The court concluded that there was no significant misunderstanding of the evidence and that the trial judge’s finding that the murder was planned and deliberate was supported by the evidence. Because the intoxication argument relied on a showing of such a mistake, it also failed. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

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.