WARNING: This story contains graphic details of a homicide.
The family of a man accused of killing his mother when he was a teen applauded and cried in a Winnipeg courtroom after a Manitoba judge ordered a stay of proceedings in the case Monday morning.
The judge granted a request from James Lockyer, the now 23-year-old man’s lawyer, for a stay of proceedings Monday morning, agreeing that the accused’s Charter rights to a fair trial and the principles of justice were breached.
“This has not been a fair trial,” Manitoba Court of King’s Bench Justice Kenneth Champagne said.
Since early February, a jury has heard arguments about whether the 23-year-old man killed his 51-year-old mother in 2019. The accused, who was 16 at the time of his mother’s death, cannot be identified under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
He hugged tearful family members one by one in the courtroom after Champagne gave his decision.
A judicial stay of proceedings means charges have been dismissed and can’t be retried, although the stay can be appealed.
Court heard the 51-year-old was killed on the morning of March 26, 2019 in a “particularly vicious” attack that involved a heavy weapon and focused on her head and face, Champagne said. Bleach was also poured over her. No murder weapon has ever been found.
It’s the second time the case has gone to trial.
A jury previously convicted the woman’s son of second-degree murder in June 2022. He was given the maximum youth sentence of seven years — four years in custody and three in conditional supervision.
In 2024, the Manitoba Court of Appeal overturned that conviction and ordered a new trial, after it found the initial trial judge’s failure to properly instruct the jury prejudiced the accused’s right to a fair trial.
On Monday, Champagne said the prosecution’s cross-examination of the 23-year-old was unfair and amounted to Crown misconduct, and there’s no corrective remedy to address the Crown’s actions.
Prosecutor Adam Bergen set a “deliberate and calculated trap” for the accused when he asked about the mother’s will and “deliberately manufactured” a financial motive when there was no evidence to prove that, Champagne said.
The judge said there was never any evidence the accused knew his mother did not have a will when she died.
“This was a highly prejudicial series of questions, intended to suggest [he] had a financial motive to murder his mother,” Champagne said.
“Had there been a scintilla of evidence to support this assertion, it would have been led at the first trial, and it would have been led by the Crown at this trial.”
Meanwhile, the accused gave consistent testimony, “answered the questions honestly, and in doing so, provided the Crown with circumstantial evidence of a financial motive,” Champagne said.
The seriousness of the Crown’s misconduct was “amplified” when the jury learned through the cross-examination that “their verdict could determine the eventual distribution of the deceased’s estate,” the judge said.
“This evidence prejudices the impartiality of the jury and undermines the presumption of innocence.”
The prosecution’s conduct reflected a “win at any cost” approach, Champagne said.
Prosecutors made “outrageous allegations” that the accused either murdered his mother as a “mercy killing” because of her declining health, or to save himself from becoming her caregiver, Champagne said.
“The Crown takes all the evidence that confirms the close bond between mother and son and turns it upside down to make unfounded allegations that he killed his mother because he did not want to see her suffer anymore,” said the judge.
“This suggestion flies in the face of the evidence, as [his mother] was getting over an injury and was going back to work the following week.”
The Crown also improperly revealed privileged information about the accused when prosecutors brought up details of a conversation he had with a school counsellor before his mother’s death, the judge said.
Jurors previously heard that on the day of the killing, the then teen left the home he shared with his mother to run errands around 9 a.m., returning less than two hours later, which is when he called 911.
During that call, which jurors heard earlier in the trial, the teen said his mother had been sleeping when he left and the front door was unlocked, but the house didn’t appear broken into.
The woman’s skull was broken in multiple places, and she also suffered a broken arm and several broken fingers while trying to defend herself during the attack, court previously heard.
Prosecutor Bergen argued the accused was the only person who had the opportunity to kill his mother.
James Lockyer, the man’s lawyer, argued that the victim’s co-worker is an alternative suspect in her killing.
She had expressed ongoing fears about him up until her death, after filing a sexual harassment complaint against him the year before she died, court heard.
Lockyer said the result was a “big relief” for the accused and his family.
“Thursday is the seventh anniversary of his mom’s death, and finally, he’s going to be able to really grieve for her,” Lockyer told reporters outside the courthouse.
“It’s hard to grieve when you’ve been facing what he’s been facing for all this time.”
A stay of proceedings in a homicide trial is uncommon, but the Crown has 30 days to appeal, Lockyer said.
“I hope they won’t appeal,” he said. “Seven years is long enough for this case to go on, but that remains to be seen.”
Lockyer, the founding director of Innocence Canada, is based in Toronto. He said this was his first out-of-province trial in 49 years of legal practice, outside of his work with Innocence Canada, a non-profit that works to identify and advocate for people who are wrongly accused of crimes.
“It’s not something I particularly like doing. I’ve been away from home for two months,” he said.
“I always believed in the young person’s case, and I did the trial for that reason.”
