Travis Vader trial: Citing judge's mistake, defence will file appeal

Travis Vader's defence lawyer says he will file a notice ofappeal of his client's murder convictions on Friday morning, citingthe trial judge's reliance on a section of the Criminal Code that has been declared unconstitutional.

Brian Beresh said he wants the Vader case to reach the Alberta Court of Appealas soon as possible.

"After we reviewed the decision, we found a major error where [Thomas] relied upon a section of the Criminal Code that was declared unconstitutional a number of decades ago," Beresh told CBC News. "As a result, we intend to take immediate action on Mr. Vader's behalf."

Beresh was referring to Section 230 of the Criminal Code, which was struck down in 1990 by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Justice Denny Thomas cites Section 230 of the Criminal Code

8 years ago

Duration 0:59

Justice Denny Thomas cites Section 230 of the Criminal Code

Two legal experts at the University of Alberta also said the judgemade an egregiousmistakein citing Section 230, andthat it could render Vader'ssecond-degree murder convictions invalid.

"This isvery, very surprising, I think even a shocking mistake, that it would happen in any case, let alone in a case of this kind of profile," said law professor StevenPenney.

• Travis Vader convicted of 2nd-degree murder in McCann deaths
• TIMELINE |Days & years: long road to Vader verdict

Vaderwas convicted of second-degree murder Thursday in the deaths of St. Albertseniors Lyle and MarieMcCann, who disappeared in July2010. Their bodies were never discovered but the judge found they were the victims of a robbery by Vader, who was broke and desperate at the time.

Law professor explains the problem with application of Section 230 of the Criminal Code

8 years ago

Duration 1:42

Stephen Penney gives a detailed explanation of Section 230 of the Criminal Code and how it was used in the Travis Vader second-degree murder convictions.

"It appeared that the judge relied on a provision of theCriminal Code that was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada 26 years ago," said Penney.

Section 230allows for a murder verdict if a wrongful death occurs during the commission of another crime, such as robbery. Butthat section was found unconstitutional in 1990 by the Supreme Court.

The revised definition of murder states the killings must be intended tobe murder, which the Crown was unable to prove in theVader case, the legal experts say.

'The ruling can't stand'

"I'm pretty confident that the ruling can't stand," said Peter Sankoff, who also teaches law at the University of Albertaand specializes in legal issues around the criminal trial process."When [Thomas]relies on Section 230 to convict, he can't do that.Section 230 doesn't exist."

"The Supreme Court's been very clear," saidSankoff."You must have an intention to cause death to be guilty of murder. There's no finding thatVaderever intended to cause death."

The country's top court found that Section 230 violates Section 7 of the charter, which protects the right to liberty. It ruled that an accused can't be found guilty of murderand be subjected to the harsh consequences of that convictionif there is no proof an accused was aware a victim would die.

Although Section 230 has not been in force for 26 years, it has never been repealed and remains in the Criminal Code.Sankoffsuggested that Thomas simply erred in citing Section 230.

"It's very easy to get things wrong, because, you know, you forget. [The section]is sitting there."

Appeal is likely

Sankoffsaid theerror gives the defence strong grounds for an appeal.

"If they bring an appeal on this, I think it's slam dunk," he said.

Section 230 has been wrongly cited in trials before, Sankoff said,but only in instructions to a jury. He said he's not aware of it being used before in a judgment.

What happens next is unclear.The case could end up in theAlberta Court of Appeal.Sankoffsaid there isalso a provision where the Crown and defence lawyers could ask the judge to reconsider his decision , a highly technical legal process that could take months.