Mr. Bilodeau was convicted by a jury as a party to manslaughter per s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, after he directed his eldest son to bring a firearm to the scene. The eldest son followed his father’s directions, and upon his arrival, fatally shot the two victims. 

 Mr. Bilodeau had chased the two victims in his truck, after he saw the two men, who were also in a truck, stop in front of his home. Mr. Bilodeau believed them to be thieves. At the end of the chase, the two trucks came to a stop near a T-intersection, where one of the two victims broke one of Mr. Bilodeau’s truck windows and began punching Mr. Bilodeau. The shooter, Mr. Bilodeau’s eldest son, arrived on scene and shot both victims, fatally. The eldest son was convicted of second-degree murder and manslaughter. 

 Mr. Bilodeau appealed his conviction, citing errors in the jury’s instructions on the issue of whether or not Mr. Bilodeau formed a common intention with his son to commit an unlawful act. An unlawful act, which, in order to convict, must be one that the accused knew, or ought to have known was a probable consequence of the common intention. In other words, the path to conviction for Mr. Bilodeau rested on whether or not he knew, or ought to have known, that either of the victims could have been killed by instructing his son to bring a firearm to the scene of the altercation. 

 A majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal found that while there were errors in the jury instructions, many of them actually benefited Mr. Bilodeau. A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal, and would have ordered a new trial.