Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta

Citation: R v Vader, 2017 ABQB 48

Docket: 130 800Ql
Registry: Edmonton
Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

- andTravis Edward Vader

Offender

Reasons for Judgment (Sentencing)

Honourable Mr. Justice D.R.G. Thomas

Page: 2

Table of Contents
I.

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3

II.

Victim Impact Statements ....................................................................................................... 4

III

Submissions by the Parties...................................................................................................... 4

A.

Crown .................................................................................................................................. 4

B.

Defence ............................................................................................................................... 6

IV.

Law ..................................................................................................................................... 7

A.

General Principles of Sentencing ........................................................................................ 7

B.

Sentencing for Manslaughter .............................................................................................. 9

C.

Evidence in Sentencing ..................................................................................................... 10

D.

Consecutive vs Concurrent Sentences .............................................................................. 11

An Appropriate Sentence ...................................................................................................... 15

V.
A.

The Offence-The Killing of Lyle and Marie Mccann by Travis Vader ......................... 15
1.

The Crown's Sequential vs Simultaneous Death Theory ............................................. 16

2.

The Defence 'Fisticuffs' Theory................................................................................... 16

3.

Drug Addiction as a Mitigating Factor ......................................................................... 17

4.

Mr. Vader's Subjective Knowledge of the Risks Involved .......................................... 17

5.

Circumstances of the Robbery ...................................................................................... 20

6.

The Moral Blameworthiness of the Offence: R v Laberge ........................................... 24

B.

A Fit and Proportionate Sentence for Travis Vader.......................................................... 27

Who Is Travis Vader? ................................................................................................... 27

1.

2.

a.

Mr. Vader's Background .......................................................................................... 27

b.
c.
d.
e.

Criminal Record ........................................................................................................ 28

Mr. Vader is 'Number One' ...................................................................................... 34

f.

Conclusion - Mr. Vader is a Dangerous Persistent Offender.................................... 36

Addiction to Drugs .................................................................................................... 32

What Mr. Vader's Peers Thought of Him ................................................................. 32

Protection of the Public; Rehabilitation and Reintegration .......................................... 36

Page: 3

3.

Alleged Charter Breaches and Credit for Pre-Trial Detention ......................................... 39

VI.

Alleged Charter Breaches................................................................................................. 39

A.
1.

Travis Vader Does Not Tell the Truth .......................................................................... 39

2.

The "Unlawful Strip Search" ........................................................................................ 44

3.

Access to Counsel Denied ............................................................................................ 46

4.

Alleged Harsh Conditions of Detention........................................................................ 48

5.
B.

VII.

A Fit and Proportionate Sentence ................................................................................. 38

a.

Shit Bombing ............................................................................................................ 48

b.

Alleged Application of Excessive Force - October 26, 2010, Incident.. .................. 48

c.

Alleged Application of Excessive Force- January 9+-, 2011 Incident ................... 49

d.

Triple Bunking and Excessive Lockdowns ............................................................... 50

e.

Dry Celling................................................................................................................ 50
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 50

Credit for Pre-trial Detention ............................................................................................ 50

1.

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 50

2.

Offender's Position ....................................................................................................... 50

3.

Crown Position ............................................................................................................. 51

4.

Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 51
Conclusion and Sentence .................................................................................................. 52

Appendix A.

Summary of Victim Impact Statements ............................................................ 54

Appendix B.
20, 2010

Summary of Recordings and Timeline at Edson RCMP Detachment, July l 9........................................................................................................................... 57

I.

Introduction

[1]
After a lengthy judge-alone trial I convicted Travis Edward Vader [sometimes referred to
as "Mr. Vader", "Travis Vader" or "the Offender"] of two counts of manslaughter for the killing
of Lyle and Marie McCann: R v Vader, 2016 ABQB 505 ["Vader #1"] ; R v Vader, 2016 ABQB
625 ["Vader #2"]. My lengthy decision in Vader #1 contains a review of the extensive evidence
in this case and many fact findings. This decision addresses the appropriate sentence for Mr.
Vader.
[2]
The Crown and Travis Vader took very different positions on what is the appropriate
response for his commission of these serious crimes. The Crown sought a life sentence. Travis
Vader says he has been punished enough and should be released without further sanction.

Page:4
[3]
Mr. Vader also applies to have the prosecution stayed or his sentence reduced on the
basis of the common law abuse of process doctrine, subjection to cruel and unusual conditions
while in pre-trial custody, interference in Mr. Vader's consultation with legal counsel on these
charges, and an unlawful strip search. It was argued that these unlawful acts resulted in Charter
breaches of Travis Vader's ss 7, 8, and 12 rights. I dismissed the alleged breach based on the
strip search on January 3, 2017 with written reasons to follow.

II.

Victim Impact Statements

[4]
On December 12, 2016 per Criminal Code, s 722, the Court received victim impact
statements from relatives of Lyle and Marie McCann and a summary is attached as Appendix A.
(5]
Close family members of Lyle and Marie Mccann had attended virtually every day of
this long proceeding with its many adjournments and delays. Their statements were obviously
heartfelt, and heartrending, especially the nightmarish scenario recounted by their son, Bretton
Mccann, of the killing of the first being witnessed by the survivor and knowing that they were to
be next. The statements were presented calmly, and with great dignity.

III

Submissions by the Parties

[6]
The parties provided both written briefs and oral closing arguments. At the outset of the
sentencing hearing on December 12, 2016, I requested that counsel for the Crown and the
Offender address two issues:

[7]

1.

Whether the two manslaughter convictions may or should result in consecutive or

concurrent sentences in all of the circumstances of this case. I had provided a list
of cases on the subject of concurrent vs consecutive sentences because this is a
double homicide case.

2.

Whether an enhanced period of parole ineligibility would be sought by the Crown

per Criminal Code, s 743.6(1), beyond the default guidelines set by Corrections
and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c 20, s 120.

The consecutive vs concurrent sente4nce issue will be deal with in due course.

[8]
The Crown indicated it would address the issue of enhanced parole ineligibility after I
announced my sentence.

A.
[9]

Crown

The Crown identifies several key facts from my trial decision in Vader #1:
1.

Travis Vader killed the McCanns;

2.

the killings occurred during a robbery when Travis Vader stole the McCann RV
and SUV, and their contents; and

3.

that violence occurred to facilitate those thefts.

[10] Given the facts as a whole, the Crown argues Mr. Vader should receive a finite sentence
in the range of 15 years for the first killing, and a life sentence for the second killing, to be
served concurrently. It notes that the facts relevant for a trial and sentencing are different, and

Page: 5
therefore I am not bound to only those findings of fact made to convict an offender: R v Valente,
2012 ABQB 151 , 534 AR 385, affirmed 2013 ABCA 107.
(11] The Crown's submissions stress that Mr. Vader's misconduct falls into the highest of the
threeR v Laberge, 1995 ABCA 196, 165 AR 375 categories, where there is a risk oflifethreatening injury. This category requires objective foresight of bodily harm that is neither trivial
nor transitory: para 12. The offender's moral blameworthiness is elevated by his or her
awareness that an illegal act would put a victim at risk of life-threatening injuries: para 14.
[12] Travis Vader's actions falls into the most blameworthy category of manslaughter
offences because:
I.

the killing occurred during a robbery;

2.

he was a fugitive and the subject of outstanding warrants for failing to appear in
court;

3.

the McCanns were elderly, vulnerable seniors, 77 and 78 years of age, and Travis
Vader was much younger and fitter; and

4.

a firearm was involved in this robbery.

The Crown argues the most serious aggravating factor is that the deaths or life-threatening
injuries to the two victims must have occurred in a sequential manner, so that Mr. Vader would
have seen the consequences of his actions, and still proceeded to harm the second McCann.
(13] The Crown asserts the McCanns were dead by the time Mr. Vader appeared at the Olson
residence. His manner there and his post-killing communications to Amber Williams show a lack
of remorse, despite what had just transpired. Although the fact the McCanns ' remains were never
located and identified, the simple fact two senior citizens were killed in a robbery makes this a
serious offense, worthy of the maximum sentence. This could be classified as a "stark horror"
scenario, as discussed in R v Bo11c/ier, 1991ABCA223, 117 AR 264 and R vSimpson, (1981),
20 CR (3d) 263, 58 CCC (2d) 308 (Ont CA).
(14] Travis Vader's refusal to participate with preparation of a pre-sentence report or FACS
assessment is a neutral factor, but the Court may assess Mr. Vader's character and circumstances
from other evidence or by logical inferences based on that evidence, including the crimes he has
committed. This parallels what occurred in R v Boucher.
[ 15] The Crown notes that in the recent R v Pate-Miller, 2016 ABCA 295, 2016 AJ No I 053
(QL) judgment, the Court observes at para 14 that the broad variation in the circumstances of
manslaughter scenarios make using comparator cases difficult. A maximum sentence is not
reserved for the most serious offense and offender: R v Nienhuis, 1991 ABCA 238, 117 AR 253.
That said, the Crown identifies as potentially relevant a number of manslaughter sentencing
judgments:

R v Bo11c/1er, 1991 ABCA 223, 117 AR 264: life sentence for killing an elderly victim
during a home invasion.

R v Nienliuis, 1991ABCA238, 117 AR 253: 23.5 year sentence increased to life where
a victim was assaulted, strangled, left unconscious, and ultimately died of asphyxiation.

Page: 6

R v Karim, 2012 ABQB 727, 104 WCB (2d) 687, affirmed 2014 ABCA 88, 572 AR 149:
16 years for an offender who provided a co-accused with a fireann and instructed the coaccused to threaten the victim. The co-accused instead killed the victim.

R v Hennessey, 2010 ABCA 274, 440 AR 35, leave denied (2011] SCCA No 167; [2011]
SCCA No 199: 15 and 12 year global sentences were confirmed for two collaborators of
an offender who killed four RCMP officers.

R v Ellahib, 2008 ABCA 281, 433 AR 276: one offender hired two other offenders to
burn a target's residence. The fire killed two children. The directing mind received a 20
year sentence, the two arsonists received 15 and 16 year sentences.

R v Cooper, 2000 ABQB 656, affirmed 2003 ABCA 228, 330 AR 161: one of two
doctors in a bitter professional feud disappeared. A jury concluded that disappearance
was a killing, and Veit J ordered a 10 year sentence.

[16] The Crown's submission is that the R v Cooper litigation has a particular relevance since
those decisions address the implications of a killer not disclosing the body or bodies of the
victim(s). A defence that the victim is still alive does not indicate an absence of remorse: R v
Cooper, 2003 ABCA 228 at para 11 . The Crown submits, however, that disposal and
concealment of the McCanns' bodies is relevant to Mr. Vader's moral culpability.
[17] The Crown submits the first killing should have a finite period, something like 15 years,
while the second sentence should be a life sentence. The Crown concludes that when all
aggravating factors are considered, a life sentence is appropriate.

B.

Defence

[18] Counsel for the Offender takes a markedly different position from the Crown, and
proposes, at most, two 4-6 year concurrent sentences. The Crown has the legal onus to prove
elevated R v Laberge factors to beyond a reasonable doubt standard. It cannot do so. The
findings of fact at trial are consistent with acts that cause very modest physical harm, such as
punches.
[ 19] An upper category manslaughter per the R v Laberge scheme requires use of fireanns, or
a severe and prolonged beating with weapons. Even in the event Mr. Vader was in that category,
his sentence should be between 8 to 15 years, citing R v Holloway, 2014 ABCA 87, 572 AR 121,
leave denied [2014] SCCA No 464 and R v Willier, 2008 ABCA 33, 425 AR 330. Mr. Whitling
identifies what he considered relevant and representative comparator cases for the three R v
Laberge categories:

upper category: R v Hen11essey; R v Ellahib; R v Karim; R v Boucher.

middle category: R v Valente, 2012 ABQB 151, 534 AR 385, affirmed on other grounds
2013 ABCA 107; R v Guitar, 2001ABCA58, 277 AR 286; R v Taylor, 1998 ABCA
354, 228 AR 170; R vAn, 2011ABQB217, 94 WCB (2d) 191; R v McMa/1011, 1995
ABCA 116, 181 AR251.

lower category: R v Beauchamp, 2002 ABCA 60, 299 AR 344, leave denied [2002)
SCCA No 172; R v Po11cette, 1999 ABCA 305, 250 AR 55; R v Sinclair, 2011 ABQB
652, 517 AR 396; R v White Man Left, 2005 ABPC 105, [2005] AJ No 737 (QL); R v
Couterielle, 2003 ABPC 141, 58 WCB (2d) 493; R v Macintyre, 1992 ABCA 319, 135

Page:7
AR 166, R v Olsen, 1994 ABCA 111 , 149 AR 142; R v Merkle, 1998 ABCA 351 , 228
AR 110.
[20] If Mr. Vader simply punched the McCanns and that led to their death, then his
misconduct belongs in the lower R v Laberge category. The fact a gun was discharged at some
point does not mean Mr. Vader used a gun in the robbery.
[21] Criminal misconduct after the killings is of limited to no relevance. The Court cannot
conclude Mr. Vader exhibited an absence of remorse given Mr. Vader's defence that the
McCanns are alive: R v Cooper. There is no evidence Mr. Vader planned his theft of the
McCanns' property. Only Mr. Vader's pre-killing criminal history is an aggravating factor, and
that is a minor criminal record, and unrelated.
[22] Other aggravating factors are there were two victims, the victims were elderly, and their
deaths occurred during a robbery. Mr. Vader argues it is a mitigating factor that he was found by
the court to be a drug user and his actions were motivated by his addictions.

IV.

Law
A.

General Principles of Sentencing

[23] Sentencing is an individualized process. An offender's sentence should reflect the gravity
of the misconduct, and the moral blameworthiness of the offender: R v CAM, [1996] 1 SCR 500
at para 40, 194 NR 321. Wilson Jin Re B.C Motor Vellicle Act, (1985] 2 SCR 486 at 533, 24
DLR (4th) 536 explained an appropriate or "fit sentence" is a proportional one:
It is basic to any theory of punishment that the sentence imposed bear some

relationship to the offence; it must be a "fit" sentence proportionate to the

seriousness of the offence. Only if this is so can the public be satisfied that the
offender "deserved" the punishment he received and feel a confidence in the
fairness and rationality of the system.... [Emphasis added.]
(24]

A fit criminal sanction relates to moral blame and culpability (R v CAM, at para 40):
... the principle of proportionality in punishment is fundamentally connected to
the general principle of criminal liability which holds that the criminal sanction
may only be imposed on those actors who possess a morally culpable state of
mind.

[25] The nature of an offender and his or her actions is also critical to a fit and proportionate
sentence. Lamer CJC in R v Marti11ea11, [ 1990] 2 SCR 633 at 645, 58 CCC (3d) 353 correlated
intention to moral culpability: "punishment must be proportionate to the moral blameworthiness
of the offender", and that "those causing harm intentionally [should] be punished more severely
than those causing harm unintentionally".
(26] Criminal Code, s 718.1 restates this rule: "(a] sentence must be proportionate to the
gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender."
[27] The overall purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law, maintain a just,
peaceful and safe society, and suppress future crimes. Criminal Code, s 718 identifies the
objectives for sentencing:
1.

denunciation of unlawful conduct;

Page: 8
2.

to deter the offender from committing this or any other crime again;

3.

to send a message to the public and in particular to the offender's friends,

associates and community that behaviour such as occurred in this case is not
tolerated;

4.

to protect the public by separating the offender from the public;

5.

to assist the offender in his or her rehabilitation;

6.

to provide reparation for harm done to the victim or the community; and

7.

to promote responsibility in the offender and encourage acknowledgement of the

harm that has flowed from his or her misconduct.

[28) The majority in R v Arca11d, 2010 ABCA 363 at paras 66-70, 499 AR I elaborates on the
appropriate approach to sentencing:
The sentencing process in Canada is an individualized one, and always has been.
Accordingly, to this day in Canada, sentences continue to be imposed on a caseby-case basis in the discretion of the sentencing court, subject to two limitations,
that is where Parliament has prescribed a minimum sentence or a mandatory one.
Four aspects of this individualized process ... merit special mention.
First, though individualized to the case, the sentencing process is not exclusively
about the offender. The process is also about the harm to the victim and the
community from the crime. Harm properly occupies a prominent place in the
sentencing process, representing as it effectively does one of the central elements
in the proportionality principle, the gravity of the offence.
Second, in the absence of any appellate guidance, the range of possible sentence
for most crimes is theoretically broad and thus the margin for potential
unwarranted disparity great.
Fourth, to maintain confidence in the criminal justice system, an offender's
sentence should be based on the facts of the case - and what he or she did - and
not on the philosophy or preferences of the sentencing judge. Parliament has
accepted that some differences in sentences will arise from the human factor. But
wide disparities in sentencing untethered to valid distinctions between cases cause
serious problems for the criminal justice system - and understandably so. Such
disparities undermine the public's trust that the criminal justice system, and the
exercise of state power that it involves, will treat people fairly and equally. They
also breed disrespect for the law. [Footnotes and paragraph numbers omitted,
emphasis added.]
[29) In R v Arcand, the majority at para 69 stressed sexual assault is a serious offence. The
same is true of the unlawful talcing of a human life. However, not all unlawful killings warrant
the same kind of sanction, which now leads to a discussion of that question.

Page:9

8.

Sentencing for Manslaughter

[30] It is common ground that the leading authority in Alberta on sentencing for manslaughter
is R v Laberge, 1995 ABCA 196, 165 AR 375. The majority decision of Fraser CJA recognizes
that the factual bases and morale blameworthiness associated with this offense has a wide, if not
extraordinary range, from "near accident" to "near murder": para 6. Correspondingly, Parliament
has empowered sentencing judges with a very broad discretion, from a suspended sentence to
incarceration for life: R v Sto11e, [1999] 2 SCR 290, 239 NR 201; R v Creiglito11, [1993] 3 SCR
3, 157 NR l.
[31] The only manslaughter-specific statutory factor is a four year mandatory minimum
sentence"... where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence ...": Criminal Code, s
236(a).
(32] R v Laberge stresses that on sentencing the critical factor is the nature of the unlawful act
that led to the death, including "(t]he nature and quality of the unlawful act itself, the method by
which it was committed and the manner in which it was committed in terms of the degree of
planning and deliberation ...": para 8. The decision continues to develop three general categories
for manslaughter which involve increasing degrees of risk of: bodily injury, vs serious bodily
injury, vs life-threatening injury: para 9. These risks are tested on their objective foreseeability:
para 15. An offender is more culpable if the evidence establishes that the offender subjectively
knew or was willfully blind to the degree to which he or she put the victim(s) at risk: para 14.
(33] Though Mr. Whitling has argued the R v Laberge categories have an associated
sentencing range, that is not what the cases he cited in his written argument actually say. The
Court of Appeal in R v Holloway explicitly rejected a "starting point" approach to the three R v
Laberge categories of manslaughter (paras 51-53), though the court observes ranges of 10, to 8
to 12 years have been suggested in scenarios where there is a risk oflife-threatening injury (para
51 ). The same is true in R v Willier, where at para 15, Costigan JA states:
... Largely because of the infinite variation in the underlying factual matrix of
manslaughter offences, no attempt has been made to set out starting points or
sentencing guidelines for the three categories and we make no attempt to do so
here....
I therefore reject the Defence argument that Mr. Vader's appropriate sentence will involve some
kind of R v Laberge-derived target range or starting point.
[34] As the Crown has observed, R v Pate-Miller, 2016 ABCA 295 highlights the difficulty
that exists when attempting to implement the Criminal Code, s 718.2(b) direction that
comparable sentences should be ordered where the offences and offenders are similar. The
problem is that the circumstances and factors involved in manslaughter scenarios are extremely
diverse. This is apparent by the comparator cases identified by the parties. The offender may be
directly responsible for the deaths (R v Bo11clter; R v Nie11lt11is), or instead might be an
'upstream actor' whose choices then helped lead to a killing that followed (R v Karim; R v
Hennessey). R v Ellaliib involves both extremes, yet the offenders received similar sentences.
(35] More recently in R v Campeau, 2016 ABCA 378, the Court observed that very different
fit and proportionate sentences were appropriate for two offenders in the same manslaughter
offense scenario. On appeal, the Court confirmed one offender should receive a life sentence, the
other 14 years. The "parity principle" (that is, Criminal Code, s 718.2(b) (R v Kasprow, 2010

Page: IO
ABCA 315 at para 5, 502 AR 99)) does not apply where that would lead to an unfit sentence. In
R v Campeau, these two offenders had different and distinct backgrounds that were relevant and
affected sentencing. These are the kinds of complications that make a manslaughter sentencing
an unusual and difficult task.

C.

Evidence in Sentencing

[36] A court is not limited to the findings of fact made at trial, but may make additional
findings of fact during sentencing, provided those facts are not inconsistent with the findings
made at trial: R v Valente, at paras 14-23.
[37] The strict rules of evidence that operate in a criminal trial are relaxed on sentencing to
permit the sentencing judge access to a full spectrum of evidence so as to design a fit and
proportionate sentence. Dickson J (as he then was) in R v Gardiner, [1982] 2 SCR 368 at 414,
140 DLR (3d) 612 explained aspects of this rule in this manner:
It is a commonplace that the strict rules which govern at trial do not apply at a
sentencing hearing and it would be undesirable to have the formalities and
technicalities characteristic of the normal adversary proceeding prevail. The
hearsay rule does not govern the sentencing hearing. Hearsay evidence may be
accepted where found to be credible and trustworthy. The judge traditionally has
had wide latitude as to the sources and types of evidence upon which to base his
sentence. He must have the fullest possible information concerning the
background of the accused if he is to fit the sentence to the offender rather than to
the crime.
[38] In Canada, there are only two standards of proof, proof on a balance of probabilities, and
beyond a reasonable doubt: FH v McDougall, 2008 SCC 53 at para 49, [2008] 3 SCR 41. At
sentencing, the findings of fact that would aggravate the offence and lead to a longer sentence
must be proven to the criminal beyond a reasonable doubt standard: R v Gardiner, at 415-416.
All other facts are tested on a balance of probabilities.
[39] In Vader #1 at paras 44-45, I made a distinction between findings of fact that are
components or elements of an offence, and other subordinate "auxiliary" findings of fact that lay
the foundation for those findings. As was observed in R v Redford, 2014 ABCA 336 at para 13,
584 AR 294, those auxiliary findings of fact are not subject to the criminal standard of proof, but
instead a balance of probabilities standard. The same is true here on sentencing where I consider
facts that may lead to my conclusion that an aggravating factor is or is not in play.
[40] Mr. Vader too must prove his claims. A sometimes neglected aspect of sentencing is that
an offender cannot simply allege mitigating facts. He/she must prove those, but to a balance of
probabilities standard. This principle was highlighted in R v Holt (1983), 4 CCC (3d) 32 at 51-52
(Ont CA), leave denied [1983] SCCA No 474:
It was held by the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Gardiner ...
that if the Crown advances contested aggravating facts in a sentencing proceeding
for the purpose of supporting a lengthier sentence, it must prove those aggravating
circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. But that case does not support the
reverse proposition - that in the absence of such proof all possible mitigating facts
must be assumed in favour of the accused .... [Emphasis added.]

Page: 11
[41] In that case, there was a dispute over whether the offender was a major drug trafficker or
an addict dealing only to support his personal habit. Since the facts of the case established
neither alternative, the defence could not claim its characterization of the offender was a
mitigating factor. See also R v Do11ova11, 2004 NBCA 55 at paras 38-39, 272 NBR (2d) 279; S
Casey Hill et al, Mc Williams' Canadian Criminal Evidence, 5th ed (Toronto: Canada Law Book,
2013) at pp 36-9-11.

D.

Consecutive vs Concurrent Sentences

[42] At the beginning of the sentencing process, I noted a number of potentially relevant cases
on the issue of concurrent vs consecutive sentences (marked as Exhibit 1 - Sentence
Management) and invited comment from the parties.
[43] Mr. Whitling made a limited submission on this issue. Mr. Finlayson, QC, as I had
requested, did assist the Court with a more detailed review and commented on a number of
authorities in this area of the law.
[44] Sentences for multiple convictions that emerge from the same event are subject to two
principles. The first is the "Kienapple Principle" (from R v Kie11app/e, [1975) 1 SCR 729, 44
DLR (3d) 351), that where two convictions arise from the same misconduct, and the wrongdoing
in one offence is subsumed in the latter, then the less serious charge receives a conditional stay.
The principles for this process are well established, but have no relevance to Mr. Vader's trial.
[45] Multiple convictions arising from the same offence incident may lead to sentences that
are served at the same time - concurrent - or sentences that are served one after the other consecutive - or a combination of both. This is illustrated in Mr. Vader's criminal record, that is
reviewed in some detail below. Consecutive sentences may be imposed provided the combined
sentence"... is not unduly long or harsh": Criminal Code, s 718.2(c).
[46] In R v McDon11e// [1997] 1 SCR 948 at para 46, 145 DLR (4th) 577, Sopinka Jin the
majority decision indicates that a deferential standard of review should apply to a decision of a
sentencing judge to order concurrent or consecutive sentences:
... the decision to order concurrent or consecutive sentences should be treated with
the same deference owed by appellate courts to sentencing judges concerning the
length of sentences ordered. The rationale for deference with respect to the length
of sentence, clearly stated in both Shropshire and M. (C.A.), applies equally to the
decision to order concurrent or consecutive sentences. In both setting duration
and the type of sentence, the sentencing judge exercises his or her discretion
based on his or her first - hand knowledge of the case; it is not for an appellate
court to intervene absent an error in principle, unless the sentencing judge ignored
factors or imposed a sentence which. considered in its entirety, is demonstrably
unfit. [Emphasis added.]
[47J The question of what principles of law apply to determine whether sentences should be
consecutive or concurrent is a difficult one. This was highlighted in R v KDH, 2012 ABQB 471
at paras 13-54, 546 AR 248, where my colleague Manderscheid J reviewed recent Alberta Court
of Appeal decisions that addressed whether, as a point of law, two or more sentences should be
served consecutive or concurrent. He concluded at para 48:

Page: 12
The Alberta Court of Appeal cases that comment and instruct on concurrent vs.
consecutive sentencing do not seem to disclose a single set of guidelines or a
consistent approach to this issue. Being mindful of the special relevance of R. v.
Lemmon as a "Judgment Reserved", and that all these cases are binding on
subordinate courts including the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, I propose to
sentence KDH under the following principles:
1. It is generally appropriate to group offences that involve related
persons, facts and events, and evaluate concurrent vs. consecutive
sentence assignment within those groups ...
2. Chronologically distinct offences or offence groups warrant
consecutive sentences ...
3. Offences or offence groups that involve different complainants or
victims warrant separate consecutive sentences ...
4. In an offence group, a concurrent sentence should not negate the intent
of Parliament that sentencing courts sanction categories of misconduct ...
5. The total sentence of a group of offences may be calculated by a
combination of consecutive sentences, or by certain offences acting as
aggravating factors that increase the sentence assigned to the most serious
offence ...
6. The most serious offence in an offence group is evaluated by the facts
of the case ...
7. All 'possession' type offences that relate to the same date are served
concurrently ...
[Citations omitted.]
[48] Many Alberta Court of Appeal judgments from the last several years that comment on
principles that should determine consecutive vs concurrent sentences generally match the scheme
described in R v KDH. A number of these cases involve multiple complainants and/or offense
scenarios, and fit within the R v KDH approach:

R v Trapasso, 2014 ABCA 66, 569 AR 198 (reasons for judgment reserved): the offender
was sentenced for two robberies and one count of wearing a disguise with intent, in
relation to two incidents two days apart. This was not a 'crime spree', so an appropriate
sentence was seven years: four years for the bank robbery, consecutive to three years for
the convenience store robbery, and one year for the disguise offence to be served
concurrently to the bank robbery sentence.

R v Napesis, 2014 ABCA 308, 580 AR 380: the Court of Appeal confirmed consecutive
sentences for a group of fraud-related offences vs a second set of other similar offences
committed. The sentences were consecutive due to the fact that the offences were
committed at different times, in different places, and against different victims.

R v Stergiou, 2015 ABCA 35, 118 WCB (2d) 694: the Court of Appeal substituted
consecutive sentences for three fraud-related charges where the offence scenarios were
distinct in their elements, time and victims.

Page: 13

R v Ja11sse11, 2015 ABCA 92, 120 WCB (2d) 112: the offender pied guilty to multiple
sexual interference, sexual assault, and child pornography offences involving ten
complainants. The Court of Appeal confinned a global sentence of 14 years
imprisonment, which was a mix of consecutive and concurrent sentences: the ten counts
of making child pornography ran concurrently to one another, and the sentences for
distribution and possession of child pornography ran concurrently, as did the sentences
for three of the four sexual interference charges. The sentences for each of these 'groups'
ran consecutively to the other groups, as well as to a consecutive sexual assault and
sexual interference charge.

R v Labo11cane, 2016 ABCA 176, 38 Alta LR (6th) 275, leave denied [2016] SCCA No
3 74: the offender pled guilty to a number of offences, including assault of a cab driver,
possession of a stolen vehicle, and refusing to provide a breath sample. He was also
convicted after trial of break and enter to commit assault, one further assault charge, and
uttering threats. All of the events occurred on the same night, but there were three
complainants. The Court of Appeal rejected this was a 'spree', the offences were not part
of a single transaction, were committed against different people at different locations, and
for different reasons. Consecutive sentences were confirmed.

R v Meer, 2016 ABCA 368: the offender was convicted of two counts of arson, two
counts of extortion, an attempt to obstruct justice, and a number of conspiracy charges.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision to impose consecutive sentences
for each of the arson charges and extortion charges. The conspiracy charges were
concurrent as they related to the arson and extortion. The Court at para 19 cited R v KDH
and R v Rahey, 2015 ABQB 400 (which adopts R v KDH) for the proposition that "it is
generally appropriate to group offences that involve related persons, facts and events".
While the two arson offences took place at different times, and had some overlapping
victims, the two events involved different people, some different victims, and caused
different harm. Thus, consecutive sentences were appropriate.

[49] Similarly, different offence scenarios or kinds of offences usually lead to consecutive
sentences (R v Brodt, 2016 ABCA 373; R v Go11rgouve/is, 2016 ABCA 131, [2016] Al No 433
(QL); R v Bedi, 2015 ABCA 361, 609 AR 74; R v Kott11scl1, 2015 ABCA 93, 119 WCB (2d)
449; R v Joh11srud, 2014 ABCA 395, 588 AR 67; R v Drader, 2014 ABCA 69 111 WCB (2d)
982; R v Ranger, 2014 ABCA 50, 569 AR 39) or where a complainant is subjected to distinct
multiple forms of misconduct (R v Bruno, 2016 ABCA 283; R v Jligon, 2016 ABCA 75, 612
AR292).
[50] Other Court of Appeal decisions seem to treat the implications of multiple
victims/complainants differently:

R v Davis, 2014 ABCA 115, 572 AR 23 7: a lawyer engaged in a number of separate

frauds with different victims over a nine-month period. The sentencing judge imposed 18
months incarceration on the five fraud-related charges, and six months consecutive on a
theft charge. The Court of Appeal substituted a sentence of four years incarceration on all
counts with all charges served concurrently. No authority for this result was cited.

R vS/111/ar, 2014 ABCA 241, 577 AR 294, leave denied [2014] SCCA No 422: the
offender collided with the complainants' vehicle, causing pennanent injury to one victim
and a serious concussion to the other. He fled the scene. The sentencing judge imposed

Page: 14
concurrent sentences of four and six years imprisonment on each of the criminal
negligence charges, and ordered a consecutive one-year sentence for leaving the scene of
the accident. A majority of the Court dismissed this portion of the appeal, holding that a
concurrent sentence on the offence of leaving the scene would "send a message to the
community that a person who flees a collision which the person caused may do so with
impunity" (para 74), and unless there is a compelling reason for a concurrent sentence,
these circumstances normally call for consecutive sentences (paras 72-77).

R v Habte, 2014 ABCA 316, 580 AR 393: the offender pied guilty to charges relating to
two break-ins at different residences on the same day. The Court of Appeal ordered
concurrent sentences in light of the offender's youth. No authority was cited for this
approach.

R v Murphy, 2014 ABCA 409, 593 AR 60: the offender was sentenced for three counts
of luring stemming from two series of communication with two "victims" (undercover
police officers). One of the scenarios attracted a one year mandatory minimum sentence.
The trial judge imposed a one year global sentence, with concurrent sentences on each of
the counts. This was an error, there were two different "victims", and that sentence
effectively meant two offences had not taken place. However, the Court of Appeal
substituted a sentence in which the prison terms ran concurrently for all three offences,
but increased the index sentence to two years. The Court of Appeal did not cite any
authority for this approach.

[51] Still other decisions appear to take other, different approaches to consecutive vs
concurrent sentencing:

R v Paul, 2014 ABCA 42, 112 WCB (2d) 188: the offender in one evening broke into
vehicles, obstructed a peace officer, broke into a garage, and when confronted by a
vehicle owner the offender drove forward, causing the owner to jump on the hood of the
car, then the offender drove for several blocks with that individual on the hood of the
vehicle. The Court of Appeal held that the overall sentence was disproportionately harsh,
and that in the circumstances, the appropriate remedy was to make certain sentences
concurrent. No authority was cited.

R v Lee, 2014 ABCA 400, 117 WCB (2d) 631: the offender engaged in a brutal multipleoffence domestic assault (the complainant was bound, beaten, and set on fire), followed
by additional subsequent misconduct. The Court of Appeal reduced the initial 14-year
sentence to 11 years by making the sentences for some offences concurrent instead of
consecutive based on the totality principle (paras 28, 31). No authority was cited for this
approach.

R v Ya/allow, 2015 ABCA 116, [2015 AJ No 314 (QL): the offender was stopped by
police, who found cocaine, a loaded handgun, and a large amount of cash. On appeal, the
Court concluded consecutive sentences were appropriate for possession of cocaine for the
purposes of trafficking, possession of a restricted firearm, and personation charges,
"given the seriousness of the offences and the decisions of this Court" (para 3). No
specific authority was cited for this approach.

R v Ge/dart, 2016 ABCA 267, [2016] AJ No 953 (QL): the offender pied guilty to
uttering a forged document and a number of breach charges, and was sentenced to a

Page: 15
number of consecutive and concurrent periods of incarceration. The Court of Appeal
states that whether sentences run consecutively or concurrently is related to the principle
of totality (para 2), citingR v Wllarry, 2008 ABCA 293, 437 AR 148, R v Keo11gll, 2012
ABCA 14, 519 AR 236, and R v Hanna, 2013 ABCA 134, 544 AR 135, leave denied
(2013] SCCA No 454. A sentencing judge makes some offences consecutive and others
concurrent to arrive at an overall fit sentence.
(52] Clearly, there appears to be some significant divergence for the principles oflaw that
guide sentencing for multiple offences. Many Court of Appeal cases do seem to follow some or
all of the framework outlined in R v KDH. The decisions where the totality principle is given
effect by concurrent sentencing are very difficult to align with the recent R v Meer decision at
paras 22-24, where the Court concludes that pre-trial detention and concurrent sentencing are
distinct from the totality principle final sentencing review. Each serves a different function.
(53] I will later return to this general subject in relation to Mr. Vader's sentence for killing the
McCanns.

V.

An Appropriate Sentence

(54] As previously observed, the potential range of sentences on manslaughter is broad, from
no sanction, to life imprisonment. Parliament has provided this exceptionally wide scope for
judicial discretion to reflect the very different ways a person may commit a non-murder
homicide. This range thus recognizes that manslaughter offense scenarios can be very different.
(55] The usual approach to a sentencing is for the sentencing judge to identify mitigating and
aggravating factors, which are facts that favour a more lenient or restrictive sentence: R v
Larclle, 2006 SCC 56 at para 28, [2006] 2 SCR 762. Ultimately, what is truly critical is that a
sentence is "fit", so it matches the offence and the offender, and satisfies the factors identified in
Criminal Code, s 718. Sometimes those factors can pull in opposite directions. A long sentence
may protect the public, but not favour rehabilitation and reintegration. Other times factors align.
[56] The commencement point for this inquiry and analysis is to place the offence in the
appropriate R v Laberge category. The analysis that follows investigates the implications of
various aspects of the Vader/McCanns killing scenario, and Mr. Vader himself. Though I do not
generally make reference to the comparator manslaughter cases identified by the Crown and
Defence, I have reviewed these decisions and noted similarities and differences.
[57] However, I do not conduct a systematic comparison on that basis to meet the Criminal
Code, s 7 l 8.2(b) "parity principle" requirement for two reasons. First, manslaughter offences are
rarely amendable to that kind of analysis: R v Pate-Miller. Second, the facts of this case are
unusual, if not unique, particularly when it comes to gaps in the information available to assist in
sentencing.

A.
[58]

The Offence-The Killing of Lyle and Marie McCann by Travis Vader

In Vader #1, I made a number of key findings of fact about this double homicide:

Lyle and Marie McCann are dead, and their deaths were caused by Travis Vader: paras
643-649, 676-677.

Violence occurred that led to bloodshed, and a firearm was discharged: paras 667-675.

Page: 16

Travis Vader's motive for interacting with the McCanns was robbery, he wanted their
property: paras 650-654.

[59) At this point, I will consider whether I can find additional facts that 'flesh out' what
happened when Mr. Vader encountered Lyle and Marie McCann on July 3, 2010: R v Valente.
Both the Crown and Defence argue I should make findings of fact that potentially affect the
character of the manslaughter offences.

1.

The Crown's Sequential vs Simultaneous Death Theory

[60) The Crown argues that the two deaths must have been sequential. That meant Mr. Vader
injured one of the couple, and then continued his violence towards the second. The Crown
suggests this means the second killing is aggravated by the first, and therefore should warrant a
harsher sentence.
[61] This continues the Crown's argument at trial that the second in a pair of killings was an
execution, intentional, and therefore was first degree murder. I rejected that alternative in Vader
#1, at paras 685-686 where I stated:
[685) The problem is there are other reasonable possibilities that can take us from
a robbery gone bad to two dead senior citizens. The most obvious is that Mr.
Vader encountered the two McCanns together while trying to commit a robbery,
the McCanns both physically resisted Mr. Vader, that fight escalated, and in that
struggle both McCanns were fatally injured. This is quite plausible, particularly
since I have evidence of a firearm being used. Given that, I cannot conclude
beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Vader killed one or both of the McCanns in a
planned and deliberate manner.
[686) That is not to say that the Crown's proposed scenario could not have
happened. It is entirely possible that the McCanns were both restrained during a
robbery, then executed some time afterward. Perhaps the Crown's theory is
correct. The problem is there is no evidence on which to prefer any of these
alternatives.
[62) If the McCanns deaths were sequential then that would be an aggravating factor.
Aggravating factors must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The case against Mr. Vader
relies on circumstantial evidence. I may only make a finding beyond a reasonable doubt based on
circumstantial evidence where there is only one rational inference that may be drawn from the
established facts: R v Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33 at para 35, [2016] 1 SCR 1001.
[63] Here it is possible to account for the McCanns' deaths occurring in a single event: one
gunshot that injured both of the victims. This is only a possible alternative, which means I cannot
satisfy the criminal standard of proof required in the sentencing process where I have received
circumstantial evidence. I therefore do not accept all of the Crown's arguments on this point.

2.

The Defence 'Fisticuffs' Theory

[64) Mr. Whitling argues in his written briefthat Mr. Vader's double homicide should be
evaluated as being the result of a comparatively minor physical altercation:
As indicated in this Court's decision to convict Mr. Vader, the deaths in the
present case could have been caused by the McCanns encountering Mr. Vader
when he was attempting to steal their property, both resisted, the fight escalated,

Page: 17
and in the struggle both McCanns were fatally injured. The deaths could have
resulted from punches, or other acts which were not likely to result in serious
injury or life threatening injuries.
Further, the Defence says that the evidence of gunshot residue and the bullet hole in the Boag's
hat is ..equally consistent with the McCanns having died from violence without a weapon ...".
[65] I reject the argument that I should sentence Mr. Vader on the basis that the McCanns
deaths resulted from a 'fisticuffs' event. This amounts to the Defence asserting a mitigating
circumstance. Analogous to R v Holt, it is up to Mr. Vader to prove that beyond a balance of
probabilities, and he has not done so. Instead, the evidence speaks for itself. There was blood
shed from the two elderly victims. A firearm was discharged. While it is possible the firearm's
discharge was completely unrelated to the spattered blood of either of the two dead senior
citizens, that is simply unlikely without additional supporting evidence. I asked Mr. Whitling in
the course of his closing submissions how one kills two senior citizens by accident. He offered
no hypothetical scenario in response, let alone one supported by any evidence.
[66]

Simply put, this event was not a "near accident".

3.

Drug Addiction as a Mitigating Factor

[67] Mr. Whitling argued that Mr. Vader's drug addiction is a mitigating factor in his client's
killing of the McCanns. Mitigating factors must be proven to a balance of probabilities by the
Offender. If the argument is that Mr. Vader should have a reduced sentence because his mind
was impaired when he committed the offence then I note that a) Mr. Vader argues he does not do
drugs, and b) the Defence neither identified nor entered evidence that Mr. Vader was impaired
by his drug addiction when he killed the McCanns. I reject this alleged mitigating factor on that
basis.
[68] That said, I will go one step further. What has emerged from the evidence of his peer
drug circle is Mr. Vader used methamphetamine as a group in a social context. He got together
with others, and they used methamphetamine as a group. There is no evidence that at this point
in his life, Mr. Vader committed offences when high. Instead, he committed offences such as
theft so he could get high. The best example of this is Mr. Vader's practice of stealing motor
vehicles, usually trucks. Mr. Olson explained why Mr. Vader stole vehicles. He did so because
Mr. Vader had not made payments on his own truck and it was repossessed. Mr. Vader then
stole, used, and destroyed a succession of replacement vehicles. He burned them to destroy any
evidence of his association with them.
[69] Put another way, Mr. Vader used his cash for drugs. His property crimes, such as
involvement in theft of large quantities of copper wire, were a means by which he acquired other
resources. In conclusion, I find that Mr. Vader's drug use and its role in the killing of the
McCanns is not a mitigating factor.
4.

Mr. Vader's Subjective Knowledge of the Risks Involved

[70] A critical element in placing Mr. Vader's misconduct into the R v Laberge scheme and
any assessment of his morale culpability is what was Mr. Vader's subjective knowledge of the
risks represented by his actions. This means looking into Mr. Vader's understanding of what
might happen when he tried to rob the McCanns. I conclude Mr. Vader represents something
encountered more often in fiction than in real life - an intelligent criminal. This became apparent
in a number of ways.

Page: 18
[71] Travis Vader is clearly an intelligent, knowledgeable man. While he explained he has
dyslexia, that condition did not stop him from being a successful oil patch consultant and
manager. His peers indicate he ran his own consulting company, and was well paid. While
testifying, Mr. Vader expressed himself in a clear and organized manner- at least when he chose
to do so. During his lengthy cross-examination, he often effectively argued his points with Mr.
Finlayson QC, and generally avoided the streams of profanity so typical of his recorded jailhouse
banter. I find that Mr. Vader is a capable individual whose apparent expertise extends past his
professional skills. In the jailhouse intercepts, Mr. Vader discussed technical points ranging from
manufacturing methamphetamine, to disposing of bodies, to how to destroy evidence by burning,
e.g. the F350 truck. I take this as more than mere jailhouse banter. Mr. Vader is educated and
infonned, and can drop the stream of profanity when it suits him.
It is not uncommon for persons with a criminal history to develop a certain degree of
lawyer' expertise. Mr. Vader had that, and more. This emerged at various points, for
example when he was first arrested by the RCMP on July 19, 2010. The extensive recordings
reviewed by the Court make that obvious, both when it comes to his right to silence and to
consult counsel. Mr. Vader during his in-court sentencing testimony advanced what were
effective legal arguments for his perspectives. The jailhouse intercepts reveal something else too.
Mr. Vader understood very well his tactical advantage as an accused person, that he had the right
to know the Crown's case. He had no obligation to say or disclose anything. I will return to that
later.

[72]

[73] Mr. Vader also understands how people and the courts test credibility. If you have a story
you stick to it. Thus, when the purported love of his life, Amber Williams, accused him of
philandering, Travis Vader categorically denied any intimate involvement with other women in
his social group who also abused drugs. This despite the fact Mr. Vader was obviously in this
period arranging intimate encounters with other women. Mr. Vader follows the same approach in
court. In the November 2016 trial of his February 28, 2016 charges heard in front of Judge
Higgerty, Mr. Vader stuck to his narrative. Those were not his knife and machete, he had no idea
they were in the vehicle, they must belong to his girlfriend, SS (who he did not call as a defence
witness).
[74] Similarly, during his sentencing testimony, Mr. Vader stuck to his narrative about how he
had been denied access to counsel for legal advice by what occurred at his July 20, 2010 meeting
with Mr. Thomlinson. As I subsequently discuss in more detail, the Crown has shown that Mr.
Vader's narrative and claim of an associated Charter breach is an exercise in historical
revisionism and reinvention. When faced by an absence of supporting evidence or contrary
evidence, Mr. Vader keeps true to his narrative, be that in relation to his involvement with the
McCanns, remand facility records, or recordings of the July 19, 2010 strip search.
[75] But the best approach, and Mr. Vader shows he understand this very well, is to first know
what others know. A review of the intercepted telephone and remand cell communications
between Travis Vader and others reveals a recurring theme. He is very frustrated that he does not
know what the Crown has discovered about him. He is well aware of his right in law to
"disclosure", that the Crown must provide an accused person with all the evidence that it has
collected and that is potentially relevant.
[76]

For example, Mr. Vader in his discussions with infonnant Cardinal says:

Page: 19
And then they will have to disclose everything they have on me. So, if they had a
bunch of infonnation on me, I can see it all. If there's a bunch of fuckin' people
fuckin' talking, I can see all the infonnation.

[77] Later, Mr. Vader complains to Cardinal that the RCMP have not yet charged him for
killing the McCanns, so he does not have disclosure, which is impeding his attempts to construct
an alibi:
You know, threatening away the fuckin' world and fuckin' fuck with people. It's
like, you know? Well charge me and they give me a disclosure and see what the
fuck (stammering) what the fuck is this whole shit all about. Looks like, to me
(sigh) I know I need some kind of alibi for the fuckin' fourth, 'cause I don't have
an alibi.

[78]

A similar statement is made in a telephone conversation with his sister:

Let the fuckin' assholes charge me. Then I can get my disclosure, what they
actually have. I don't know what the fuck they think they have.

[79] Mr. Vader understands what is most dangerous for him is that he make statements or
admissions that are contradicted by evidence already collected by the RCMP from other
witnesses or via forensic investigation. Mr. Vader wants to tailor his story to weave around and
through those potential minefields. He spent much of the time in his December 19-20, 2014
interview with RCMP officer McCauley attempting to extract infonnation from the interviewing
officer.
[80] This information gathering and watchfulness extends beyond his communications with
the police. After the McCanns disappeared, Travis Vader's potential involvement is mentioned in
Sheri Lynn Campbell's text messages to Mr. Vader. Mr. Vader is not overly responsive to Ms.
Campbell, even when on July 7, 2010 she announces an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy.
This is to be compared to a subsequent exchange on July 18, 2010. Mr. Vader ("t") is using
Donald Bulmer's cell phone, and Mr. Vader immediately responds to Ms. Campbell's
announcement that "They found the couple dead" with a demand for infonnation: "Where and
when". Mr. Vader wants that intelligence, badly. When Ms. Campbell responds with"... at the
million dollar shit house", Mr. Vader does not even bother to reply. He knows that Ms.
Campbell's intelligence is incorrect and irrelevant. The same process occurs when Mr. Vader
telephones his parents while in remand. His first question, after asking how his family are doing,
is: "Yeah. So have the investigators been there in the last week or so?"
[81] But beyond all else, Mr. Vader understands it is important to minimize or eliminate
evidence. This is reflected in his "don't talk" policy, infonnation gathering efforts, but also in
how he destroys potentially incriminating evidence. At trial, I concluded Mr. Vader had a history
of burning the vehicles he stole to eliminate evidence that could link those vehicles to him
through the presence of DNA or fingerprints. His peers reported that this was his pattern. A
further example of this technique is found in Veit J's October 6, 2011 trial conviction of Mr.
Vader for, inter alia, arson, and her reasons for sentencing delivered on December 21, 2011,
where she found Mr. Vader had destroyed the stolen Steeplejack vehicle to eliminate evidence
(December 21, 2011 transcript, p 393, 1133-37).

Page: 20
[82] In Vader #1, at para 611, I concluded Mr. Vader burned the McCanns RV to destroy it.
He did so to eliminate evidence in that vehicle which could link him to the McCanns and their
deaths at his hands.
[83] One of the rare occasions where Mr. Vader slips out of his global claim of noninvolvement in the McCanns scenario occurred during a discussion between Mr. Vader and the
jailhouse agent, Mr. Cardinal. Mr. Vader was told that his attempts to destroy a stolen truck, the
F350, had failed: Vader #1, at paras 567-568. Mr. Vader then acknowledges the police claim the
keys to the McCann SUV were found in that F350 truck, but states that is impossible. He had
rigged that vehicle for destruction.
[84] These observations obviously do not tell me what was in Mr. Vader's mind when he
chose to interact with the McCanns. Instead, they paint a broader portrait of Mr. Vader as a
person, and how he pursues things. My conclusion that he is an intelligent individual means Mr.
Vader would have had a realistic subjective understanding of the risks involved in robbing the
McCanns, by whatever means he happened to choose. This also helps me construct what Mr.
Vader's plan was on July 3, 2010, when that robbery and related homicides occurred.

5.

Circumstances of the Robbery

[85] There are other facts which I conclude are proven concerning Mr. Vader's interactions
with the McCanns. I previously found that Mr. Vader and the McCanns encountered one another
between 12:15-14:14 on Saturday, July 3, 2010, and that Mr. Vader took possession of the
McCanns' property during this period: Vader #1, at para 641.
[86] I find further that Travis Vader initiated the contact with the McCanns. The McCanns had
no reason to interact with him; they were travelling west to British Columbia to holiday at Cultus
Lake. Their plan was to reach Blue River, British Columbia that Saturday. This was a lengthy
drive. The McCanns had already obtained supplies and fuel just a few hours earlier. I conclude
they would have travelled directly to Blue River on Highway 16. They had no reason to do
otherwise.
[87] The only plausible scenarios for the contact with Travis Vader are either that he flagged
down the McCanns' RV on Highway 16, or he approached the McCann vehicles while they were
stopped temporarily at a roadside rest stop on that main highway. The most likely scenario is that
Mr. Vader encountered the RV at a pull off rest stop on the north side of Highway 16, west of the
Peers turnoff onto Highway 32. Mr. McCann was an experienced long haul trucker and had
driven Highway 16 hundreds of times during his lengthy career. As an experienced and very safe
driver, it is most plausible that he would have selected a roadside pull off for the heavy, rather
wide RV, rather than stopping on the narrow shoulder of well-travelled Highway 16. There is
evidence that there were high volumes of traffic on July 3, 2010, a holiday long weekend.
[88) I find that Travis Vader interacted with the McCanns shortly after leaving Dave Olson's
home about 12:15 pm on July 3. The McCanns left the St. Albert Superstore at 10:08 am and
proceeded to drive west on Highway 16. I conclude the McCanns could have quite comfortably
reached the stretch of highway 16 west of the Peers turnoff and east of the Samson-Roader
abandoned farm property by between noon and 12:30. I conclude Travis Vader intersected with
the McCanns and their RV/SUV shortly after 12:15 and before 14:14 when he activates and uses
the McCanns' cell phone.

Page:21
[89] I also conclude the contact between Travis Vader and the McCanns occurred in this sort
of rural location, one without people residing in homes nearby. It is very implausible that Mr.
Vader would have attempted his theft in a populated location where he could be observed. As I
have previously concluded, Mr. Vader is a methodical and smart criminal. His history is to
conduct thefts in isolated circumstances. There is evidence of heavy traffic that day on Highway
16, but the only entry door to the stationary RV was on the north or right side of the vehicle, and
his access to the RV would have been hidden from west-bound vehicles on Highway 16.
[90] What is important about these conclusions is that Mr. Vader chose to interact with the
large RV that he knew was likely occupied. A vehicle stopped at a roadside probably meant the
RV contained at least one occupant or the driver would be very nearby. This conclusion is
important because this represents a shift in Mr. Vader's pattern of theft. As I have observed,
there is much evidence establishing that Mr. Vader had a pattern of targeting unattended vehicles
and buildings for theft. Here, Mr. Vader initiated contact with a target property, with the
knowledge he was likely going to interact with the property's owner or owners. That meant Mr.
Vader would anticipate the possibility of resistance and violence. He was going to take property
away from other persons, face-to-face.
[91] The kind of vehicle targeted is also very important. The Mccann RV is not a vehicle
where Mr. Vader could observe all occupants prior to initiating contact. Unlike a pickup truck,
the RV could and would plausibly contain many persons in addition to the readily visible driver.
This raises an entirely new category of risk to Mr. Vader.
[92] I have already found that on July 3, 2010, Mr. Vader was desperate. He was out of food,
money, and his stolen F350 truck was in poor condition: Vader #1, at para 640. However, the
fact Mr. Vader was desperate does not mean he stopped being a smart criminal. Though Mr.
Vader was a relatively healthy and fit male, he would certainly be aware that an attempted theft
of property that would result in his contact with the property's owners created risks to himself.
[93] A vehicle such as the McCann RV could have a number of occupants. I conclude that Mr.
Vader would not have approached and attempted to steal the McCanns' RV and attached SUV
unless he was confident that theft would be successful. That would mean Travis Vader believed
he could face down any plausible resistance. The logical solution was for Mr. Vader to use one
or more of his loaded firearms to facilitate that robbery. I conclude that is exactly what
happened.
[94] There is no evidence that the McCanns had firearms in the RV or the SUV. Bretton
Mccann gave evidence at trial that four long guns were found in the McCann home in St. Albert
after his parents disappeared. It was believed that these were the only firearms that they owned. I
find that the McCanns did not have firearms in either the RV or SUV.
[95] Further, on the subject of Travis Vader being in possession of firearms, there is some new
evidence which came forward at the sentencing hearing on this subject. There was testimony at
the trial from Donald Bulmer that when Travis Vader was living with him, Mr. Vader had at
least two rifles, a 22 caliber and a larger caliber hunting rifle. This hunting rifle was stored under
the bed in the bedroom Travis shared with Amber Williams at the Bulmer residence. The
presence of firearms at the Bulmer home was confirmed by Amber Williams. I observed in
Vader #1, at para 391, that she was very guarded on the subject of Mr. Vader's firearms. I find as
a fact that Travis Vader had these two rifles while he was residing at the Bulmer residence.

Page: 22
(96] At the sentencing hearing on December 13, when talking about the later June period in
2010, Mr. Vader stated during cross-examination:
"That day, I grabbed my belongings and moved out of Mr. Bulmer's house."
[97]

On December 19, I asked some clarification questions (Transcript p 57, ll 4-8):

The Court: "But you did grab all your belongings? You picked up ..
Vader: Yes, I picked up ..
The Court: Everything you had at Bulmer's, and you took- - took it away?
Vader: Yes Sir.

(98] I took these answers to mean that Travis Vader took all of his "goods" including the rifles
from the Bulmer residence when he left that place in June. He stole the F350 on June 28 (Vader
#1, para 641) and I conclude that he hauled his "goods" around in that stolen truck There is
evidence he had loaded firearms in the back of the F350 when he showed up in that vehicle at
Ester McKay's house in the early morning hours of Monday, July 5, 2010. I conclude that the
firearms were loaded at that time because he warned his sister, Bobbi-Jo Vader, to be careful
when he directed her to retrieve his personal property from the back of the cab of the stolen F350
truck (Vader #1, para 457).
[99] As a smart criminal, Mr. Vader would have presented himself in a non-threatening
manner, such as waving down the McCanns' vehicles as a motorist in distress or seeking help at
a roadside stopping place. He did the former with Serge Morin on July 10, 2010, near
Lodgepole: Vader #1 at paras 486-487. Mr. Vader would be aware that the chances of a
successful robbery are increased if he appeared to be an ordinary person. Mr. Vader's peers do
not indicate he had an unusual appearance at this time.
[100] From viewing the strip search video (Exhibit S-24), taken on July 19, 2010, I observe that
Mr. Vader is slightly more than six feet tall, has broad shoulders and is very well muscled in his
upper back, biceps, and forearms. I find that on July 3, 20 l 0, he was in similar physical
condition. This is to be contrasted with Lyle and Marie McCann who were 40 years older than
Mr. Vader. From the photographic exhibits entered at trial, Mr. McCann appears slight and
shorter than Mr. Vader. Marie McCann appears to be smaller and while not frail, was
approaching that stage in life. Clearly, Travis Vader physically outmatched the McCanns.
[101] Once contact had been initiated, I conclude Mr. Vader presented his firearm or firearms
to dominate and control the McCanns. Sometime after that point violence ensued and the
McCanns were killed.
[102] In conclusion, I make the additional following findings of fact beyond a reasonable doubt
concerning the encounter between Mr. Vader and the McCanns which led to their killing:
1.

The McCanns were west-bound on Highway 16 and encountered Travis Vader

between 12:15 to 14:14 on July 3, 2010, on that main highway. This encounter
was in a rural location away from any community or residence to minimize the
risk of observation or interruption.

2.

The McCanns were either in their RV or very close to it when that encounter
occurred. Mr. Vader knew the RV was occupied, or very likely to be occupied.

Page:23
3.

Mr. Vader initiated contact between himself and the McCanns and their RV/SUV.
Mr. Vader chose to initiate that encounter and could have picked alternative target
vehicles.

4.

Travis Vader's intention was to steal the McCann RV/SUV and their contents.

5.

Mr. Vader could not have known the number and kind of occupants of the RV. As
an intelligent criminal, he would only initiate that contact if he believed he could
control the occupants of the RV.

6.

Mr. Vader had a fireann or firearms when he initiated contact with the McCann
vehicles. He planned to use the firearms to control and dominate any occupants of
the RV and complete the theft.

7.

Travis Vader's firearm was loaded. It subsequently fired a shot.

8.

The McCanns were unarmed.

9.

Violence occurred between the McCanns and Mr. Vader. Blood was shed. Mr.
Vader's fireann(s) were discharged at least once.

10.

During that violence and bloodshed or at some point later both McCanns were
killed by Mr. Vader.

11.

Mr. Vader relocated the McCann vehicles to a concealed location, most likely the
Samson-Reader property which is on the south side of Highway 16 and west of
Range Road 144 (W5m).

12.

Mr. Vader used the Mccann phone between 14:14 and 15:55 on July 3, 2010.

13.

Mr. Vader detached the McCann SUV from the RV and traveled to Dave Olson's
residence in Peers, where he arrived at around 17: 15, and remained until 19:35.

14.

Mr. Vader subsequently took active steps to dispose of the McCanns' bodies in an
unknown location such that the exact cause of their deaths cannot be detennined.

15.

On July 5, 2010, Travis Vader burned the McCann RV to destroy evidence it

contained.

(103] At this point, it is important to stress what I do not conclude, and why. I do not conclude
that Mr. Vader initiated contact with the McCann RV with the plan of killing its occupants. I do
not accept that alternative, though that scenario is possibly consistent with Mr. Vader's practice
of 'cleaning up' after himself, in this case leaving no witnesses. I come to my conclusion for two
reasons. First, this would represent an unprecedented escalation of Mr. Vader's criminal activity.
Up to that point, Mr. Vader had not been willing to initiate contact with other persons to conduct
a theft. He instead targeted low-risk alternatives and, in fact, had retreated when confronted by a
Mr. Sparshu during an attempted theft dealt with in the judgment of Veit, Jon October 6, 2011 .
Mr. Vader, as an intelligent criminal, would also know that an intentional killing of the
occupant(s) of a motor vehicle(s) would bring him unwanted attention from law enforcement and
risk further estrangement from his drug peer circle.
(104] In the trial decision I concluded Mr. Vader was desperate (Vader #1, at para 640). That
desperation is what caused Mr. Vader to depart from his usual low-risk theft profile and to
escalate to crimes where he would likely confront persons during his theft(s). With confrontation

Page: 24
comes the predictable possibility of violence and physical harm, to both him and property
owners, particularly if a firearm is involved. I conclude Mr. Vader was willing and planned to
use physical force and the threat of a firearm to separate the RV and SUV from its occupants.
[ 105) What happened then is unknown, except that the McCanns were killed. I have not
accepted the Crown's argument that the only plausible scenario was sequential killings, and give
Mr. Vader the benefit of the doubt on that assertion by the Crown. I have also rejected the
Defence argument these deaths were simultaneous and the result of a low level physical struggle
involving 'fisticuffs'. What is left is an incomplete, but unpleasant picture. A man used a firearm
in an attempt to steal two motor vehicles and their contents, knowing he would potentially meet
with resistance from the occupants of those vehicles. He confronted those occupants, who turned
out to be two senior citizens, who were unarmed, and posed a limited to very limited threat to
him. Mr. Vader attempted to dominate those two senior citizens with the firearm. At some point,
violence ensued. Mr. Vader's firearm was discharged at least once. Blood was shed from both
senior citizens. There is no evidence Mr. Vader sustained any significant injury; however, both
senior citizens ended up dead.
[106) Following his established practice, Mr. Vader took steps to minimize his potential
downstream risk. He disposed of the McCanns' bodies somewhere in the wilderness surrounding
the Edson area. If the McCanns had been killed and immediately placed at a location close to
Highway 16 their remains would very likely have been located during the searches that followed.
Their bodies were not in the RV when it was burned. While the time at which Mr. Vader
disposed of the McCanns' bodies cannot be determined beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe that
step occurred on Sunday, July 4, 2010.
[ l 07] Something unusual occurs on that day, the day after the McCanns encountered Mr.
Vader. Mr. Vader did not engage in any cell phone communications for the full day, which is
atypical for him during that period. He had two operating cell phones (the Mccann and Sexsmith
phones). I conclude Mr. Vader most likely on July 4, 2010, intentionally avoided using a cell
phone so that he could not be tracked while he moved the bodies of the McCanns to their
ultimate destination, a location known only to him.
[ l 08] The McCanns bodies were either destroyed or concealed in a manner that makes their
discovery highly unlikely. Mr. Vader had spent much of his life in this area east of Edson,
Alberta which is largely uninhabited wilderness, major rivers, and a large hydro reservoir with
many larger carnivores such as bears and wolves which could make short work of the bodies,
something Mr. Vader would have known as a hunter. Mr. Vader cleans up after himself, and has
the knowledge to create and execute a plan that would meet the objective of making these bodies
disappear.
[109] The remainder of Mr. Vader' s post-killing activities are documented in the trial decision.
He relocated to a number of places in the Edmonton and MacKay areas, monitoring
developments and communicating with his peer group. During sentencing, Mr. Vader provided
additional information on where he was and when. Ultimately, he was located and arrested on
July 19, 2010, at the Bulmer residence when he was trying to flee from the police..

6.

The Moral Blameworthiness of the Offence: R v Laberge

[11 O] Criminal Code, s 718 specifies the objectives of sentencing. One is denunciation and
deterrence. Mr. Vader intentionally initiated a confrontation with persons while carrying a loaded

Page:25
fireann, with the intention of stealing property. This kind of criminal conduct obviously warrants
denunciation and deterrence.
[111] The R v Laberge analysis starts and is centered on the unlawful act and the degree to
which that act puts the victim at risk. Here, Mr. Vader intercepted and entered into the McCann
RV with a loaded firearm to confront the occupants and take control of the motor vehicles and
their contents. I have concluded Mr. Vader did not plan to kill the vehicle occupants and have
given him the benefit of the doubt in that regard. His illegal objective was robbery. He was
willing to use force to assist in the process. Viewed objectively, this is a scenario which put the
McCanns at risk of life-threatening injuries.
[112] For example, inR vS/ia11d, 2011ONCA5, 104 OR (3d) 291, leave denied [2011] SCCA
No 270, Rouleau JA concluded that bringing a loaded fireann along to a raid on a drug dealer's
home to steal marijuana was not simply a basis for a manslaughter charge, but could also be a
basis on which a jury could convict for second degree murder, and concluded at para 198:
... the dangerous act was the choice to draw and use the gun in order to subdue the
occupants of the basement bedroom and take the bag of marijuana. The fact that
the gun may have discharged accidently while being used to that end does not
remove these facts from the ambit of s. 229(c).
See also: R v Bidesi, 2015 BCSC 863, [2015] BCJ No 1146 (QL); R v Wor111, 2009 SKQB 125,
[2009] SJ No 196 (QL); R v Wor111, 2009 SKQB 122, 330 Sask R 298, both affirmed; R v Wor111,
2014 SKCA 94, 442 Sask R 228, leave denied [2014] SCCA No 544.
[113] Here, Mr. Vader was in close quarters with the vehicle occupants whom he threatened
with a loaded fireann. The vehicle occupants may choose to resist and if so then discharge of the
firearm and life-threatening injuries are objectively foreseeable. This brings Mr. Vader into the
third and most serious of the R v Laberge categories.
[114] I also find Mr. Vader was subjectively aware of this risk to the vehicle occupants. As I
have concluded earlier he is an intelligent criminal and would have known the implications of
bringing a loaded fireann into a robbery scenario of this kind. He knew what damage discharging
a fireann could do. He was a hunter of big game. His awareness of the physical risks to the
victims increases Mr. Vader's culpability: R v Laberge, at paras 14, 17.
(115] In addition to the kind and probability of injury, R v Laberge at para 8 stresses moral
culpability is elevated by"... the manner in which [the unlawful act] was committed in terms of
the degree of planning and deliberation ... ". Mr. Vader's interaction with the McCanns was a
planned and calculated robbery. His plan was not particularly sophisticated, but eminently
practical.
[116] Mr. Whitling has argued that Mr. Vader's offence falls to the low end of the
manslaughter spectrum, but this Offender has not proven any of the alleged mitigating factors to
a balance of probabilities. Defence counsel has also argued two manslaughter sentences should
be served concurrently.
[117] This is inconsistent with the Criminal Code, ss 718(a) and 718(b) objectives of
denunciation and deterrence. Appellate courts have adopted blunt but what I consider accurate
and appropriate language to denounce multiple crimes. Offences should not be "cheaper by the
dozen": R v Maliki, 2005 BCCA 495 at para 20, 218 BCAC 60; R v May, 2012 ABCA 213 at

Page: 26
para 10, 533 AR 182; R v CGL, 2013 ABCA 140 at para 21, 544 AR 360; R v Townsend, 2015
BCCA 209 at para 23, 371BCAC298.
[118] "Cheaper by the dozen" sentencing is the result of "[u]nthinking or indiscriminate use of
this concept of the "spree" or interlinked crimes": R v May, at para 10. "Spree" discounts are
inappropriate for mature offenders or offenders with "low prospects of rehabilitation": R v May,
at para 10; R v Trapasso, 2014 ABCA 66 at para 15, 569 AR 198. Mr. Vader was 38 at the time
of the killings. In due course I explain my conclusion that Mr. Vader is a problematic candidate
for successful rehabilitation.
[119] R v Roy, 1988 ABCA 197, 86 AR 301 is a binding authority where two killings with little
known context must result in a longer sentence. I will later discuss my approach to that in detail,
but here simply say I do not think that killing two rather than a single unarmed senior citizens is
a neutral factor on sentencing.
[ 120] The Crown has argued this is a "stark horror" case due to the manner in which the
McCanns were killed. This term comes from R v Bo11clier, where two senior citizens where
subjected to a "vicious and merciless beating" during a home invasion and one then died, "a
sudden and unexpected terror".
[121] I somewhat disagree with that characterization of the established facts of the McCanns
killing. What I instead find is the striking feature of this crime is the banality of the offense. Mr.
Vader had needs. He selected victims on the basis of those needs. He did not care who they were.
What mattered was they were available, and appeared to have what he wanted. They could have
been any innocent user of Highway 16. He took steps to ensure the McCanns were not in his
way; the randomness of these homicides is terrifying for all Canadians.
[122] To my mind, this aspect of the offence scenario also requires a strong social response.
Mr. Vader did not choose to rob the McCanns out of any animus to them, personally. He
knowingly chose to put himself into a situation where he would likely confront property owners,
whoever they were. That did not matter to him. What mattered was they had something he
wanted, and that they were in his way. As I have previously observed, I do not think Mr. Vader
commenced that interaction with the intention of killing whomever stood in his path. He had a
loaded firearm and was willing to use that to further his crime. Mr. Vader is someone who knew
the potential implications of that. He voluntarily took that risk.
[123] What he found inside the RV parked beside Highway 16 were two senior citizens, more
than 40 years older than him. These individuals were extremely vulnerable and would not have
been able to protect themselves from Mr. Vader. They were unarmed. He had a loaded firearm.
Travis Vader had real control.
[124] Again, what then happened is not known, though the violence that followed left traces:
blood from the McCanns and evidence a firearm was discharged at least once, as shown by the
powder residue on the Boag's hat. What is critical is that there was at this point a gross
imbalance of power. Mr. Vader took actions that led to the McCanns deaths, and those actions
were to further his objective: theft of their property. He undertook that knowing the realistic
likelihood his victims would experience life-threatening harm in the process.
(125] Again, he did not care. Mr. Vader' s objective was to complete the theft and get what he
wanted. Whatever happened to the McCanns was, from his perspective, collateral damage.

Page: 27
[126] This sort of killing of two elderly people on the open road, a major Canadian highway,
with thousands of innocent travellers using it every day, cries out for denunciation and
deterrence. The need for deterrence here is not limited to simply Travis Vader. It is very clear
that some of his peer group of drug addicts and criminals share his disregard for the safety and
rights of others who travel the same path followed by the unfortunate and innocent McCanns.
[127] All these factors favour a lengthy sentence. Mr. Vader clearly falls into the upper class as
identified in R v Laberge.

B.

A Fit and Proportionate Sentence for Travis Vader

(128] Mr. Vader's crimes are very serious; however, an appropriate sentence is one that is fit
and proportionate/or this specific offender. Who then is Travis Vader?
1.

Who Is Travis Vader?

(129] I requested a "pre-sentence report" or "PSR", and a "Forensic And Community Services"
["FACS"] assessment in respect to Mr. Vader. These are professional reports which provide
information concerning an offender. These resources can assist the court to identify a fit and
proportionate sentence. Mr. Vader refused to participate in preparing a PSR and a FACS
assessment. That is his right. No reports were prepared. Mr. Vader's choice has no direct
negative or positive implications for sentencing.

a.

Mr. Vader's Background

[130] Mr. Vader at the time of the killings was 38 years old. He is now 44. While Mr. Vader
stated he had a fixed address in Summerland, British Columbia, he also said he had not been at
that location for "quite a while". He indicated his last employment was in the oil patch, with
Nabors Drilling.
[ 131] I received no evidence or information to indicate Mr. Vader has any social support,
outside what appears to be a succession of transient intimate partners, most of whom also abuse
methamphetamine. As I discuss below, his social group peers are very afraid of Travis Vader;
they fear him. His family have not come forward to indicate they will support him. I consider
this a neutral factor, though relevant for his prospects of non-institutional rehabilitation and
social re-integration.
(132] Mr. Vader's choice to not participate in a pre-sentencing evaluation however, leaves me
with less information and context than is often available when evaluating an offender to
construct a fit and proportionate sentence that is appropriate for that offender. That is not to say,
however, that Mr. Vader is an unknown, a cipher. The evidence admitted at trial provides insight
into Travis Vader. Some people very close to Mr. Vader during the relevant time shared their
observations and knowledge of him. Travis Vader's criminal record is also available. Lastly, Mr.
Vader himself took the stand during the sentencing hearing, and while he did not give much
evidence about himself and his history, a great deal became clear as he spoke.
(133] Together, these sources build a complex and troubling portrait. Mr. Vader does not tell
the truth. He is a creature of his desires, which seem to involve illicit drugs and sex. He is an
angry, aggressive man with an explosive temper, but is also a swprisingly disciplined, intelligent
actor. As I have previously observed, Mr. Vader is, in many ways, a sophisticated criminal.
Whatever else, he minimizes risk to himself. Mr. Vader looks out for himself, he is 'number
one'.

Page:28

b.

Criminal Record

[134] Evidence at the sentencing hearing revealed Mr. Vader's criminal record to date:

June 24, 2006, Edson, Alberta: assaulting a peace officer (Criminal Code, s 270(l)(a))
(35 days)

September 26, 2007, Edson, Alberta: dangerous operation of a motor vehicle (Criminal
Code, s 249(1 )(a)) (31 days, 12 months probation, 12 months driving prohibition)

November 4, 2010, Edmonton, Alberta.

Before Provincial Court Judge E. Walter, charge date April 1, 2010, guilty pleas entered
and sentenced to:

I.

failure to attend court (Criminal Code, s 145(2)(a)) (30 days concurrent)

2.

failure to comply with recognizance (Criminal Code, s 145(3)) (30 days

concurrent)

3.

failure to comply with recognizance (Criminal Code, s 145(3)) (30 days

consecutive)

December 12, 2011, Evansburg, Alberta

Before Provincial Court Judge B. Fraser, charge date June 11, 2009 guilty pleas entered
and sentenced to:

1.

possession of a controlled substance (Controlled Dntgs and Substances Act, SC

1996, c 19, s 4(1))(1 day)

2.

careless use of a firearm (Criminal Code, s 86(1)) (1day,5 year firearm

prohibition)

3.

possession of stolen property under $5,000.00 (Criminal Code, s 355(b)) (1 day)

4.

driving while unauthorized (Traffic Safety Act, RSA 2000, c T-6, s 94(2)) (1 day)

December 22, 2011, Edmonton, Alberta:

Before Madam Justice Veit, charge dates in December 2009, convicted on October 7,
2011 of the following charges:
1.

break and enter with the intent to commit an indictable offence (Criminal Code, s
348(1)(a))

2.

2 x operating a motor vehicle while disqualified (Criminal Code, s 259(4))

3.

break and enter of a property which is not a dwelling house (Criminal Code, s
348(1)(b))

4.

theft under $5,000.00 (Criminal Code, s 334(b))

5.

failure to comply with recognizance (Criminal Code, s 145(3))

6.

possession of stolen property over $5,000.00 (Criminal Code, s 355(a))

7.

3 x possession of stolen property under $5,000.00 (Criminal Code, s 355(b))

8.

arson (Criminal Code, s 434)

Page:29
9.

failure to comply with recognizance (Criminal Code, s 145(3))

See paragraph 135 below for the sentence ordered.

January 14, 2016, Camrose, Alberta

Before Provincial Court (sentencingjudge unknown), charge date April, 2015, guilty
pleas entered January 14, 2016 and sentenced to:

1.

assault (Criminal Code, s 266) (3 months, 1 year probation)

2.

2 x failure to comply with recognizance (Criminal Code, s 145(3)) (2 x 1 month)

3.

1 x failure to comply with recognizance (Criminal Code, s 145(3)) (3 months)

November 8, 2016, Edson, Alberta: before Provincial Court Judge Higgerty, tried
convicted and sentenced: failure to comply with recognizance (Criminal Code, s 145(3))
(60 days)

[135] The December 22, 2011, sentences involve a number of offense scenarios that occurred
in early December 2009. Mr. Vader broke into a commercial property, stole a truck and other
associated personal property, then set fire to the truck. Veit J concluded Mr. Vader brought an
aerosol can to the vehicle to assist in its destruction. Mr. Vader also engaged in a separate
residential break and enter, and attempted to steal a trailer. He was in breach of his recognizance
terms, and drove while unauthorized. Veit J declared an appropriate sentence of33.5 months,
reduced to one day after credit for time in custody.
[ 136] The January 14, 2016, convictions are based on guilty pleas and relate to the assault of
Mr. Vader's then intimate partner, SS. In April 2015, Mr. Vader slapped SS with sufficient force
to cause distorted hearing and ringing in that ear that continued for several days. Mr. Vader also
subsequently contacted SS by telephone in breach of a no-contact order.
[ 13 7] The November 8, 2016, breach of recognizance charges flow from an encounter on
February 28, 2016, between Mr. Vader and the RCMP. RCMP officers observed a pickup truck
that was out of control. Upon investigation they found Mr. Vader inside, acting in an erratic
matter. A machete and knife were located in the vehicle and readily accessible to Mr. Vader.
What appeared to be methamphetamine paraphernalia was visible. Judge Higgerty concluded
after a trial that Travis Vader was under the influence of some mood altering substance at the
time of this incident.
[ 13 8] A history of criminal convictions is an aggravating factor. However, counsel for Mr.
Vader cites R v Skolnick, [1982] 2 SCR 47, 138 DLR (3d) 193; R v Fine/Ii, [2008] OJ No 2537
(QL) (Ont Sup Ct J), and Clayton Ruby et al, Sentencing, 8th ed (Markham: LexisNexis, 2012)
for the following proposition:
Criminal convictions entered against Mr. Vader after the commission of the
conduct underlying the present convictions are irrelevant to Mr. Vader's sentence.
Arguably, Mr. Vader's subsequent convictions may be considered as negating the
presence of mitigating circumstances, but they cannot form the basis of
aggravating factors.
[139] First, this not the test indicated in the Ruby et al, Sentencing text, since s 8.80 states:

Page:30
It would seem, therefore, that serious subsequent convictions - especially those
for similar offences - can be looked to for the purpose of ascertaining the
offender's character and the prospects for rehabilitation, but not for the purpose of
imposing a heavier sentence than the offence would otherwise warrant. ...

"Aggravating" means a longer sentence: R v Lare/re, at para 28. Rehabilitation and reintegration,
however, may weigh in either direction, depending on the offender. A requirement for a longer
sentence to meet the objectives of rehabilitation and reintegration is, thus, an "aggravating
factor".
[ 140] Second, I conclude R v Skolnick has a much more restricted application than argued by
Mr. Whitling. R v Skol11ick deals with a specific principle of common law, sometimes called the
"Coke rule" or "Coke principle'', that where a criminal penalty is dependent on prior convictions
for an offence, then a person is only subject to an enhanced penalty if the conviction in question
precedes the second offence. In R v Skolnick, the offender was convicted of impaired driving.
The penalty provision at that time dictated increasingly harsh sentences for a second, and third
and subsequent offences. The question for the court was when an offense is a prior conviction
and leads to a higher sentencing regime.
[141] Here is what the Supreme Court of Canada said was Coke's rule:
What Coke said literally was that a person cannot be convicted (and, presumably,
if I follow him, sentenced) of a third offence before he has been convicted of the
second nor of the second before he has been convicted of the first; and the second
offence must be committed after the first conviction and the third after the second
conviction. As subsequently understood, the principle, or perhaps, better, policy
was that an accused does not face the jeopardy of an increased penalty for a third
offence unless he has previously been convicted and sentenced for a second
offence. Counsel for the accused relies on this in the present case.
[ 142] Chief Justice Laskin provides a summary of what R v Skolnick means:
The following summary is in order:
(1) The number of convictions per se does not govern in determining
whether the Coke rule applies.
(2) The general rule is that before a severer penalty can be imposed for a
second or subsequent offence, the second or subsequent offence must have
been committed after the first or second conviction, as the case may be,
and the second or subsequent conviction must have been made after the
first or second conviction, as the case may be.
(3) Where two offences arising out of the same incident are tried together
and convictions are entered on both after trial, they are to be treated as one
for the purpose of determining whether a severer penalty applies, either
because of a previous conviction or because of a subsequent conviction.
(4) The rule operates even where two offences arising out of separate
incidents are tried together and convictions are entered at the same time.
[ 143] The meaning and scope of the Coke rule is scrutinized in R v Andrade, 2010 NBCA 62 at
paras 13-20, 363 NBR (2d) 159, where Robertson JA specifically rejects the proposition that the

Page: 31
Coke rule is anything other than a tool for statutory interpretation. In coming to that conclusion,
the New Brunswick Court of Appeal concludes at para 19 that the rule stated in Ruby,
Sentencing, is wrong, has expanded a principle of statutory application outside its correct
context, and concludes at para 20:
... it seems to me that there is no need to extend the Coke rule beyond its original
purpose for the following reason. In short, the law required a simple and
expedient method for determining what qualifies as a second or subsequent
offence. The rule does just that. Admittedly, it favours the offender but this is so
because of the mandatory imposition of a fixed or minimum sentence; one that
removes the element of discretion so as to impose a sentence that the court might
not otherwise have imposed. On the other hand, there is no mandatory rule or
principle that second or subsequent convictions for the same offence must attract
a harsher sentence. Courts retain the discretion to decide whether prior
convictions will be treated as an aggravating factor. Typically, a subsequent
conviction will be viewed more seriously because of an earlier conviction but it
does not automatically follow this is true in all cases.... In my view, the notion
that the prior conviction should not be treated as part of the offender's criminal
record for sentencing purposes, because he or she was not properly forewarned
before committing the second or subsequence offence, is a theoretical construct
too far removed from the realities of what is in the minds of repeat offenders and
the puepose underlying the Coke rule. What is or is not an aggravating factor and
how one should deal with the offender's prior criminal record is a matter better
left to the sentencing judge having regard to the factual matrix under
consideration. [Emphasis added.]
(144] As noted in R v Andrade, this more limited application of the Coke rule is also reflected
in R v Muyser, 2009 ABCA 116 at para 7, 457 AR 216, where Chief Justice Fraser indicated
what R v Skolnick stands for: " ... a progression in the length of sentences imposed in the event of
recidivism for the same offences ..." [emphasis added]. R v Andrade is also cited in R v Bemard,
2011NSCA53, 303 NSR (2d) 384, leave denied [2011] SCCA No 381 as "[a] comprehensive
consideration of Lord Coke's rule".
[ 145] I agree with the R v Andrale approach and interpretation of the Coke rule.
[146] R v Skolnick could be relevant to Mr. Vader if Criminal Code, s 236 indicated that a
second or subsequent manslaughter offence led to a different sentencing range, particularly if
Mr. Vader was also convicted of another manslaughter offence at some time prior to this date.
However, Criminal Code, s 236 does not include an escalating sanction for multiple
manslaughter convictions, and Mr. Vader's only convictions for manslaughter are those that I
found in Vader #2.
[147] The test proposed by Mr. Whitling is artificial and parses aggravating and mitigation
factors in a manner that fails to account for the synergistic nature of how a fit and proportionate
sentence is determined. It also leads to a semantic absurdity: how does one manage 'true
aggravating factors' vs 'mitigation cancelling factors' when totalling up a sentence? This
'sentencing arithmetic' makes no sense.
(148] The extent to which this argument is problematic is also illustrated by its simple effect on
the underlying global objective of sentencing - a fit and proportionate sentence, taking into

Page:32
account the objectives of sentencing and the characteristics of an offender. One objective of
sentencing is to identify a sentence that provides rehabilitation and successful reintegration of an
offender: Criminal Code, s 718(d).
(149] To be explicit, I do not consider that Mr. Vader's manslaughter offenses are 'worse'
because after he killed the McCanns he engaged in subsequent misconduct, such as he assaulted
SS. I am not sentencing Mr. Vader to punish him for other offences he has committed, and for
which he has already been sentenced. That would be 'double-counting'. However, I will consider
Mr. Vader's post-manslaughter criminal history for what that post-killing conduct tells me about
Mr. Vader, as a person and an offender, and what steps are appropriate to meet the objectives of
sentencing, including control of Mr. Vader for the purposes of public safety, and what processes
and steps are appropriate to ensure Mr. Vader's future rehabilitation and reintegration into
Canadian society.

c.

Addiction to Drugs

(150] At trial, I concluded Mr. Vader was a methamphetamine drug addict around the time of
the killings. The evidence of that was overwhelming. I have received much evidence that Mr.
Vader's other criminal activities - thefts, trafficking - flow from that addiction.
[ 151] Though Mr. Vader has argued in this proceeding that he is not a drug user and has never
used drugs, he has been convicted of possession of methamphetamine, has acknowledged use of
that drug to Officer Veenstra, and was identified by drug-sniffing dog Grizz in the Edmonton
Remand Centre. Judge Higgerty also concluded that Mr. Vader was using substances that altered
his behaviour. On December 22, 2011, when speaking from the dock to Veit J at the time of his
sentencing, he blamed his problems with the law on his drug use.
[152] Intercepts of his communications with police informant Cardinal in the Red Deer
Remand Centre include Mr. Vader discussing his knowledge of how to prepare
methamphetamine- Mr. Vader admitted he was a 'meth cook':
I try not to do it often because ... too much, too much heat. ... Yeah. That one
bitch I had, Amber, she didn't know I fuckin' cooked. She didn't I had - did that.
She, she was ... I was - I always had {unintelligible} and finally one day she
asked how come you got so much fuckin' meth? ...
[153] When combined - his admissions of drug use, the recent search in the Edmonton Remand
Centre in October 2016, and Mr. Vader's lies about his drug abuse - I have no doubt Mr. Vader
had resumed and is continuing his patterns of drug abuse. Drugs are a dominant, if not the
dominant, focus of Mr. Vader's life.

d.

What Mr. Vader's Peers Thought of Him

(154] I concluded at trial that Mr. Vader is a drug dealer and in 2010 was addicted to
methamphetamine: Vader #1 at para 640. The Crown had called as witnesses a number of the
individuals who were in Mr. Vader's immediate social circle. These are what one might
charitably call friends, but are better described as drug society peers, intimates, or both. Mr.
Vader's sister Bobbi-Jo Vader also testified. She too self-reported extensive drug use. These are
some of the people with whom Mr. Vader spent his time before and after the killing of the
McCanns.

Page:33
[ 155] Information about Mr. Vader comes from these individuals in three forms . First, the text
message records entered into evidence at trial includes discussions between Mr. Vader's
acquaintances about him. Second, these individuals testified at the trial about Travis Vader,
interactions with him, and their observations. However, the third way that these persons provided
information about Mr. Vader is more unusual and indirect. Bluntly put, several of these
witnesses were clearly afraid of Mr. Vader, and when on the stand at the trial would say virtually
anything he wanted.
[156] The text messaging in 2010 between Mr. Vader's acquaintances shows, at a minimum,
apprehension about him. For example, Amber Williams, drug dealer and the target of Mr.
Vader's obsessive romantic declarations, was clearly keeping herself at some distance. Mr.
Vader and Ms. Williams had been living together at Donald Bulmer's residence until she
departed in late June. Ms. Williams in her text communication makes it plain she views Mr.
Vader as being out of control, and dangerous. He was attracting far too much police attention.
Mr. Bulmer did not disagree, and cooperated with Ms. Williams, letting her know whether Mr.
Vader was present or absent. In the period oflate June/early July 2010, Mr. Bulmer said he did
not want Mr. Vader at his residence. Ms. Williams' in-court evidence corroborates her
perspective of Mr. Vader at the time. She described him as an angry man. She was afraid of him.
[157] Another former intimate, Andrea Sexsmith, also avoided Travis Vader. She perceived
him as agitated, and under the influence of drug addiction. In the period immediately after the
McCanns disappeared, Mr. Vader and Ms. Sexsmith were residing in the same location, the
McKay residence. However, she managed to stay apart from Mr. Vader during the five days that
they were apparently residing in the same location.
[158] David "Bandana Dave" Olson was one of Mr. Vader's drug and drinking buddies. He
was the key Crown witness at the trial. After the McCanns' disappearance, he was relocated for
his protection by the RCMP. Mr. Olson provided evidence on Mr. Vader's typical criminal
activity patterns of stealing trucks and consuming drugs, including methamphetamine. Mr. Olson
showed little fear or apprehension of Mr. Vader. Then again, he was not in danger or under threat
from Mr. Vader because he was living in an unknown location arranged by the RCMP.
[159] I concluded at trial that anotherofMr. Vader's peers, William Nikolyuk, " ... was the
most untrustworthy person called as a witness in this trial, and that is saying something.": Vader
#1 at para 468. Mr. Nikolyuk's statements underwent a remarkable transformation between 2010
and the trial in 2016. William Nikolyuk had initially, in 2010, given police a statement about
how he had a clandestine nighttime rendezvous with his friend Travis Vader shortly after the
McCanns' disappeared. Mr. Nikolyuk provided food to Mr. Vader, who said he was on the run.
Mr. Vader also provided a helpful tip to Mr. Nikolyuk - be careful what vehicle you steal, it can
get you in trouble.
[ 160] At trial, Mr. Nikolyuk claimed this report to the police was spurious, and he was unable
to give the RCMP a statement in 2010 because he was recovering from a serious bacterial
infection and his girlfriend had died. During cross-examination, Mr. Nikolyuk was eager to
provide evidence that the McCanns had been killed by a different member of the local drug
circle, Terry McColman, who now, conveniently, was dead. I reproduce a part of that crossexamination at para 615 of the R v Vader, 2016 ABQB 515 decision. It shows that Mr. Nikolyuk
is literally a "yes man".

Page:34
[161] As I have explained, I did not find Mr. Nikolyuk in any way a credible witness. He was a
man who lied about lying: Vader #1 at para 468. I caution myself about witness demeanor,
which can have complex causes. That said, as I observed Mr. Nikolyuk over several days in the
witness stand it became quite obvious to me that a reason for his remarkable shift in testimony
was not loyalty or affection for Mr. Vader, but instead fear. Given the potentially very serious
implications for Mr. Nikolyuk in giving false evidence, he must have been very concerned about
not ending up on Mr. Vader's bad side. I point out that at the time when he gave evidence on
March 18, 23-24, 2016, Mr. Vader was on release and knew where William Nikolyuk was living.
[162] Donald "Donny" Bulmer is yet another Crown trial witness whose testimony appeared
motivated by apprehension concerning Travis Vader. Mr. Bulmer and Mr. Vader were long-time
acquaintances. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Vader explained their history. They had known
one another for years, and Mr. Bulmer's farm is close to Mr. Vader's father's farm. They played
sports together, fixed vehicles, and"... worked together on different projects and stuff." In 2010,
Mr. Bulmer operated what was essentially a flophouse for locals in the drug community. Mr.
Vader lived there with Amber Williams until she was the first to leave in late June, 2010.
[163] In my trial judgment, I made observations of how Mr. Bulmer expressed what I interpret
as fear of Mr. Vader, and how Mr. Bulmer's temperament and conduct changed depending on
which counsel was asking the questions: Vader #1 at paras 426-427. I concluded Mr. Bulmer
was only going to give the testimony that Mr. Vader wanted to have heard.
[164] I conclude that Mr. Vader's drug community cohort saw him then and now as a
dangerous man. They did not want to offend him, to the point that some of these individuals gave
false evidence to the court when they appeared as witnesses. It says much that someone like Mr.
Bulmer, a life-long friend and neighbor of Mr. Vader, exhibited the fear that I observed in court
while Mr. Bulmer was on the stand. Mr. Bulmer did not want trouble with Travis Vader.
Whatever their history and despite Mr. Bulmer housing and assisting Mr. Vader, Mr. Bulmer
considered Mr. Vader a real threat. And that is from a man who lives in a house which hosted
many serious drug addicts during June-July 2010. I also point out that when Mr. Bulmer gave his
evidence on May 2, 2016, Mr. Vader was still on release, and knew exactly where Donny
Bulmer lived. No wonder Mr. Bulmer was afraid of Travis Vader.
e.

Mr. Vader is 'Number One'

[ 165] Ultimately, Travis Vader looks out for himself. He is 'Number One'. Mr. Vader exhibits
little concern for others. I will discuss his lack of credibility. His text messages to his peers,
particularly Amber Williams, show a manipulative personality.
[166] He shifts blame to others. It is never his fault. The most dramatic example of that was the
concocted narrative that a now deceased fellow drug user and petty criminal, Terry McColman,
was the true killer of the McCanns. As I have previously explained, Mr. Nikolyuk was the chief
mechanism by which the McColman theory was introduced at trial. I concluded Mr. Nikolyuk
simply acted as a proxy witness who gave whatever evidence Mr. Vader told him to give about
Mr. McColman.
[ 167] This is one of only many examples. According to Mr. Vader, it was not his fault that he
found himself alone and desperate in July 2010. He had "zero money'', "no clean cloths" and was
stuck with "hot wheels". He complained to the (purported) target of his affections, Ms. Williams,
that she had abandoned him, which betrayed Mr. Vader's love:

Page: 35
"You left me with No money No food No wheels nothing"
"I have never ran and starved for so many days in my life with zero help if you
loved me you would have helped in some way but you didn't"
These two text messages neatly illustrate both the manipulative and 'blame shifting' aspects of
Mr. Vader's personality.
[168] This continues to the present. Vader did not put the weapons found in the truck on
February 28, 2016. That was his girlfriend, SS. In detention, Mr. Vader portrays himself as a
victim: of "shit bombing'\ nefarious schemes by the remand guards, and a broken wrist caused
by an unwarranted assault. As I subsequently explain, I put minimal weight on these complaints.
Mr. Vader says that people treat him unfairly.
[ 169] I have previously described how Mr. Vader's associates appear to have been coerced or
intimidated into giving evidence that favours Mr. Vader's case, even going so far as to deny prior
testimony. In particular, Mr. Nikoyuk attempted to deceive me for Mr. Vader's benefit. Mr.
Bulmer clearly failed to tell the entire truth, as he had sworn to do.
(170] Bobbi-Jo Vader's testimony is in many respects equally peculiar. At trial, she explained
she cannot have been a reliable witness back in 2010 because of her chronic and constant drug
use. When she talked to the police investigators during her 2010 interviews, she was so stoned
she should not be trusted. So what did happen in 2010? Bobbi-Jo Vader explained that she has
subsequently abused drugs to such a degree that she cannot say. That is, to say the least,
convenient. In Vader #1 at paras 452-455, I concluded Mr. Vader bullied his sister into recanting
her prior statements to the police, though this recantation took the form of her "I'm too stoned to
be trusted" explanation. I found Ms. Vader was not a truthful witness and tried to mislead the
Court: Vader #1, at para 454.
[171] Further, I observed at para 452:
... While Ms. Vader had been called by the Crown and was their witness, she
turned out to be completely aligned with the Defence. She was prepared to say
just about anything to exonerate her brother.
(172] While I cannot conclude whether Ms. Vader's false testimony is the result of sibling
affection, intimidation, or a combination of both, what is clear is that Mr. Vader had no issues
with placing his sister at risk for his own benefit.
[173] But the most egregious example from the trial proceedings of Mr. Vader taking
advantage of others for his own purposes was the appearance of a witness for the defence, Ms.
Tanja Radovanovic, who was called to testify in court in an attempt to undermine the evidence of
Crown witness Myles Ingersoll: Vader #1 at paras 525-528. Ms. Radovanovic claimed she had
observed Mr. Ingersoll smoking methamphetamine on the early morning of the day he testified.
She explained she knows how Mr. Ingersoll conducts himself while stoned: "he fabricates a lot
of things. He sees things. People in trees, stuff like that."
[174] Mr. Ingersoll did not actually describe people in trees during his testimony, which instead
focussed on his observations of Mr. Vader operating the Mccann SUV the day the McCanns
disappeared. I found him to be a credible and reliable witness: Vader #1 at paras 363-368.
[175] I concluded at trial that Ms. Radovanovic's testimony was a total fabrication. Ms.
Radovanovic, it turned out, had been recruited to testify by Mr. Vader's then girlfriend, Sam

Page:36
Dandenault. Not only that, I observed Ms. Radovanovic appeared to be taking direction from a
woman in the court gallery, who was none other than Sam Dandenault. I have no difficulty
concluding that Travis Vader instructed his girlfriend to find witnesses whose testimony was
intended to subvert the Crown's case. This too illustrates Mr. Vader comes first. He put Ms.
Radovanovic and his girlfriend, Ms. Dandenault, at risk of criminal charges and sanction by this
Court.

f.

Conclusion - Mr. Vader is a Dangerous Persistent Offender

[176] What is important for the purposes of sentencing is that the information available to me
indicates that Mr. Vader is a criminal whose misconduct is driven by his drug abuse. Though he
is an intelligent person, and very well aware of the effects and consequences of his
methamphetamine use, he has to date been unwilling or unable to restrain the drug addiction
which then drives his illegal activities. He is perceived as a dangerous person by those who know
him. He is centered on himself. These facts are relevant when assessing his potential for reoffending, and successful and safe re-entry into Canadian society.

2.

Protection of the Public; Rehabilitation and Reintegration

(177] I have previously concluded that Mr. Vader's offense is a very serious one, one that
warrants a lengthy term of incarceration. However, the seriousness of an offence is not the sole
determinant of what is a fit and proportionate sentence. The Criminal Code, ss 718(c-d) address
personal characteristics of this offender. The fonner requires that a sentence separate an offender
from society, where necessary. This objective serves to protect the public from dangerous
persons. Thus, protection of the public is not a dominant, but rather a counterbalanced factor.
[178] An offender's liberty should be restricted only where less limited sanctions are
inadequate: Criminal Code, s 718.2(d). A less severe sentence is favoured by Criminal Code, s
718(d) where the fit and proportionate sentence is one that assists in the offender's rehabilitation.
It is trite law that incarceration banns some offenders, particularly youth, and favours recidivism,
rather than rehabilitation and reintegration.
[179] What do we know about Mr. Vader? First, he is a dangerous man. He is a creature of his
desires, particularly drugs. He goes beyond simply lying and manipulation to meet those
objectives, he will undertake illegal acts to obtain what he wants. Theft and destruction of the
property of others by burning means nothing to him. That is his everyday lifestyle. With his
robbery of the McCanns, Mr. Vader took a further step. He now is willing to confront those from
whom he steals. His offences are escalating.
[ 180] His peers report he is easy to anger, that his moods shifts in a dramatic manner when
triggered. Recordings showed that members of the RCMP had to repeatedly calm Mr. Vader in
the period after his arrest on July 19, 2010. He rapidly, if not explosively, worked himself into an
agitated, disturbed state, see Appendix B for summaries of his interactions with police following
his arrest at the Edson RCMP station.
(181) I earlier called Mr. Vader a creature of his desires, primarily drugs. I concluded at trial
that Mr. Vader was a methamphetamine drug addict when he killed the McCanns. I am satisfied
that his substance abuse has continued. Judge Higgerty also came to the conclusion Mr. Vader
was under the influence of drugs in February 2016 when police encountered Mr. Vader acting
erratically and arrested him.

Page:37
[182] His ongoing denial that he used methamphetamine is extremely odd, given that as early
as December 21, 2011, he told Veit J at the time she was sentencing him that his problems were
caused by drugs (December 21, 2011, sentencing transcript, p 388, 1123-30).
(183] Mr. Vader admitted his ongoing drug use to Officer Veenstra as recently as October 24,
2016. On that date, drugs were detected on Mr. Vader by search dog Grizz. At that time, Mr.
Vader was in remand detention. Mr. Vader nevertheless continues to claim he is "clean", and has
always been "clean". I categorically reject these claims by Mr. Vader. First, Mr. Vader has
advanced a lie, a quite ridiculous lie, that he is not a methamphetamine user, has never been a
methamphetamine user, and is certainly not an addict. The evidence against that is
overwhelming. His peer group says otherwise. Mr. Vader goes so far as to claim he pied guilty to
possession of imaginary crystal methamphetamine. I have commented on my observations of Mr.
Vader during the trial while he was on release.
[ 184] So his abuse of this vile drug, methamphetamine, continues, despite Mr. Vader admitting
he has a problem. As I observed in Vader #1 at para 592, Mr. Vader said exactly that:

"And amber ifweare to be together we can not ever have drugs or any of that shit in our
lives again I just takes everything good away" (July 8, 19: 13)

"It's the drugs that makes things bad andFucked up you know this and what they Do to
me and you know they cant be part of us" (July 8, 19:21)

"I want to meet you And get to know you not on the shit i want to love you for your And
make love to you" (July 8, 19:24)

[185] The problem is, despite Mr. Vader knowing that drugs are adversely affecting him, he
does not stop. Drug use is what drives his other criminal conduct. Mr. Vader went on at great
length during the sentencing hearing on how he finds the conditions in Alberta remand centres
deeply unpleasant. Nevertheless, his drug use continues, even though his drug addiction will
predictably lead to him being detained. This illustrates the depth of his dependency. Even what
Mr. Vader characterizes as horrible conditions is not enough to deter him from continued drug
abuse and related misconduct. That means that these patterns will continue, unless controlled.
[ 186] In some instances, a court receives expert evidence on the nature and scope of an
offender's drug use, dependencies, resulting misconduct, and how that might be managed and
treated. Mr. Vader has chosen to not take the steps that would provide me with that kind of
evidence. I have no basis to believe Mr. Vader's drug-related misconduct can be readily
managed and that he could then re-enter Canadian society as a safe, rehabilitated person. Instead,
all the information I have indicates the exact opposite.
[ 187] Criminal Code, ss 718(c) and 718(d) align in this case. These factors combine to require
a lengthy sentence. Mr. Vader is addicted to methamphetamine. The implications of that are
notorious. Mr. Vader is not in control of his addictions. They, instead, control him. Those
addictions are what leads to his illegal conduct. Mr. Vader has proven himself to be a threat to
anyone who might cross his path, or challenge or confront him. Up to this point, detention has
had no effect. Time and treatment will be required to break this pattern. Until then the public is
not safe.
[ 188] While Mr. Vader has not been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition and I have not
received expert evidence on what it will take to break his patterns of behaviour, I believe I may,

Page:38
as a matter of common sense and long experience as a lawyer and judge, conclude that his
obvious patterns of "me first", blame-shifting, and the abuse of others indicates a separation is
needed between Mr. Vader and the general population. He is "Number I", everyone else is
subordinate. Mr. Vader's rehabilitation and successful reintegration into Canadian society
requires that gap be bridged. I do not have expert evidence to say how long that might take, or
what steps might be involved, but when one encounters a person of Mr. Vader's character, it is
obvious this too will not occur overnight. That favours a lengthier period of incarceration.

3.

A Fit and Proportionate Sentence

[189] A lengthy sentence is required for Mr. Vader's misconduct and it falls to the upper end of
the R v Laberge spectrum. Mr. Vader planned and then carried out a theft while armed with a
loaded firearm. He subjectively knew the risk and threat that was involved. Once Mr. Vader was
aware of the general nature of his victims, he also would have known they posed little risk to
him. He was in control. The violence that followed was predatory.
[ 190] Violence ensued and the McCanns were killed. The nature of these victims and the crime
call for a lengthy sentence. Violence of this kind calls for a harsh sanction to meet the objectives
of deterrence and denunciation.
[191] Mr. Vader is a dangerous man. He is driven by his basic desires and addictions. He must
be controlled to minimize future misconduct. This favours lengthy incarceration. Mr. Vader's
history predicts that his rehabilitation and management of his personal and dependency issues
will not be rapid or easily achieved. This too favours a lengthy period of incarceration.
[192] Mr. Vader used a firearm in the commission of the manslaughter offences. His sentencing
range is therefore from four years to life: Criminal Code, s 236(a).
[193] In R v He1111essey, Macklin J ordered global sentences for multiple manslaughter
convictions. He did not parse out individual sentences for each offence. His approach was
confirmed by the Court of Appeal in "Reasons for Judgment Reserved'', a form of Alberta Court
of Appeal decision which has particular weight: R v Arcand at paras 209-229; Practice Direction
A4; Alberta Court of Appeal Notice to the Profession of March 27, 2000.
[194] Since the Court of Appeal'sjurisprudence on the principles oflaw that guide whether
sentences should be served concurrently or consecutively is difficult to reconcile, I adopt the R v
Hennessey approach and will impose a single global sentence. What matters on this issue is that
there were two elderly victims and that further aggravates the offence. Imposing a single term of
life imprisonment gives Travis Vader the benefit of the doubt yet again. I therefore conclude a fit
and proportionate global sentence for Mr. Vader is imprisonment for life.
[ 195] The recent judgment of R v Meer indicates that in the event a court orders a sentence
which collects offences into a larger sentence, that the sentencing court is obliged as a separate
and final step to evaluate whether that end result is "unduly long or harsh": Criminal Code, s
718.2(c); R vMay, 2012 ABCA 213 at paras 13-14, 533 AR 182. This step is distinct from
considerations of whether sentences should run consecutively or concurrently, or the effect of
pre-trial detention: R v Meer, at paras 23-24.
[ 196] I have done that analysis and conclude that the global sentence of life is not unduly long
or harsh, and instead is appropriate, fit for this offender, and proportionate to his misconduct and
circumstances. In R v McDonald, 2015 ABCA 108, 599 AR 300, Fraser CJA and Watson JA at
para 54 explain this is another instance where a sentencing court considers the objectives of

Page: 39
rehabilitation and reintegration (Criminal Code, s 718(d)) and that detention is only appropriate
where necessary (Criminal Code, s 718.2(c)). As I have previously indicated, a lengthy sentence
is appropriate for Mr. Vader because of those two factors. As a consequence, no reduction in
sentence is necessary to avoid"... a cumulative sentence [that] might crush an offender's
prospects": R v McDonald, at para 54.
(197] Instead, Mr. Vader's release into the Canadian public is best assessed on an ongoing basis
by the Parole Board of Canada (subject to future findings on Mr. Vader's period of parole
ineligibility, if any).

VI.

Alleged Charter Breaches and Credit for Pre-Trial Detention

A.

Alleged Charter Breaches

[ 198] Just prior to commencement of the sentence hearing, Travis Vader brought an application
seeking either a reduced sentence or that he be released as a consequence of a number of alleged
Charter breaches relating to his post-arrest detention(s). Travis Vader took the stand for the first
time in this lengthy proceeding, and was then subjected to several days of cross-examination.
The Crown called the following response witnesses:

Cst. S. McQueen - RCMP

Cpl. R. Rohatyn - RCMP

Ms. M. Lopez - ERC nurse

Officer D. Benner - handler of drug search dog Grizz

Officer S. Gibney - ERC supervisor

Officer L. Veenstra - ERC search team commander

Mr. R. Zub - ERC case worker

[ 199] The party asserting a breach of the Charter has the onus to prove the allegation on a
balance of probabilities. As Cote JA observed in R v Biscette, 1995 ABCA 234 at para 4, 99
CCC (3d) 326, affirmed [1996) 3 SCR 599, 203 NR 244, " ... [T]he accused must adduce
evidence about the alleged Charter breach; he bears the onus of proof."
[200] My analysis of this application is somewhat abridged because of a common underlying
defect concerning that evidence requirement. Mr. Vader's application generally relied on the incourt viva voce evidence of Mr. Vader. As I now explain, Mr. Vader is not a credible witness,
and his evidence is generally unreliable.

1.

Travis Vader Does Not Tell the Truth

(201] The credibility ofTravis Vader and the reliability ofhis evidence has been a core issue
throughout this Charter application. He gave evidence, under oath, for the first time at the
sentence hearing in December. I have some general comments on his performance in the witness
box. In cross-examination, many of his answers were not responsive and rambling. He
sometimes responded with questions of his own, often to buy time while he thought up an
answer. He was argumentative and much of his evidence was contrived and designed to put
himself in the best possible light. He often exaggerated and embellished his testimony. He was
not an impressive witness.

Page:40
[202) One thing that has become very clear is that Travis Vader has no hesitation to say
whatever he thinks will gain him an advantage, or to get something that he wants. This is true in
his in-court testimony, in statements to the police, and Mr. Vader's day to day affairs.
[203] During sentencing, the Offender took the witness stand and provided evidence relating to
alleged breaches of his rights. Travis Vader made a number of statements that continue to
illustrate how Mr. Vader says whatever he thinks will bring him an advantage. Mr. Vader argued
at trial and continues to assert that he is uninvolved with drugs and drug trafficking. I concluded
the opposite. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Vader was cross-examined on his pleading guilty to
on December 12, 2011, possessing methamphetamine near Evansburg, Alberta. Mr. Vader
conceded the conviction, but then denied there was any methamphetamine in his vehicle.
Crown And there was a small amount of meth in the cup holder, I think 2.5 grams
or something like -- about that amount?
Vader I don't believe there was any meth in the cup holder, Mr. Finlayson.
Crown But you plead guilty to simple possession of meth?
Vader Yes.
[204] That claim is consistent with Mr. Vader's current narrative that he would have me believe
he has never been, and is not a drug user. I have no difficulty concluding that Mr. Vader's incourt statement on December 16, 2016, where he denied using methamphetamine both in the
Remand Centre and "on the outside" are false. In fact, Mr. Vader has been open about his drug
use to certain authorities. For example, Officer Veenstra reports that when on October 24, 2016,
he asked Travis Vader whether he uses drugs on "the inside" vs "the outside" and Mr. Vader
responded directly: when "on the outside" he uses methamphetamine.
[205] Following on this same theme, Mr. Vader gave implausible testimony in the sentencing
hearing when he was asked about drug culture and drug smuggling in the Edmonton Remand
Centre. After several inquiries from Crown counsel Mr. Vader stated:
I've never seen anybody smuggle drugs or weapons into the ERC. I've never been
a part of anybody smuggling weapons or drugs in the ERC. I have no knowledge
of anybody smuggling drugs or weapons into the ERC .... I imagine guys are
aware of it, but it's -- that's something I'm not part of.
[206] This comes from someone who provided extensive testimony about the individual
remand centre pods, observations about various particular remand centre staff, remand centre
technical terminology, procedures, and jargon, and about the hierarchy of those behind bars in
the old and new Edmonton Remand Centres. Mr. Vader testified that while in remand detention
he was a "cleaner", which Mr. Vader explained is not simply a detainee who cleans units, but
"cleaners" also assists in centre management, for example helping other inmates with remand
centre procedures, filling out forms, etc. "Cleaners" also facilitate detainee interactions with
guards.
[207] Yet, on the drug smuggling subject, Mr. Vader claims he does not have a clue. I am very
skeptical. I do stress this is a conclusion about his credibility rather than his drug use. I do not
conclude on the smuggling issue that I believe Mr. Vader was using drugs while in detention in
October 2016. He is merely lying about his knowledge of the presence of illegal drugs in the new
Edmonton Remand Centre.

Page:41
[208] I also made negative credibility findings against Mr. Vader when I evaluated his
statements to police: Vader #1 at paras 255-270. Travis Vader said he never had anything to do
with the McCanns or their property. During the first step of a R v W(D), [1991] I SCR 742 at
para 11, 63 CCC (3d) 397 analysis, I concluded the Crown's forensic evidence clearly
established that was not correct. Mr. Vader's statements of his non-involvement were obviously
false and I so found.
[209] In Vader #1 at paras 581-584, I reviewed text message records that indicate Mr. Vader
was far from honest with his various romantic interests, including the one he called his "hole
world" and to whom he said "you mean everything to me i didnt think i could love someone as
much as i love you".
[210] Mr. Vader exaggerates and embellishes narratives, again to his benefit. For example, one
facet of his complaint that he has received inappropriate treatment upon arrest is that he was
subjected to a strip search, on July 19, 2010. The search allegedly was staged in a manner that
was degrading and humiliating. He said the strip search"... was at least -- I'd say, to the best of
my knowledge, five minutes." He was "buck naked". Mr. Vader explained in answer to his
counsel Mr. Whitling how he was searched in a room where the door was open, and:
... I could see there were people walking up and down the hallway.... the cell door
to that holding cell was left open. It wasn't closed. Of course, when I was
arrested, and I assume because of media attention and stuff, it was a fairly big
thing in Edson. There was lots of -- it seemed like lots of -- there was lots more
people in the detachment than normal, it seemed like, and there was people
walking up and down the hall, there's people right by the phone booth -- I mean
officers, and, yeah, everybody could see.
[211] During cross-examination Crown counsel investigated this further:
Crown But the -- in the detachment, but as opposed to the room where the search
was conducted. Did -Vader The door was wide open to that room. Everybody could see in. It's right
by -- right across from where you book in.
Crown But it-- from where you were, you couldn't see anybody looking in the
room?
Vader Yes I could.
Crown And you were -- and the amount of time that you were naked was less than
30 seconds; is that fair to say?
Vader No, not at all.
Crown Okay.
Vader I was naked for quite a bit longer than that. I would say I was

completely naked for several minutes, up to five minutes. I was

stripped naked. And then another search was, like, of - my clothing
was searched.... I am naked at the time.

Page:42
[Emphasis added.]
[212] When the Crown suggested that the witness and the Court view recordings of the strip
search both Mr. Whitling and Mr. Vader then admitted in an Agreed Statement of Fact (Exhibit
S-12) that the search was actually only 35 seconds long, and that no one had passed by or looked
in the open cell door at any time. I am satisfied that Mr. Vader's under-oath narratives on this
subject, in both direct and cross-examination, are untrue in a number of respects.
[213] Another example of Mr. Vader's rewriting of history is his explanation of his arrest on
July 19, 2010. At this point, his suspected involvement in the McCanns disappearance was
public knowledge. Mr. Vader on the stand explained how he was not attempting to evade arrest,
but instead planned to tum himself in. Mr. Vader was ultimately located at the residence of
Donald "Donny" Bulmer, a person Mr. Vader described as a life-long friend. Mr. Vader, ever the
considerate fugitive, explained how he had only attended Mr. Bulmer's residence to have a
shower, as Mr. Vader was concerned that his close friend not be inconvenienced or get in
trouble.
I walked out of the [Bulmerresidence], realized that, like, the area was -- lights
were off. Neighbour's lights were off. Suspected that there's -- probably gonna
get arrested that night.
Okay. So I did not want to get Donnie Bulmer in trouble, shit, 'cause I was there
for -- taking a shower. And so Mr. Bulmer, not wanting to be in trouble, he got in
his vehicle and attempted to leave the property. There's no evidence whatsoever
that I jumped in that vehicle or jumped out of it. And I've seen the FLIR videos,
the infrared videos. You're going to have to -- so I wasn't in that vehicle. I was
off the fenceline, Donnie Bulmer's place, and Bob Barker's field. That's where I
was arrested.
... No, I didn't want [Donald Bulmer] in trouble. I knew that ifl was off his
property, that he'd be less likely to get in trouble.
[214] When the RCMP arrived, Mr. Vader testified he was in tall grass near the Bulmer
residence not because he was hiding, but rather because he was apprehensive he would be shot
and killed by law enforcement personnel:
Crown So as a result you were hiding in the grass?
Vader No, I was prone. And through the FUR video, again, Mr. Finlayson,
you'll see that did not move. I waited for them to come arrest me.
Crown But you were prone on the ground hoping they didn't spot you?
Vader Was on the ground so I wouldn't get shot.
[215] Again, I have no difficulty concluding the 'thoughtful fugitive' narrative is false. Mr.
Vader was attempting to avoid arrest. As I subsequently describe in more detail,
contemporaneous text communications among Mr. Vader's closest acquaintances reveal, at a
minimum, apprehension concerning Mr. Vader. I also conclude that Mr. Bulmer was very
fearful, if not terrified, of Mr. Vader at trial. As I previously observed, Mr. Vader spins his
narratives to an end that will only benefit him.

Page:43
[216] I am not the first judge who has heard testimony from Travis Vader and concluded he is
not a credible witness. In his November 8, 2016, decision Judge Higgerty received explanations
from Travis Vader on how Mr. Vader was unaware of weapons found in close proximity to Mr.
Vader in the pickup truck he was driving. It is worth quoting Judge Higgerty's commentary on
Mr. Vader's credibility in full because I make similar observations:
I caution myself as to demeanor, that Mr. Vader presented his evidence in a
rambling and disjoint manner. He appeared to want to tell me anything and
everything, weaving a story to convince me. And Mr. Vader, I just don't believe
you, and here is why.
Mr. Vader gives a bald allegation that he did not know that the machete and knife
were there. His evidence essentially is unsupported. He says the old truck is Ms.
SS's (anonymized), it just happened to be in his name, nothing to support that
proposition other than his own testimony.
He had worked extensively on the vehicle in the previous 24 or 48 hours on his
own testimony, but, evidently didn't see the machete and/or knife which were
more or less in plain view for anyone crawling around in the cab checking the
four-wheel drive on this what I will call wreck of a truck, to which Mr. Vader
testified that, indeed, he had been checking out at close proximity, the all-wheel
drive which is shown in the photographs, the all-wheel drive controls.
He says Ms. SS is an avid fisherman and that's why the knife was there. She is
not here to confirm that, and I do note that this was February, and they have only
had the vehicle a few days. According to Mr. Vader, there was a tackle box in the
rear seating area evidently unnoticed by the peace officers who, I am sure, would
be keen on finding anything else in the motor vehicle which might be
characterized as a weapon.
The filleting knife in February just happens to be within easy reach of the driver
instead of, what I would think would be the logical place, inside this alleged
tackle box.
According to Mr. Vader, Ms. SS uses the machete to break ice on the water
trough for her horses. Conveniently, Ms. SS is not present to indicate why she has
a machete [partially concealed under the driver's side floor mat] so soon after
purchase of the old truck, again, within easy reach of the driver.
A quick glance at a map of Alberta shows Mr. Vader and Ms. SS are at least 50
kilometers from where they were staying. He was driving an old truck newly
acquired and patched up by him. He's careening around on bald tires in the snow
and cold exhibiting bizarre behaviour. And I include in this the revving of the
engine as the police approached and failing to put his hands in a proper position
when confronted by police. And I receive no clear picture as to just what he was
doing out there in this poor condition truck, and I am left to surmise, was he
stargazing? What was he doing out there? I didn't receive any coherent answer.
I have not heard anything credible from him and easily come to the conclusion
that he was under the influence of some mood altering substance despite his

Page: 44
testimony otherwise. So I find he had knowledge and control over the knife and
machete.
(Crown sentencing brief, tab 24.)
[217] I am not relying on Judge Higgerty's conclusions on Mr. Vader's credibility, but simply
note his observations are very similar to my own. My negative assessment of Mr. Vader's
credibility also has a more general application when considering how to manage an offender with
his characteristics.
[218] I found that Travis Vader was not believable in Vader #1. I now confirm that Mr. Vader
lies when it suits him. He is not a credible witness, and his evidence is rarely reliable, and only in
instances where there is confirmatory independent evidence. I give his evidence minimal to no
weight.
2.

The "Unlawful Strip Search"

[219] The Charter application complains that:

The Applicant was subjected to an unlawful strip search at the time of his arrest in
July, 2010.
I dismissed this part of his application on January 3, 2017. These are my written reasons for that
disposition.
[220] The allegedly unlawful strip search occurred at the Edson RCMP detachment after Mr.
Vader was arrested and detained on July 19, 2010.
[221] In his closing arguments Mr. Whitling argued that the strip search breached three of the
guidelines identified in R v Golden, 2001 SCC 83 at para 101, [2001] 3 SCR 679, that a strip
search is to be conducted quickly, in a private area, and that the officers conducting the search
be of the same gender as Mr. Vader. Mr. Vader acknowledges the RCMP officers who conducted
the search were male, but says that female officers may have viewed the recordings of the search.
Mr. Vader argues his testimony on the "humiliating effect" of the search is "entirely reasonable
and believable".
(222] I have previously described Mr. Vader's testimony about this strip search and how he
said it was lengthy, humiliating and resulted in unnecessary persons observing Mr. Vader. The
strip search was recorded, and Mr. Vader testified he had watched those videos, they are "very
good quality" and show "[a]bsolutely everything." When asked how this made him feel, Mr.
Vader explained:
A strip search of that nature where you're stripped down naked, you're standing
here completely naked is humiliating, absolutely humiliating. I mean, there's
different ways to do it, and I know that, but that wasn't taken into any
consideration. Yeah, I still remember it today, standing here butt naked in front of
the world, basically, and being recorded. (December 13, 2016 sentencing
transcript, pp 8-9)
[223] Mr. Vader continues to complain that he was unable to contact a lawyer because of the
upset:"... I was traumatized by the strip search ...", and could not remember the name of his
lawyer.

Page:45
[224] During cross-examination, Mr. Vader confinned his statements were true, but when
confronted with a proposed viewing of the strip search recording, counsel for Mr. Vader instead
said Mr. Vader would agree to a statement of facts that the strip search was only 35 seconds
long, and no bystanders were watching through or passing the cell where the search was located.
In fact, no bystanders were watching through the open door, or even passing by the room where
the search was going on at 3:47 am. The door was slightly ajar for officer safety reasons
according to Cst. McQueen.
[225] The Defence in its written and oral arguments acknowledged that there was a legal basis
for the search. I agree, and also conclude that the RCMP acted reasonably when they conducted a
comprehensive and functional search of Mr. Vader's body and seized his clothing as an exhibit
related to the McCann disappearance. Travis Vader was a known drug user, trafficker and was
facing weapons charges. Police and detainee safety required a thorough search to ensure that
safety. Further, Travis Vader's clothing was being seized as a potential exhibit in a murder
investigation. The video shows Mr. Vader's clothes being placed, item by item, in a clear plastic
bag.
[226] Mr. Vader has acknowledged through his counsel that his in-court evidence was not
accurate. No one walked by or looked into the room where the search was being conducted. I
conclude this means the search was conducted in a Charter-compliant manner that assured Mr.
Vader's privacy to the maximum extent possible.
[227] After some discussion and dispute, the video was ultimately entered into evidence as
Exhibit S-24. I have reviewed the video record and confinn it is of good quality. I also confirm
that Mr. Vader's account is false. He was fully unclothed for no more than 35 seconds. At that
time, no one peered into the room where the strip search was conducted. The search was
necessary and was conducted in an appropriate and professional manner.
[228] Mr. Vader claims that he was humiliated by the strip search experience. There is no sign
of that in the video. He appears to be compliant; he is not agitated or resistant. There is no audio
track, but his facial expressions do not reveal that he is in any way angry or visibly upset.
Instead, he was cooperative and appears calm. I do not believe Mr. Vader's claim that he felt
humiliated at the time. This is just an after-the-fact contrivance to support his much delayed
complaint of a Charter breach. That said, I am not dismissing this aspect of his Charter
application for laches, although that issue was raised by me during argument.
[229] The Offender provided no evidence that anyone viewed the video recordings of Mr.
Vader's strip search in an inappropriate manner during the disclosure process.
[230] Finally, Mr. Vader argues that the strip search conducted on him on July 19, 2010, is
unlawful and a breach of his Charter rights on the basis that the strip search was video recorded.
I disagree. Recording this particular strip search was appropriate because accused persons and
offenders sometimes are less than candid or completely honest about what transpires while they
are detained by state actors. This is why police often video record steps such as Charter
warnings and interviews with accused persons, so that there is an impartial, objective record to
establish that an accused person's allegations of misconduct including illegal coercion, physical
abuse, and other wrongdoing do not tum into a 'he said she said' Charter application scenario.
[231] Mr. Vader illustrates this point. I have found that he has lied about what occurred during
the strip search. Fortunately, a video recording was made of the strip search which shows what

Page:46
actually happened. A step which pennits the Court to verify that Mr. Vader's Charter rights were
protected in an objective and definitive manner and cannot be a breach of his Charter rights.
[232] The fact that many encounters between law enforcement and the public now resemble a
' surveillance society' that would not be out of place in George Orwell's 1984 is a direct
consequence of the pressure created by criminal defence applications that demand this kind of
total transparency so as to verify respect for Charter rights. Accused persons cannot have it both
ways. They cannot on one hand complain that no record exists to show that their presumptive
rights were protected - so they must have been breached - then tum around and complain they
were recorded to illustrate that government actors operate in a Charter-compliant manner. They
wanted "Big Brother" to look after them, and now that is what they have. This is the standard
that accused persons have demanded - and now they have it.
(233] I conclude this aspect of the Charter application has no merit, was based on objectively
false testimony, and the best evidence record of the alleged Charter breach establishes the claim
as being frivolous. The Defence had no legitimate factual basis for this very late complaint and I
confirm its dismissal.

3.

Access to Counsel Denied

[234] Another late-breaking complaint by Mr. Vader is that he was denied access to counsel
and that his solicitor-client privilege was infringed by the RCMP on the morning of July 20,
2010, the second day of his detention in Edson. During his court testimony, Mr. Vader explained
that on July 20 shortly after 10:36 am, he was taken to a room where he encountered a lawyer,
Mr. Thomlinson, from the Northcott criminal defence law firm. Mr. Vader had previously
retained Mr. Thomlinson in relation to other criminal charges completely unrelated to the
investigation of the McCanns' disappearance. Mr. Thomlinson told Mr. Vader that he had come
to tell him he was no longer acting for him and that he was going off the record in the Provincial
Court on the other charges.
[235] Cst. McQueen confirms that Mr. Vader was upset during this short meeting with Mr.
Thomlinson. Cpl. Rohatyn, who was also present, confirmed that Mr. Vader was initially calm
but became more agitated during this short meeting with Mr. Thomlinson. He clenched his jaws
and his fists but never raised the McCann investigation by the RCMP or asked for advice from
Mr. Thomlinson on that subject.
[236] Mr. Vader insists that he wanted to talk to Mr. Thomlinson about his recent arrest and
obtain legal advice, but that Officers McQueen and Rohatyn remained in the meeting room. He
claims that Mr. Thomlinson looked stressed. Mr. Vader complains now that he was unable to
consult with Mr. Thomlinson in private about the police investigation of the missing McCanns.
(237] This, Mr. Whitling says, was a serious breach of Mr. Vader's Charter, s IO(b) right to
counsel. That said, Mr. Whitling acknowledges that Mr. Vader had by that point had a
reasonable opportunity to contact counsel of his choice, namely Mr. John Sinclair.
(238] Mr. Vader's recollection of the abortive Thomlinson advice session was given out of
context and is another exercise in historical revisionism. Appendix B provides a summary of
recorded interactions between Mr. Vader and the RCMP after his arrest. This discloses that Mr.
Vader was given every opportunity to engage with and obtain advice from the person Mr. Vader
identified as his preferred lawyer, John Sinclair.

Page:47
[239] Frankly, Mr. Vader's arrest is followed by a comedy of errors with the errors being
entirely caused by Travis Vader. Mr. Vader demands the RCMP connect him to a particular
lawyer, but he cannot remember that lawyer's name. This mystery defence lawyer was one
recommended by Mr. Vader's friend (and intimate: Vader #1, at para 555), Tannis Grant. Cpl.
Rohatyn and Cst. McQueen, in particular, do what they can to facilitate Mr. Vader's unfocussed
request. After abortive attempts to contact a "John Taylor'', then a "John Standick", efforts to
obtain the mystery lawyer's name from Ms. Grant, Mr. Vader eventually identified the Sinclair
Law Office as his preferred source for legal advice, and ultimately at approximately 10:20 am on
July 19 made contact with lawyer John Sinclair. Mr. Vader agreed that he had spoken to John
Sinclair and received legal advice, and that he understood that advice. At 10:28 am on July 19,
Travis Vader had confirmed that all his calls to his lawyer were complete. (see Appendix 8).
[240] Mr. Thomlinson enters the fray mid-morning on the following day, July 20, 2010, almost
24 hours after Mr. Vader had finally made contact with his new preferred counsel, John Sinclair.
I received evidence which I accept that Mr. Thomlinson at this point was unaware of Mr.
Vader's detention. Mr. Vader had obviously not chosen to seek advice from Mr. Thomlinson in
respect to the McCann investigation. Travis Vader preferred John Taylor/Standick/Sinclair. Mr.
Thomlinson was in the process ofremoving himself as Mr. Vader's representative in other
ongoing criminal litigation against Travis Vader. During that application before Provincial Court
Judge Norheim at the Edson Courthouse, Mr. Thomlinson learned Mr. Vader was being detained
at the local RCMP detachment, and Mr. Thomlinson was instructed by Judge Norheim to tell his
ex-client that he was no longer acting for him.
[241] Mr. Thomlinson followed that direction, reported to the Edson RCMP detachment; the
RCMP permitted Mr. Thomlinson a supervised meeting with his now ex-client Travis Vader, and
Mr. Vader was informed by Mr. Thomlinson that he was no longer acting for him and he was
going off the record. Mr. Vader had not asked for his attendance and was not aware of his
presence until the police took him to a meeting room.
[242] I find as fact that there was no solicitor-client privilege in play because there was at this
point no longer any solicitor-client relationship between Mr. Vader and Mr. Thomlinson.
Further, Mr. Thomlinson's news for Mr. Vader was itself not privileged information. The RCMP
did not therefore intrude in an unlawful manner when they were present at the short July 20,
201 0, Thomlinson/Vader meeting.
[243] Further, I find as fact that Mr. Vader's narrative of his wants and desires when he found
himself unexpectedly in a room with Mr. Thomlinson in the presence ofCst. McQueen and Cpl.
Rohatyn are highly embellished and intended to create the impression of a Charter breach. Mr.
Vader did not want to speak to Mr. Thomlinson about his involvement in the Mccann
investigation and did not ask for legal advice on that subject from Mr. Thomlinson. He had quite
obviously selected someone else for that role, namely the lawyer John Sinclair.
[244] I dismiss the application alleging that Mr. Vader's Charter, s lO(b) rights and solicitorclient privilege were breached by the RCMP in preventing Mr. Vader from consulting with Mr.
Thomlinson. The Defence has not proven a breach of his Charter right to a balance of
probabilities. The record, as reflected in the summary of events attached as Appendix B, clearly
establishes the opposite: the RCMP took exhaustive steps to ensure Mr. Vader's Charter right to
seek legal advice from a lawyer was satisfied.

Page:48

4.

Alleged Harsh Conditions of Detention

[245] Mr. Vader also makes an assortment of allegations concerning the conditions he
experienced while being detained in Alberta remand centres between July 20, 2010, and the
current date. All of these complaints have the same issue as Mr. Vader's strip search complaint.
Namely, they are based on his evidence as a non-credible witness, namely Mr. Vader. I have
catalogued these complaints and will deal with them in the following order: (a) shit bombings,
(b) and (c) excessive force incidents on October 26, 2010, and January 9 +- 2011, (d) triple
bunking and excessive lockdowns; and (e) dry celling.

a.

Shit Bombing

(246] Mr. Vader complains that he was "shit bombed" shortly after his 2010 arrest while at the
old Edmonton Remand Centre. "Shit bombing" is a practice of certain inmates to harass others
where an enclosed container such as rolled up newspaper, a bag, or a bottle is filled with feces,
then placed beside the gap under a door, and the container is compressed, ejecting its contents
under the door and into another space, i.e. the target cell. Shit bombing clearly does occur, as
was confirmed by Crown rebuttal witnesses Officers Gibney and Zub.
(247] Mr. Vader's narrative is that after he was arrested for the McCanns disappearances he
was targeted in the old Edmonton Remand Centre for "shit bombing" because the guards would
incite other inmates, for example, by loud inquiries "Where's the bodies Vader? Where' s the
bodies? What did you do with them? What did you do?" This would get the other inmates "riled
up, wound up." It was after this that Mr. Vader says he was "shit bombed" on a number of
occasions. Mr. Vader says he was forced to clean up the resulting mess without adequate
protection or proper materials. He then had to live with his contaminated clothing and bedding.
Ultimately, Mr. Vader deployed a "shit dam", a towel at the door bottom to block the "shit
bombing". This allegedly escalated the "shit bombing" - unnamed "shit bombers" placed feces in
a shampoo bottle and used that to "shit bomb" Mr. Vader through the crack in the cell door.
[248] The Crown acknowledges that two "shit bombing" incidents did occur, but challenges
Mr. Vader's account of what followed, that he was the one who cleaned up the aftermath, and his
being forced to live in soiled clothing and a contaminated cell.
(249] Officers Gibney and Zub described the standard procedure followed when a "shit
bombing" occurs: the target is removed from the cell, showered, given clean clothing, while staff
clean up the contaminated area. This does not accord with what Mr. Vader reports. Officers
Gibney and Zub also testified as to how "shit bombing" affects an entire pod due to the resulting
smell, which makes these "shit bombers" unpopular with the entire centre population, both staff
and prisoners.
[250] I accept that Mr. Vader was the target of"shit bombing". However, his description of
how he was treated in the aftermath of those incidents is not credible. It instead follows Mr.
Vader's pattern of exaggeration and falsehoods to meet his objectives, in this case, a reduced
sentence.

b.
Alleged Application of Excessive Force- October 26, 2010,
Incident
[251] There was a great deal of evidence given about this incident by Travis Vader. His version
is that he was taken down and beaten by guards because he had failed to obey an order to move
along in a timely way to a CCTV court appearance. There is video evidence that he was on the

Page:49
floor surrounded and restrained by guards on October 26, 2010. Travis Vader claims his face was
scraped when his face was ground into the floor covering. He says his wrist circulation was cut
off by handcuffs and that he was beaten black and blue over his entire body by the guards.
[252] Mr. Vader's problem is that his story is not believable. There is no independent evidence
to confirm that he suffered a severe beating with resulting bruising from head to toe. The video
does not show that happening. There is no contemporaneous complaint by him that this
happened. There is some evidence that he received a minor abrasion to his cheek which did not
even require a band aid. There is also evidence that his circulation was restricted but it promptly
returned to normal once the handcuffs were removed. There is no medical record of extensive
bruising.
[253] There is also evidence that Mr. Vader counselled a fellow inmate, one Mr. GallagherSkinner ("Mr. Gallagher"), to provide a version of the events which Mr. Vader had authored. He
had prepared a handwritten script for Mr. Gallagher to use at a disciplinary hearing involving
Mr. Vader on a charge of failing to follow a directive from a guard. In cross-examination, Mr.
Vader tried to deny that he had written the script for Mr. Gallagher and the Court was assured
that all would be revealed and confirmed when Mr. Gallagher appeared as his witness, on the
afternoon of December 19, 2016. Mr. Gallagher had been asked to come to Court to give
evidence for Mr. Vader about this incident. When the time came, Mr. Gallagher was not called
by the Offender. I understand that Mr. Gallagher had come to Court for the purpose of giving
evidence. Accordingly, I draw an adverse inference from the failure of the Offender to call Mr.
Gallagher when he was available to give evidence, and where the Offender said he would be
called to present specific evidence. This is yet another piece of evidence which leads me to
conclude that the incident on October 26, 2010, did not happen as described by Mr. Vader and
that he lied to me about what happened on that day. It is possible some force may have been
applied to put Mr. Vader on the floor but he may have gotten down on his own, too. There is no
evidence before me that whatever force was involved was excessive. This claim is not made out
to the extent it would justify or form the basis for a Charter remedy or a reduction in sentence
beyond what the law provides in the normal course.

c.
Alleged Application of Excessive Force - January 9+-, 2011
Incident
[254] Mr. Vader claims that excessive force was used to extract him from his cell in the
aftermath of a mini riot in his cell block when two other inmates attempted to take over the
security kiosk. He claims his right wrist was twisted by a guard and he heard it "crack", resulting
in a broken wrist, which swelled up and was covered with pus. He later withdrew the assertion of
an open wound oozing pus. The alleged application of excessive force and the resulting injury is
completely dependent on Mr. Vader's version of events. The date is uncertain and there is only a
newspaper article to confirm that the mini riot happened. There are no contemporaneous records
of a complaint by Mr. Vader or a request for medical attention to deal with his broken wrist. This
is surprising given how vigilant Mr. Vader was in asserting his rights and complaining of abuse.
Indeed, there is no independent medical evidence to confirm that his wrist was ever broken while
he was in any Alberta Remand Centre. I conclude that there is insufficient credible evidence
proffered by Mr. Vader to support his claim of application of excessive force and resulting
broken wrist injury. Mr. Vader has failed to prove this claim to a balance of probabilities and it is
rejected.

Page:50

d.

Triple Bunking and Excessive Lockdowns

[255] I accept that for some part of 2012 and 2013, Travis Vader was subjected to triple
bunking in the old Edmonton Remand Centre. He spent much of this period from late December
2011 to the spring of 2013, in either the Red Deer Remand Centre (thanks to a recommendation
from Veit J) or the old Edmonton Remand Centre. It is conceded that the old Edmonton Remand
Centre was very overcrowded and that triple bunking was common. I acknowledge the hardship
suffered by Mr. Vader in that regard and some credit will be given in the calculation of time
which should be credited for a reduced sentence.

e.

Dry Celling

[256] Mr. Vader complained about being put in a "dry cell" as a result of drug detection which
happened in late October 2016. This resulted in Mr. Vader being put in a small cell with no toilet
facility for 72 hours while the authorities checked on his bowel movements to determine ifhe
was passing any drugs hidden in a " Kinder egg" or some other such container. While this may
have been a very unpleasant experience for Mr. Vader, it appears that there was good reason for
the Remand Centre authorities to employ this technique to discover drugs which they suspected
were hidden inside him. The drug suspected was methamphetamine and some drug had been
detected in or on his body by drug-search dog Grizz. Upon all of these facts coming out at the
sentence hearing, counsel for the Offender appeared to back away from this complaint. In any
event, this experience by Mr. Vader was self-inflicted and does not provide a satisfactory basis
for any reduction in sentence nor can it be construed as an instance of cruel and unusual
punishment and a basis for finding a Charter breach.
[257] These are Mr. Vader's main complaints. The fact is life in the Edmonton Remand Centre
is life in prison and is not pleasant. That is why sentence reduction credits are given. Some are
provided by statute; others are recognized by judges in sentencing. I deal with the reduction of
sentence credits below. I also note Travis Vader included many of these claims in a civil action
and that is where they should be dealt with rather than using the scarce resources of criminal
courts.

5.

Summary

(258] Mr. Vader's Charter applications are dismissed. It follows that there is no basis for
granting a stay of proceedings. The evidence advanced on these motions came nowhere near
satisfying the "clearest of case" test for a stay.

B.

Credit for Pre-trial Detention

1.

Introduction

[259] Given my decision to impose a sentence of life imprisonment on Mr. Vader, it is not
technically necessary to determine a credit for time in pre-trial custody. However, since it is
possible that a discrete sentence of a specific number of years may be ordered on an appeal, I
will express my views on this issue.

2.

Offender's Position

[260] Ultimately, the Offender requested a total credit for sentence reduction purposes of 2,683
days. This is based on calculations contained in the Defence Supplemental Submission on
Sentencing, Exhibits S-26 and S-27.

Page:51
[261] The calculation in Exhibit S-26 commences with the date of December 22, 2011 and the
credits claimed therein totals 2,380 days. In Exhibit S-27, (an email from Mr. Whitling to me
dated January 9, 2017), an additional credit is claimed in the amount of 303 days for the period
July 19, 2010 to October 26, 2010 (101 days) based on a ratio of 3:1. This results in an overall
total of (2,380 days+ 303 days) 2,683 days of credit claimed by the Offender, which in tum
equates to 383 weeks or 7.36 years, rounded by me to 7 years, 4 months.
[262] Exhibit S-26 contains an extract from the Defence Submission from Mr. Vader's Pre-trial
Stay Application. Exhibit S-26 also carries forward the credits claimed to January 4, 2017. Mr.
Vader is being sentenced on January 25, 2017 and has been in the Edmonton Remand Centre
since January 4. Accordingly, a further 2 I days of credit should be taken into account at 1.5: I
yielding a credit of 30 days or one month. In the result, I acknowledge the Offender is asking for
a credit of seven years, five months, for pre-trial detention.
3.

Crown Position

[263] The Crown's Sentencing brief dated December 2, 20 I 6, sets out the periods to be taken
into account for credit purposes at paras 68-73 inclusive. That material is supplemented by a
letter dated January 9, 2017, from Mr. Finlayson, QC, addressed to me and entered as Exhibit S28. The bottom-line position of the Crown is that it is agreeable to the Court granting 1,747 days
or 4 years, 9.5 months of credit to Mr. Vader's for his time in pre-trial custody.

4.

Analysis

[264] There are a number of disputed areas of credit, which I will now resolve.
(265] In Exhibit S-27, the Offender asked for 303 days of credit for the period between July 19
to October 26, 2010. The Crown responds in Exhibit S-28 and points out that this period has
already been fully credited to Mr. Vader by Provincial Court Judge 8. Fraser in his sentencing on
December 12, 2011, and Provincial Court Judge E. Walter in his November 4, 2010, sentencing.
The Crown argues that these two judges put their minds to an appropriate credit of 1: 1 as
opposed to the 3:1 credit, which the Offender seeks now. After review, I conclude that this
period of 101 days has already been fully credited to Mr. Vader. It is resjudicata and this claim
for additional credit is specifically rejected on those grounds.
[266] The Offender asks for 3: 1 credit for time spent in the old Edmonton Remand Centre
during the period December 22, 2011 to February 28, 2013. This is based on harsh conditions
experienced by the Offender, including triple bunking, extra time in lock down, unpleasant time
in holding tanks while being transferred to multiple Court appearances and also to and from the
Red Deer Remand, etc. Based upon my review of Exhibit S-26, the claimed credit amounts to
196 days which when multiplied by three equals a claimed credit of 588 days. The Crown
responds on Exhibit S-28, p 2, that Mr. Vader should only be given a 2: 1 credit for these 196
days resulting in a 392-day credit. The Crown argues that Mr. Vader should not get the 3:1 credit
as he has failed to establish how many days he was actually in a triple bunking cell and notes that
measures were taken by the Edmonton Remand Centre management to rotate people. The Crown
says the conditions were not as harsh as those alleged by Mr. Vader.
[267] However, on this issue, I do find in favour of Mr. Vader and award the 3:1 credit for
these I 96 days, which equates to 28 weeks or roughly 6.5 months of extra credit. I adopt the
approach taken by Veit Jin her December 22, 2011, sentencing of Mr. Vader. I also note that the
conditions in 2012/13 in the old Edmonton Remand Centre were even more harsh than the

Page:52
timeframe which was under consideration by Veit J between October 26, 2010 to December 21,
2011. Triple bunking, and additional lock downs, and being held in protective custody, are a
basis for justifying this additional credit in favor of Mr. Vader. In the result, Mr. Vader should be
credited for these additional 28 weeks or 6.5 months.
[268] The Crown argues that during the period between March 14, 2014 (date of stay of
proceedings) to October 18, 2014 (acquittal ofTravis Vader by Moen, J) Mr. Vader should get
no credit for this period because he was in custody on other charges during that timeframe, a
situation that was addressed by Gates Jon May 16, 2014, when he denied Mr. Vader release on
those other charges, noting that the denial of release had nothing to do with the McCann charges
which had been stayed and everything to do with Mr. Vader's non-compliance with various court
orders and his numerous failures to attend court. Counsel for the Offender claims a credit of203
days of custody during this period at the ratio of 1.5: 1 or 305 days. I agree with the Crown that
there is no valid reason given why Mr. Vader should get any credit for this period. That claim is
denied.
[269] The next period in dispute runs from December 23, 2014 to January 7, 2016 On
December 23, 2014, Mr. Vader was granted bail on strict conditions. Counsel for the Offender
calculates this period to be 504 days in length and claims a credit on the basis of 1:0.5 for a
credit of252 days. Apparently, a reduced credit is accepted because Mr. Vader has spent an
additional 227 days in detention on new charges during this period. The Crown acknowledges
that Mr. Vader was on strict bail conditions after being released on December 23, 2014. The
Crown suggests a credit of 4 months or 120 days (except for the period of house arrest from
December 23, 2014 through to February 12, 2015 when an electronic monitoring was granted by
consent by Ouellette J). The Crown notes that the wearing of an ankle bracelet allowed Mr.
Vader considerable freedom on release including the prospect of obtaining employment outside
of Edmonton. He did obtain such employment on a farm. I agree with the Crown and identify
120 days or 4 months credit as against the 252 days of credit sought by the Offender. I
understand that this credit of four months is already built in to the Crown's total credit figure of
1,747 days.
[270] When all is said and done, the Crown base credit conceded by the Crown is 4 years and
9.5 months of credit. I add the 6.5 months of credit for the period in 2012/13 when Mr. Vader
was spending part of his time in the old Edmonton Remand Centre, plus one month for January
2017. I add this 7.5 months of credit to the Crown base period of 4 years, 9 .5 months, resulting in
a sentence reduction credit of 5 years, 5 months. That is the sentence reduction credit awarded to
Mr. Vader.

VII.

Conclusion and Sentence

[271] On the two convictions for manslaughter in the unlawful killings of Lyle and Marie
Mccann on July 3, 2010, at or near Peers Alberta, I sentence Travis Edward Vader to a single
term oflife imprisonment. All Ancillary orders and any remaining issues will be dealt with
following the formal imposition of this life sentence on January 25, 2017.
Heard on the l25 t to 16th, 19th and 20th days of December, 2016, and the 3nl and 4h days of
January, 2017.

Page:53
Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 25th day of January, 2017.

D.R.G. Thomas
J.C.Q.B.A.
Appearances:
Mr. Brian A. Beresh, Q.C.
Mr. Nathan Whitling, and
Ms. Stacey Purser
(Beresh Cunningham Aloneissi O'Neill Hurley)
for the Offender (Applicant)
Mr. Ashley Finlayson, Q.C.,
Mr. Jim Stewart, and
Ms. Eman J oumaa
(Crown Prosecutors - Specialized Prosecutions Branch)
for the Crown (Respondent)

Page:54

Appendix A. Summary of Victim Impact Statements

Nicole Walshe. the granddaughter of Lyle and Marie Mccann
In her statement, Ms. Walshe described the terrible feeling she experienced when her
mother called to say that her grandparents were missing. Since that day Ms. Walshe
panics whenever she receives an unusual phone call late at night. One of the significant
impacts Ms. Walshe has suffered from her grandparents' killing is "horrific anxiety" that
her own daughters will go missing. If she loses sight of her daughters even for a short
period, she is immediately thrown into panic. She has a deep-seated fear that a similar
tragedy might befall another loved one.
These events have altered Ms Walshe's view of other people: rather than looking for the
good in others, Ms. Walshe says that she now lives "knowing there are truly evil people
in the world". She worries for her family and community.
Finally, Ms. Walshe wrote of her deep sadness that her grandmother did not live to see
Ms. Walshe become a mother, and that her children will never know their greatgrandparents.
Casey Walshe, the husband of Nicole Walshe
Mr. Walshe wrote of the deep impact the McCanns' killing had on himself and his
family. He detailed the six-year long ordeal the family went through, "filled with
hundreds of unanswered questions, disbelief, anger, hurt, anxiety and a great deal of
sadness ...". He mourned the loss of opportunity for his daughters to meet their greatgrandparents, and the fact that he and his wife will not be able to share the joy of their
new family with Lyle and Marie McCann. He dreads having to someday explain to his
children what happened to their great-grandparents.
These events have created a "huge fear of loss" for Mr. Walshe, and he feels that the
killings have unfortunately made him less inclined to help others. Mr. Walshe reflected
on the great loss his family and community suffered with the death of the McCanns.
Russell Mccann. Lyle and Marie McCann's grandson
In his statement, Mr. McCann recalled many fond memories of time spent with his
grandparents, including cribbage games, enjoying his grandmother's cooking, walking
their dog together, and going on fishing trips to Ghost Lake. He remembers his
grandparents as "nothing but loving, generous, selfless, kind, thoughtful, caring, perfect
people". He wrote of the couple's evident deep love for each other.

Mr. Mccann was only 14 years old when his grandparents disappeared. He described the
loss of a sense of security that resulted from Mr. Vader killing his grandparents. He now
fears the worst if family members are late or don't show up for events.
Mr. Mccann wrote that he will never forget his grandparents, but wishes he had the
chance to learn more about the world from them, and that he could talk to them one last
time.

Page:55

Bryan Jahraus, eldest neohew of Lyle and Marie McCann

Mr. Jahraus' statement recalled the McCanns as loveable, giving, family-focused, and
hardworking individuals. He wrote of the "huge void" that their deaths have left in the
family. From the absence of Marie McCann's laughter, to the loss of Lyle McCann's
vivid stories and words of guidance, he is constantly reminded of the impacts of this
crime. Mr. Vader took away opportunities, experiences and memories from numerous
family members and friends. This event has affected the lives of many.
Kelly Lee Carrol, niece of Lyle and Marie McCann
Ms. Carrol read her victim impact statement in court. She reflected on the close bonds
between sisters, her observations of the sisterly love between Ms. Carrol's mother, Alice,
and Marie McCann, and how this loss affected Alice. Alice was 73 years old when this
tragedy occurred. Ms. Carrol said, "[i]t stood out to me that this act of Travis Vader
taking the life of my Aunt Marie ended in an instant what was over 70 years in the
making". Ms. Carrol watched her mother endure the grief oflosing her sibling: initial
shock and panic; anxiety and fear; then a deep sense ofloss and periods of depression.
Losing Marie Mccann left an irreplaceable void in Alice's life. Ms. Carrol observed that
the heartbreak her mother experienced has, to a large extent, also taken away the mother
that she knew.
Ms. Carrol also spoke about the devastating impact of the McCanns' disappearance and
death on the entire family. She described the turmoil the family went through, from worry
and hope to great sorrow and pain. The question of why this happened continues to
plague Ms. Carrol. She remembers her aunt and uncle as truly good people who were
positive role models for those around them. Mr. Vader robbed family and friends of two
individuals who were very much admired and loved. The wounds have forever changed
all those affected.
Maxine Aab. Lyle McCann's sister
In Ms. Aab's victim impact statement, she wrote about how devastated she was by the
deaths of her brother and sister-in law. She recalled that since the loss of Lyle and Marie
Mccann, she finds it very difficult when other relatives travel. When one of her brothers
and his wife went on vacation in a motorhome, she became distraught and was terrified
that she would not see them again. The killing of her brother and sister-in-law has had a
profound impact on her, and she has suffered significant mental and emotional stress. For
a long period, she had difficulty sleeping, and even now she has disturbing dreams. The
question of why such a terrible thing happened to such a wonderful couple is now the
focus of discussion when she gets together with her remaining siblings.
Marv-Ann Mccann. daughter-in-law to Lyle and Marie Mccann

Page:56
Ms. McCann read her victim impact statement in court. She spoke of the great influence
Lyle and Marie had on her life. She recalled the great love and respect Lyle and Marie
had for one another, and the model they set for her own marriage.
Ms. McCann spoke of how much she misses her father-in-law's patience and kindness.
She mourns the loss of the confidante she had in Marie McCann, and misses laughing,
talking, and spending time with her. She regrets that the great-grandchildren of the family
will never have the benefit of Lyle and Marie McCann's wisdom, gentleness, and
unconditional love.
Bretton McCann, son of Lyle and Marie McCann
Mr. McCann read his victim impact statement to the Court. He included a 2008
photograph of his parents with their first great-grandchild, as well as a picture of two
more great-grandchildren who were born after the McCanns' disappearance. Mr. McCann
spoke of his sorrow that his parents did not live to enjoy the company of their greatgrandchildren, and fully enjoy their remaining years.
Mr. McCann told the Court that his parents were married in 1952. They were "kindred
spirits" and had a long, happy life together, but this was sadly cut short. Mr. Mccann
misses his parents and thinks of them constantly. He is often reminded of their deaths.
Envisioning his parents' deaths haunts him; he imagines Mr. Vader killing one of his
parents first while the other watched.
Mr. McCann went on to describe the family's ordeal searching for his parents after they
went missing, and expressed his desire for his parents' remains to be located and properly
buried. Since his parents disappeared, Mr. McCann has experienced anxiety when his
family members travel.
In closing, Mr. Mccann summed up the effect of this tragedy: "our loss is huge ... [o]ur
pain is everlasting".
Lance McCann, son of Lyle and Marie Mccann
Mr. McCann provided a written victim impact statement which the Court reviewed, but
asked that his statement not be read aloud in court.
Trudy Holder, daughter of Lyle and Marie McCann
Ms. Holder provided a written victim impact statement which the Court reviewed, but
asked that her statement not be read aloud in court.

Page:57

Appendix B. Summary of Recordings and Timeline at Edson RCMP Detachment, July 1920, 2010
Tab 1 in Exhibit SS:
Start time: 02:43 July 19, 2010. Location: MacKay Hall on Alberta Highway 751
Corporal (Cpl.) Rohatyn and Constable (Cst.) McQueen informed Travis Vader that they
were recording all interactions with him. Cst. McQueen informed Travis Vader that he
was under arrest for outstanding warrants and that he was also under investigation for the
murders of the McCanns.
Travis Vader denied any involvement with the McCanns and said that he was not in that
area.
Cst. McQueen informed Travis Vader of his rights, including his right to counsel, and
indicated the police would help him contact counsel. Travis Vader indicated that he
understood and wanted to call counsel.
Cst. McQueen told Travis Vader that they were taking him to the Edson detachment.
They left MacKay Hall for this detachment at 02:54. Travis Vader complained about
unrelated shoulder pain during this interaction and the officers attempted to accommodate
him.
The officers and Travis Vader arrived at the Edson detachment at 03:40. Travis Vader
was searched beginning at 03:47 including a search involving the removal of his clothes.
Travis Vader's clothes were seized and he was provided with new clothes.
After Travis Vader confirmed his personal information with the police, he was taken to
the Edson cellblock phone room (03:55). Travis Vader indicated that he had a specific
lawyer in mind. Cst. McQueen told Travis Vader that he would dial the number and then
leave Mr. Vader to talk privately to his counsel. Travis Vader verified that he understood
this process.
Travis Vader could not remember the name of the lawyer he wanted to speak to and
could not initially find the right name in the phone book. At first, Mr. Vader thought the
lawyer's name was John Taylor, but when he could not find a lawyer by that name he
began searching for the name John Stadnick. The police attempted to assist Travis Vader
in this search until 04: 19 when they took him to be photographed and to go through the
regular booking procedures.
Between 04:20 and 04:30 Travis Vader was photographed, fingerprinted, and answered
questions about his medical history. During this conversation he denied drug use.
At 04:33, Travis Vader was put back in the phone room and the police continued
attempting to assist him in finding counsel.
Shortly after 04:37, Travis Vader began to think and then insist that the lawyer's name
was actually John Sinclair. As Travis Vader could not get through to John Sinclair and

Page:S8
would not talk to any other counsel, the police took Mr. Vader to his cellblock at about
04:40. Travis Vader was placed in his cell at 04:45, and the recording ended at 04:47.
Tab 2 in Exhibit SS:
At 06:10 on July 19, 2010, Cst. McQueen brought Travis Vader back to the phone room
to attempt to contact counsel. Cst. McQueen also reminded Mr. Vader that everything
was being recorded in respect to the efforts to contact counsel.
Travis Vader attempted unsuccessfully to call Tannis (a friend who allegedly had set up a
meeting for Mr. Vader with a lawyer) so that she could give him the lawyer's contact
information.
Cst. McQueen informed Mr. Vader that the police wanted to facilitate his right to talk to a
lawyer quickly. Travis Vader responded by reiterating that he wanted to talk to John
Sinclair. Mr. Vader also indicated that he would wait to talk to John Sinclair.
Cst. McQueen put Travis Vader back in his cell at 06:20.
Tab 3 in Exhibit SS:
At 07:2S on July 19, 2010, Cst. McQueen retrieved Travis Vader from cells so that he
could attempt to contact counsel.
In an attempt to contact Tannis, Cst. McQueen called an incorrect number and Mr. Vader
left a message. At 07:34 Cst. McQueen tried the Sinclair Law Office on behalf of Mr.
Vader and discovered from the answering machine that the firm office opened at 08:30.
Cst. McQueen and Travis Vader agreed to try the Sinclair Law Office number again
sometime after 08:30. Travis Vader was then put in his cell (07:38).
Tab 4 in Exhibit SS:
At 09:06 on July 19, 2010, Cst. McQueen retrieved Travis Vader for the purpose of
enabling Mr. Vader to talk to John Sinclair. Cst. McQueen again reminded Mr. Vader
that the recording device was on.
Travis Vader was taken to the phone room at 09:08 where he unsuccessfully attempted to
contact Tannis.
Cst. McQueen successfully phoned the Sinclair Law Office at 09:11, turned the phone
over to Travis Vader, and then left the room so that the recording device was outside the
room. The door was closed. Cst. McQueen could see Travis Vader talking to someone,
but could not hear what was said, and nothing was recorded.
At 09: 16, Travis Vader knocked on the door and told Cst. McQueen that he had to urinate
and then call his lawyer back in S minutes. After urinating, Mr. Vader unsuccessfully
attempted to call back John Sinclair. This discussion was not recorded.
Travis Vader then began asking Cst. McQueen about the process for the investigation of
the Mccann murders. Cst. McQueen indicated that it was his job to read Mr. Vader his

Page:59
rights and enable him to speak to a lawyer. Cst. McQueen also told Mr. Vader that other
officers would answer this question at a later point.
Travis Vader attempted unsuccessfully to contact counsel twice (09:24 and 09:27). Cst.
McQueen successfully got Mr. Vader in contact with the Sinclair Law Office at 09:29
and then Cst. McQueen left the room so that he would not hear the conversation, and no
conversations between Travis Vader and his lawyer were recorded.
After Travis Vader hung up the phone at 09:30, Cst. McQueen entered the room. Mr.
Vader indicated that the office would try to get in touch with John Sinclair.
Travis Vader then attempted unsuccessfully to call John Sinclair at 09:33, 09:34, and
09:40. In response to these failed attempts, Cst. McQueen suggested leaving a message
with the office requesting that John Sinclair call Travis Vader back at the detachment as
soon as possible. Travis Vader tried phoning John Sinclair one more time before leaving
a message asking Mr. Sinclair's office to have him call the Edson detachment.
After verifying that Travis Vader had left a message at 09:56, the police placed him back
in cells.
Tab 5 in Exhibit S5:
At 10:00 on July 19, 2010, Cst. McQueen received a message that John Sinclair was on
the phone for Travis Vader. After retrieving Mr. Vader, Cst. McQueen attempted to call
back John Sinclair. Eventually (10: 10) Cst. McQueen got John Sinclair on the phone and
talking to Travis Vader in a private room (Cst. McQueen indicated that he could not hear
anything, and nothing was recorded.)
Cst. McQueen entered the room again at 10:20 after observing Travis Vader put down the
phone. Travis Vader confirmed that he talked to counsel, understood counsel's

advice, and that counsel told him to talk to the legal assistant.
Cst. McQueen and an unidentified female officer agreed to let Travis Vader contact the
legal assistant even though they both commented that they did not have to let him talk to
the assistant.
At 10:25, Cst. McQueen confinned on his recording device that he called John Sinclair's
office, gave the phone to Travis Vader, and then left so he could not hear what Mr. Vader
was saying, and nothing was recorded.
Travis Vader hung up the phone at 10:28, confinned that all calls were complete, and was
back in his cell at 10:29.
Tab 6 in Exhibit SS:
Cst. McQueen resumed recording at 21 :05 on July 19, 2010, in order to record Travis
Vader being taken to his bail hearing. As Travis Vader indicated that he wanted to speak
to his lawyer about the bail hearing, Cst. McQueen took him to the phone room. Mr.
Vader then expressed anger because the police would not let him dial the phone number
and would not let him call his family or friends.

Page:60
While the police were unable to contact John Sinclair, at 21 : l S Cst. McQueen was able to
contact John Sinclair's articling student, Shawn King. Cst. McQueen verified that the
individual on the phone was Shawn King and then left the room, and nothing was
recorded. Cst. McQueen expressly stated that he observed Mr. Vader talking on the
phone and could not hear the conversation; nothing was recorded.
Travis Vader hung up the phone at 21 :20 and indicated that he wanted to call John
Sinclair's cell phone. He also stated that he wanted to see the paperwork in relation to the
matters facing him. Cst. McQueen indicated that he would get the paperwork.
At 21 :25, Cst. McQueen successfully contacted John Sinclair and then left the room with
his recorder to allow Travis Vader complete privacy. Mr. Vader hung up the phone and
confirmed that he had had a chance to speak to his lawyer at 21 :32. Travis Vader was
then placed back in cells at 21 :33.
Tab 7 in Exhibit SS:
Cst. McQueen retrieved Travis Vader from the cells with Cpl. Rohatyn and Cst.
Gottschalk at 23:19 on July 19, 2010. Travis Vader was taken to the hearing office
portion of the detachment for his bail hearing.
Mr. Vader complained about being handcuffed for the bail hearing.
Cpl. Rohatyn indicated to Travis Vader that his lawyer was being contacted. Mr. Vader
responded by saying that there would be no lawyer representing him because they were
"putting this ofr'. Mr. Vader then complained that the police had not provided him with
information on his warrants or on the bail hearing. Cst. McQueen responded by getting
some of this paperwork, and Cpl. Rohatyn informed Mr. Vader that his lawyer had this
information. Cpl. Rohatyn also informed Mr. Vader that he had the option of standing the
matter down in order to have more time to review documents.
At 23:29, Cst. McQueen stated that there was a problem with the telephone conferencing
and indicated that they would try again in about an hour. Travis Vader was placed back in
cells at 23:30.
Tab 8 in Exhibit SS:
At 00:33 on July 20, 2010, Cst. McQueen retrieved Travis Vader and brought him to the
hearing office interview room. Shawn King, the articling student at John Sinclair's law
firm, as well as Michelle Doyle for the Crown Prosecutor's office participated in the
teleconference with Scott Smith (the Justice of the Peace).
Shawn King indicated that his instructions from John Sinclair and from Travis Vader
were not to speak to bail and to adjourn the matters to later dates. The hearing concluded
at 01 :1 I AM. Bail was not spoken to as all the matters were adjourned/set for hearings on
later dates. Mr. Vader was put back in his cell at 01 :12.
Tab 9 in Exhibit SS:

Page:61
Cst. McQueen indicated for the record that the bail hearing needed to be reopened due to
a slight error in one of the court dates. Travis Vader was therefore taken back to the
interview room at 08:19 on July 20, 2010.
During this period Mr. Vader complained about being hungry, though he acknowledged
being fed breakfast, and he alleged that there were errors on some of the fonns he was
provided.
Cpl. Rohatyn then indicated that the call was not ready so Travis Vader was taken back to
his cell at 08:2S.
Tab 10 in Exhibit SS:
At 12:33 on July 20, 2010, Cst. McQueen indicated on the record that Cpl. Cusack would
be taking Travis Vader to the bail hearing. The hearing resumed at 12:37 with Travis
Vader present in the hearing office. One of the dates previously set down was quickly
rearranged to account for a scheduling conflict. Mr. Vader was placed back in his cell at
12:39.
Tab 11 in Exhibit S5:
This recording is irrelevant as the recording device was turned on in error.
Tab 12 in Exhibit SS:
At 13:02 on July 20, 2010, Cst. McQueen retrieved Travis Vader from the cellblock and
took him to the interview room. Cst. McQueen reminded Mr. Vader that the recording
was on. Mr. Vader was left in the interview room with Sgt. John Wilson at 13:0S.
Tab 13 in Exhibit SS:
Cst. McQueen and Cpl. Rohatyn transported Travis Vader from the interview room back
to the cellblock at 17:SO on July 20, 2010. Travis Vader was back to his cell by 17:S5.