June 2026 Case of the Month

R v Sullivan – April 29, 2026

2026 ABCA 52

ABCA overturns a conviction for second-degree murder and orders a new trial, due to the trial judge’s error in dismissing a jury challenge for cause regarding bias against drug addicts and drug users. The ABCA held that if there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable possibility of bias or prejudicial attitudes in the community that could taint the impartiality of the jurors, counsel should be allowed to question the jury about those biases. The Court rejected the arguments that legitimate social concerns regarding drug use precludes the finding of bias, and the trial judge’s decision that juries can only be challenged for bias against “immutable personal characteristics.” This decision opens the door for further jury challenges over potential biases beyond the typical racial considerations.

Mr. Sullivan was convicted of second-degree murder in 2024 in Edmonton, Alberta. The Appellant had admitted to the killing, though argued it was in self defence in response to the victim, Mr. Houle, attempting to inject the Appellant with a deadly overdose of fentanyl. The Appellant described himself as “fairly sober” at the time, though he had used drugs earlier that day and was a regular user of methamphetamine and fentanyl. The killing took place in a residence occupied by people who regularly used drugs, including methamphetamine, heroin, and fentanyl. On this appeal, the Appellant argued his conviction should be overturned, on the grounds that the trial judge had dismissed his application to challenge jurors for cause regarding a potential bias against drug users or drug addicts.

At trial, the Appellant had applied to challenge the prospective jurors for cause, based on the potential for a widespread community bias against drug users or drug addicts that may affect the fairness of the trial. The Appellant gave the examples of “drug users are not credible or reliable” and “drug users are more prone to violence” as the type of prejudicial views that the Court should screen prospective jurors for. The Trial Judge dismissed this application, holding that drug use or addiction were not “immutable personal characteristics”, and that the Appellant had not demonstrated that there was a “widespread bias or antipathy towards drug users”.

On appeal, the ABCA reviewed the power of discretion that a trial judge has to allow or dismiss a challenge for cause. Referring to R v Spence, 2005 SCC 71 and R v Find, 2001 SCC 32, the court held that a trial judge must not “take into account irrelevant factors” nor “ignore relevant factors” in considering a challenge for cause.

The Appellant had provided three news articles and posts from the r/Edmonton subreddit section of reddit.com, to demonstrate the ongoing issue of open drug use in Edmonton, and the widespread fear and public concern regarding drug use. The first news article was regarding opposition to a supervised consumption site in Edmonton and included a quote from a resident regarding their fear of “attacks by people that are consumed by drugs”. The second article made the claim that “meth was fueling petty and violent crime in Edmonton”, and the third article was regarding a proposed bylaw targeting open drug use in the city. The Reddit posts included quotes such as “Edmontons [sic] full of druggies”, “there’s been a huge increase in random violent crime associated with these people”, and “a mass of drug-addicted people will reduce safety in the neighbourhood”.

The trial judge characterized this challenge for cause as focused on drug use rather than drug addiction and found that “drug use” was not “a personal characteristic that is immutable or changeable only at an unacceptable cost to personal identity”. The trial judge interpreted this to mean that potential bias against drug users could not be considered analogous to the racial bias that challenge for cause applications typically involve.  The trial judge gave no weight to the Reddit evidence, describing it as “unverifiable” and lacking “indicia of reliability”. The court found that online posts only represented the “views of those individuals who are motivated to post their opinions, which is insufficient to support widespread bias against drug users”. The news articles were found to be reporting on social issues regarding drug use, rather than displaying a widespread bias regarding drug use.  The trial judge determined that any residual concerns about bias could be dealt with through standard anti-bias instructions for the jury. Despite this, the final address to the jury did not include these instructions, which counsel did not object to at the time.

On appeal, the ABCA found that though some “immutable personal characteristics” create the risk of prejudice (e.g. race or gender), other immutable characteristics (e.g. height or eye colour) do not. Also, some personal characteristics that are not immutable can give rise to a general prejudice, such as being a sex worker. The ABCA found that the trial judge erred in considering an “immutable personal characteristic” a requirement for a challenge for cause, and identified the proper assessment to be made as: “whether the circumstances, including the evidence provided by the appellant and the issues raised by the case, were such that, despite the presumption of impartiality and the safeguards of the trial process, there was a realistic possibility that some prospective jurors would not be impartial.” 

The ABCA also found an error in the Trial Judge focusing the challenge for cause on “drug use”, as defence counsel had raised the subject of drug addiction throughout their submissions. Furthermore, it was inappropriate for the trial judge to draw a line dividing the subjects of drug use and drug addiction with regards to methamphetamine, heroin, and fentanyl, as addiction is typically only perceived through the observable behaviour of drug use and the specific drugs being considered are not typically used recreationally.

Regarding the Trial Judge’s assessment of the news articles and Reddit posts, the ABCA found that the appellant only had to demonstrate “a reasonable possibility that bias or prejudicial attitudes exist in the community, with respect to relevant characteristics of the accused or victim, and could taint the impartiality of the jurors”, which is not an onerous standard to meet and should be considered in light of the fact that prejudicial attitudes are often unspoken and unconscious. Additionally, the fact that there may be rational concerns regarding drug use in the community should not be used to argue against the presence of bias, as legitimate social concerns can co-exist with biased attitudes, and may even contribute to them. Though the Reddit evidence would not have met typical standards for admission at trial, it should have been considered with regards to whether there was a reasonable possibility of bias. Due to the trial judge’s multiple errors in considering whether a challenge for cause was appropriate, the ABCA overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial.