Alberta Court of Appeal delivers lesson in legal history, upholds conviction in 1981 cold case

Law360 Canada (January 14, 2026, 12:48 PM EST) --

John L. Hill

Cold cases dredge up years of history. In a review of a finding of guilt in a cold case, the Alberta Court of Appeal delivered a lesson in legal history through its own dredging up of legal precedents.

In September 1981, a 36-year-old complainant was sexually assaulted and robbed by a stranger in the underground parking garage of her Edmonton condominium after returning home late at night. The assailant threatened her with a knife, raped her, broke her finger and fled with her purse. Police attended promptly; the complainant underwent a vaginal examination, provided clothing (pantyhose immediately, dress later), and gave a statement. Serological testing at the time confirmed the presence of seminal fluid and spermatozoa, but DNA technology did not exist, leaving the assailant unidentified. The file closed in early 1982.

The case was revived in 2016-2018 following advances in DNA testing. Cuttings from the complainant’s dress were retested and yielded a mixed male/female DNA profile. The female DNA profile matched the complainant; the male DNA profile matched John Edward Beausoleil, with an estimated random-match probability of approximately one in 21 quintillion. Although the Crown’s DNA expert acknowledged that transfer mechanisms and timing could not be definitively established, she maintained that the only reasonable scientific explanation for the results was that the male DNA originated from spermatozoa.

Evidence storage practices from the 1980s were scrutinized. Some exhibits were stored in a detective’s desk before later transfer and eventual destruction; other items, including the dress cuttings, were retained by the RCMP and later transferred to police property control. Pretrial motions challenged the admissibility of the original 1981 serology report and alleged breaches of the Charter arising from the loss or destruction of evidence. The trial judge admitted the report as experiential/observational evidence and rejected the stay application, finding no unacceptable negligence or demonstrated prejudice.

At trial, identity was the sole issue, and the Crown relied on circumstantial DNA evidence. The defence challenged the handling, testing and provenance of the dress; discrepancies between the complainant’s description of the assailant and the dress’s colour; and the risk of contamination, given historical practices. The trial judge found the DNA derived from semen on the complainant’s dress belonged to Beausoleil and that the cuttings came from the clothing worn during the assault, explaining colour discrepancies as perceptual differences.

Beausoleil appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal (R. v. Beausoleil, 2025 ABCA 371). On appeal, three issues were raised: (1) whether the trial judge misapprehended material evidence; (2) whether the Crown’s DNA expert was permitted to opine beyond her expertise; and (3) whether the trial judge erred in interpreting and applying the DNA evidence.

At the outset, the Alberta Court of Appeal acknowledged that, where an appellant alleges a misapprehension of the evidence, the appellate court should also consider the overall reasonableness of the verdict. If the verdict is reasonable on the other fact findings, the appellate court should consider whether the alleged misapprehension, in the overall context of the trial, nevertheless resulted in a miscarriage of justice or a reversible error of law (R. v. Kruk, 2024 SCC 7).

Beausoleil pressed arguments that, in his submission, raised concerns about continuity, comparison and expert opinion. He suggested the possibility of another perpetrator, or at least cast doubt on his identity as the attacker. In effect, those arguments reduce to a single theme; that, on the evidence, there was “any other rational conclusion than that the prisoner was the guilty person,” within the meaning of the jury direction in Hodge’s Case (1838), 2 Lew 227, 168 ER 1136 (Eng).

That “rule” was rejected in the United States in 1954 and discarded by the English in 1973. Yet, the Alberta Court of Appeal provides a thorough legal history of the rule’s evolution in Canada and its redefinition in R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33. It concluded that where the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the court must consider whether the trier of fact, acting judicially, could reasonably be satisfied that the accused’s guilt was the only reasonable conclusion available on the totality of the evidence. A verdict on circumstantial evidence is not reviewable merely because the appeal court concludes that the evidence, including gaps, gives rise to competing inferences.

After an unusual amount of legal analysis citing every authority that had any pertinence to the case under review, the Alberta Court of Appeal effectively answers “no” to each of the three points raised on appeal. After 116 paragraphs of incisive review, the Court of Appeal concluded, “Despite the able efforts of counsel for the appellant to suggest error, we do not find any in the reasons on any legal test or any finding of fact. Nor is the verdict unreasonable in any of the dimensions of that term that the law recognizes.” Beausoleil’s appeal was dismissed.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.