R v Applegarth, 2026 ABCA 122: When Unlawful Assault Meets the Intent for Murder

Overview

In R v Applegarth, 2026 ABCA 122, Mr. Applegarth sought to appeal his conviction for second-degree murder of his common-law spouse, Chantelle Firingstoney. While Mr. Applegarth does not contest that he caused Ms. Firingstoney’s death through an unlawful assault, the appeal challenges the trial judge’s findings on the mens rea of second-degree murder.

Trial Proceedings

Facts

The case for the Crown was entirely circumstantial and the defence called no evidence. As such, there was no direct evidence available explaining where or how Firingstoney suffered the injuries that she succumbed to.

Ms. Firingstoney died sometime around 9pm on November 5, 2020 in her home. Earlier that evening, she was drinking at a firend’s house and left around 8pm with no signs of injury. She made it home within the next hour. It was not disputed that immediately before her death, Ms. Firingstoney and Mr. Applegarth were the only adults in the home. Shortly after 9pm, Mr. Applegarth went to his neighbour’s and asked her to call an ambulance. Medics soon arrived and found Ms. Firingstoney unresponsive and were not able to revive her.

Trial Judge Ruling

Given that the Trial Judge was satisfied that Mr. Applegarth was the killer, the question became whether the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Applegarth had the necessary mens rea for second-degree murder when assaulting Ms. Firingstoney. There was no finding that Mr. Applegarth had specific intent to kill as described in s. 229(a)(i). As such, a finding of second-degree murder in this instance had to be based on a finding of necessary intent under s. 229(a)(ii). As such, to convict Mr. Applegarth of second-degree murder, the trial judge must have been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that:

• Mr. Applegarth intended to cause Ms. Firingstoney bodily harm;
• That he knew was likely to cause death (the “knowledge” component); and
• He was reckless as to whether death ensued (the “recklessness” component).

In their reasons, the trial judge concluded that “Mr. Applegarth intended to cause bodily harm to Ms. Firingstoney, and he was reckless as to whether or not death ensued.” There were five other occasions in their reasons that the trial judge omitted the second component of s. 229(a)(ii). The omissions continued to be present in both oral and written decisions on sentencing. In fact, any explicit finding that Mr. Applegarth knew the bodily harm inflicted was likely to cause death is entirely absent from both conviction and sentencing reasons.

Issue

• Had the trial judge erred in law in their assessment of the mens rea for second-degree murder?

Finding

The Court of Appeal indicated that the trial judge’s repeated references to the recklessness component failed to satisfy that the trial judge had correctly applied the knowledge component. The Court of Appeal confirmed that recklessness does not equate to a finding of the level of knowledge necessary for a conviction for second-degree murder. The Court found that recklessness indicates an accused foresaw a risk, possibility or chance of death. This does not meet the threshold for knowledge, which is described as where an accused foresees that death is a ‘probable consequence’.

As such, the trial judge finding that Mr. Applegarth was reckless to whether Ms. Firingstoney died, at most, indicated that he knew death was possible from the assault inflicted. But it did not amount to the necessary mental component that Mr. Applegarth knew the bodily harm inflicted on Ms. Firingstoney was likely to kill her.

The Court of Appeal was not satisfied that the trial judge had correctly applied the knowledge component of s. 229(a)(ii). Given the circumstantial nature of the evidence, the necessary intent for murder may be inferred from the nature of the accused’s actions. A foundation of clear and specific fact findings best supports these inferences. The trial judge’s reasons contain no clear fact finding that could ground an inference that Mr. Applegarth intended to cause bodily harm he knew was likely to be fatal. The factual inferences from the trial judge were provided in ‘decidedly imprecise and tentative language’, such as indicating that evidence was ‘strongly suggestive’ of a factual inference or that certain evidence ‘lent itself to an inference’ of fact. The language used weakened the connection between the injuries and the necessary intent to bring about a second-degree murder conviction.

Conclusion

In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal was not satisfied that the trial judge had properly applied all the requirements of a second-degree murder finding under s. 229(a)(ii). As such, the trial judge erred in law. The remedy ordered by the Court of Appeal was a new trial, given there remains a possible path to a second-degree murder conviction.

Need Strong Defence in a Serious Criminal Case?

If you or a loved one are facing serious criminal charges such as homicide, manslaughter, or second-degree murder in Alberta, the difference between a conviction and a successful defence often comes down to experienced appellate advocacy and a deep understanding of mens rea requirements.

Disclaimer: This blog post is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Criminal law is complex and fact-specific. If you are facing criminal charges or have concerns about your legal exposure, you should consult a qualified criminal defence lawyer immediately.

© 2026 Rory Ziv Law Group  ·  Edmonton Criminal Defence Lawyer  ·  All Rights Reserved