Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit

NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE

Cour de justice du Nunavut
Citation:

R. v. Kingwatsiak, 2016 NUCJ 02

Date:
Docket:
Registry:

20160202
03-10-122
Iqaluit

Crown:

Her Majesty the Queen

-and-

Accused:

Peter Kingwatsiak

________________________________________________________________________
Before:

The Honourable Madam Justice Tulloch

Counsel (Crown):
Counsel (Accused):

A. Porteous; B. MacLaren
J. Morton

Location Heard:
Date Heard:
Matters:

Iqaluit Nunavut
June 23-26, 2015; August 27, 2015; December 7, 2015
Criminal Code, s. 235(1); s. 348(1)(b)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

Table of Contents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ................................................................................... 1
I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 3
II. ADMISSIONS OF FACT ............................................................................................. 4
A. Agreed Facts: Prior to September 17, 2010 ...................................................... 4
B. Agreed Facts: September 17 and 18, 2010 ....................................................... 5
C. Agreed Facts: Early morning, Sunday, September 19, 2010 ......................... 6
D. Agreed Facts: Day and Evening, Sunday, September 19, 2010.................... 7
E. Agreed Facts: Monday, September 20, 2010 .................................................. 10
F. Agreed Facts: After September 20, 2010 ......................................................... 16
G. Agreed Facts: Pathologists Report .................................................................. 17
III. EXPERT EVIDENCE ............................................................................................... 17
A. Dr. Philip Klassen ................................................................................................. 19
B. Doctor David Rosenbloom .................................................................................. 21
C. Dr. Gary Chaimowitz ........................................................................................... 23
IV. CIVILIAN WITNESSES ........................................................................................... 24
A. Manu Kingwatsiak ................................................................................................ 24
B. Etidloi Adla............................................................................................................. 25
C. Tytoosie Tunnillie ................................................................................................. 27
V. EVIDENCE FROM THE ACCUSED ...................................................................... 28
VI. POSITION OF THE PARTIES ............................................................................... 34
A. Crowns position ................................................................................................... 34
B. Defences position ................................................................................................ 34
VII. ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 35
A. Murder ..................................................................................................................... 35
B. Planning and deliberation .................................................................................... 40
VIII. FINAL CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 45

I. INTRODUCTION
[1]

In the early morning hours of September 20, 2010, Peter Kingwatsiak

committed two very serious offences in his home community of Cape
Dorset, Nunavut. He stabbed his uncle, Manu Kingwatsiak, with a
knife in the face causing a permanent scar and then he shot and killed
his step-brother, Mappaluk Adla.

[2]

To his credit, Mr. Kingwatsiak admits that he did these things.

[3]

Although the offence involving Manu Kingwatsiak was included in the

indictment due to its underlying circumstances and proximity to the
murder, the focus throughout this trial was directed to the charge of
murder.

[4]

This is because the charge of aggravated assault for stabbing his

uncle requires only general intent on the part of the accused. On the
other hand, for the accused to be found guilty of murder, he must
have specific intent.

[5]

In plain language, this means that in order to find Mr. Kingwatsiak

guilty of murder, he must have known in his own mind that death was
likely to result from his actions at the time when the shooting
occurred.

[6]

What is at issue for this Court to decide is whether the accused had
the specific intent necessary to be convicted of murder and, if so,
whether that murder was planned and deliberate in the
circumstances.

[7]

Defence submits that the accused was so intoxicated by the effects of

sniffing gasoline and so upset that morning that he could not form the
specific intent required for murder and that he should therefore be
convicted of manslaughter.

[8]

Crown says there is ample evidence of both specific intent and

planning and deliberation in this case and that Peter Kingwatsiak is
guilty of first degree murder.

II. ADMISSIONS OF FACT

[9]

Prior to the start of the trial, Crown and Defence submitted what is
called an Agreed Statement of Fact. It contained a number of
important facts which are admitted without the need to call testimony.
This assisted the Court a great deal.

[10] The initial document entitled Agreed Statement of Fact was made
Exhibit 1 in the trial.
[11] Prior to closing , new document was filed with the Court entitled:
Admissions of fact pursuant to Section 655 of the Criminal Code:
Post-Trial Version [Post-trial version]. I will now mark it as Exhibit #13.
[12] I have of course carefully reviewed both documents and I find that the
changes between the first and the second document are minor. A few
words were added and a few subtracted in order to specifically
conform to the evidence given at trial.
[13] I have relied only on the Post-trial version to assist with my decision
today.
[14] These undisputed facts now form part of the evidence. In addition to
these lengthy admissions, further evidence was called at trial.
[15] Transcripts of the evidence were ordered. Six volumes containing 661
pages were received and carefully reviewed.
[16] I will now provide you with a summary of those agreed facts in
chronological order.
[17] During trial, the parties referred to the deceased as both Mappaluk
and Mapp. For the sake of consistency, I will do the same.
A. Agreed Facts: Prior to September 17, 2010
[18] A teenage friend of the accused, Connear Ross, told police that a
couple of weeks before the death, Peter Kingwatsiak talked about
beating up Mapp. He repeated this intention a few times while they
were together. The accused said it near the school and he repeated it
three or four days later while they were walking around town. Peter
Kingwatsiak appeared to be sober and did not smell of gas or alcohol
when he made these comments. The accused admits that he made
these utterances in the circumstances described.

[19] Approximately three days before the accused shot Mapp, he told
Tommy Padluq (his best friend) that he was going to kill Mapp. He
said this more than once and Tommy says that he seemed happy
when he said it. Tommy did not smell gas or alcohol on the accused
when the comments were made.
B. Agreed Facts: September 17 and 18, 2010
[20] Dances were held at the Cape Dorset Community Hall [Community
Hall] on Friday and Saturday night. Each dance lasted from
approximately 10 p.m. to 1 a.m. the following morning. Geena Rose
and Mapp spent time together at, at least one of these dances.
Maryann Samayualie noticed the accused sitting in the corner with
Tommy Padluq watching Geena Rose and Mapp.
[21] Qabaruak Samayualie went to the September 17th, dance with Mapp.
They ran into the accused and had a conversation. Mr. Samauyalie
observed that the accused and Mapp were getting along good.
[22] The accused visited his friend, Tytoosie Tunnillie, on Saturday
September 18, and his friend observed that Peter was cranky and
jealous over a girl.
[23] Siaza Padluq was out walking just before 10:30 p.m. on Saturday
when the accused approached her. They had a short conversation.
The accused said to Siaza in Inuktitut: if Geena Rose and Mappaluk
talks again or hangs out Im gonna kill him no matter what. He also
said that he was jealous of Mapp.
[24] Tommy Padluq attended the Saturday night dance with the accused
at the Community Hall. Neither of them consumed alcohol or drugs
during the evening. The accused appeared to be acting normal
throughout. Tommy saw that the accused was very mad and
jealous because Geena Rose was hanging out with Mapp at the
dance. At one point, the accused said he was going home and left.
When he returned to the Community Hall about 20 minutes later, he
asked Tommy to feel bullets which he had put in his hoody pocket.
Tommy identified about ten .303 bullets.

[25] On two separate occasions during the Saturday night dance, the
accused explicitly asked Tommy if he would help him kill Mapp.
Tommy Padluq described him as being mad when he asked these
questions. The accused does not have any recollection of asking
Tommy these questions or of going home for the bullets. He does not
recall asking him to feel the bullets in his pocket, but he does not
dispute Tommys recollection.
[26] At no time did Tommy smell alcohol, drugs, or gasoline on the
accused. Tommy has never seen the accused sniff gasoline.
C. Agreed Facts: Early morning, Sunday, September 19, 2010
[27] After the Saturday night dance ended at approximately 1 a.m. Sunday
morning, Mapp and some friends went to the Co-op Store [Co-op].
[28] Connear Ross left the Community Hall to hang out near the hamlet
office with some friends including Henry Ainalik and the accused. The
accused told Connear in Inuktitut: nobodys going to have problems
with Mapp anymore. You arent going to have problems with Mapp
anymore. Mr. Ainalik and Mr. Ross both heard the accused say in
Inuktitut: he has to be living, so hes living referring to Mapp. After
making this comment, the accused left.
[29] Geena Rose went walking with her friends. They eventually wound up
near the Co-op. Mapp joined them and when they were in the valley
the accused saw them together. He came up to Geena suddenly and
they argued for about half an hour. The accused was jealous and told
Geena Rose I will kill him referring to Mapp. She asked him why and
he said he would kill Mapp if she spoke to him or hung out with him
again. He told her that he was watching them 24/7. She walked
away and returned to the Co-op to be with her friends.
[30] Sometime after 2 a.m., Geena Rose left the Co-op and again went
walking in the valley with friends. She looked towards the hill in the
valley and saw the accused holding a .303 calibre rifle aimed at Mapp
who was near the baseball diamond, walking up the hill towards the
valley. The two men were approximately 20 to 25 feet apart.

[31] She ran up to the accused and yelled at him to stop. One friend
reported hearing Geena Rose shout at the accused: Peter, Peter,
dont kill him, kill me. Another friend reported hearing Geena Rose
yell out three times words to the effect of shoot me instead. A third
reported hearing Geena Rose yell we never did anything and
hearing the accused tell her to fuck off. A fourth heard Geena Rose
tell the accused that she wanted the rifles bullets and heard the
accused say no.
[32] Geena Rose grabbed the accused and he told her to leave so that
she wouldnt have to watch what he was going to do. He told her he
was going to kill Mapp and that he had to do it. She told him he didnt
have to do it and she told him a second time to put the rifle away.
This time he lowered the rifle and placed it against a pole. She
pushed him away from the rifle and held him tightly around the waist
to prevent him from reaching back for it. They spoke for approximately
half an hour. He tried to get her to go out with him. She refused. The
accused told her that he was jealous because he thought she was
going out with Mapp. She told him to unload the rifle. He did and gave
her ten bullets which said .303 on them. She told him to go home.
[33] The accused took the rifle and told Geena Rose he was going home.
He walked in the direction of his fathers house. At no time did she
smell any alcohol, gasoline, or drugs coming from the accused.
[34] As Mapp was leaving the area in which the accused had pointed a
rifle at him, he ran into Tim Ottokie. Mapp greeted him by saying: hey
Tim, you wanna watch me get killed? Mr. Ottokie said no and
continued on his way.
D. Agreed Facts: Day and Evening, Sunday, September 19, 2010
[35] Sometime later on Sunday morning, Siaza Padluq was approached
by the accused who told her that he had almost killed Mappaluk. He
said that he was gonna kill Mapp, but didnt because he did not want
Geena Rose to see it happen.
[36] At about 1 p.m., the accused went to his mothers house, Qaluituk
Kingwatsiak. They chatted and the accused didnt mention anything
about Mapp or his problems. He stayed for a couple of hours before
he left.

[37] The accused went out boating with his paternal grandparents at some
point during the day. After the trip, they brought some ammunition and
three firearms to his fathers house: a black .22 calibre rifle, a tan
brown .410 shotgun, and a tan brown 28 or 20 gauge shotgun.
[38] I pause here to note that the accused was steadfast in his testimony
that the .22 calibre rifle talked about here was the one that he
retrieved from the boat. It is the same weapon that was used by him
to shoot and kill Mr. Adla. Counsel and this Court agree that where
the rifle came from is not important.
[39] At approximately 6:45 p.m., Mialisa Nuna and the accused were
walking together when they came across Geena Rose who was on
her way to church with some friends. This was the first time that
Geena Rose and the accused had seen each other since the incident
with the rifle early that morning.
[40] The accused asked Geena Rose for the bullets back and whether she
was following him. He asked her to go for a walk with him, but she
refused. He asked if she was with Mapp or if she was going out with
him to which she responded no. He asked again for the bullets, but
she told the accused she had thrown them away. She then went into
the church.
[41] At approximately 7:30 to 8:00 p.m., Mialisa and the accused were
walking and Mialisa told the accused that she missed Mappaluk as
they had broken up very recently. The accused replied that I dont
want to do this, but I love my girl and I dont want to hurt him but I
think hes going after my girl or, I love my girlfriend but I dont want
to hurt him. He did not explain these comments further.
[42] Sometime that evening, Pudluq Qavavau was walking around
listening to music in the Muliujuq area where he came across the
accused, who was alone. The accused asked him if he wanted to
smoke weed with him, but Mr. Qavavau declined.

[43] The accused said that he planned to drink the next day. He was
pissed off because he believed that his ex-girlfriend, Geena Rose,
was cheating with Mappaluk. He said words to the effect of if I see
them together in this town Im gonna kill him. Mr. Qavavau doesnt
believe the accused had been sniffing gas when they ran into each
other that evening. The last time he had sniffed gas with the accused,
the accused had been badly burned. Mr. Qavavau states that this
experience really scared them both and they never sniffed together
again.
[44] The accused says he has no recollection of the conversation with Mr.
Qavavau, but does not dispute the accuracy of Mr. Qavavaus version
of events. He told Dr. Klassen in 2012 that the incident where he
burned himself due to sniffing occurred when he was 13.
[45] The accused and Mialisa later went to Mialisas house. Her parents
Taqialuk and Natsivak Nuna were home. They said he looked normal
and was just like himself during the visit. Mialisa described the
accused as seeming happy.
[46] During his visit at Mialisas house, he asked if he could use her laptop
and go on Facebook. She agreed. He was online for approximately
one hour. Mialisa went to check on him at one point and observed
that he was chatting online with Geena Rose and another girl.
[47] During their online chat, the accused asked Geena Rose again to go
out with him and to let him have another chance. She told him no and
signed off.
[48] Natsivak reported that she didnt notice how long he was on the
computer, but after he was finished he looked fine. The accused
joined Mialisa in the living room and watched TV with her for ten
minutes before leaving sometime between 10:30 and 11:00 p.m.
[49] The accused did not consume any drugs or alcohol, and did not sniff
gasoline while he was with Mialisa or Natsiavik, nor did they.
[50] At approximately 11 p.m., Neevee Akesuk was smoking outside
House 1111. Her attention was drawn to the sound of someone
crying. She saw the accused walking alone. He stopped crying when
he saw her, but kept walking. Ms. Akesuk heard him start crying again
after he passed by her house.

10

E. Agreed Facts: Monday, September 20, 2010

[51] At approximately 2 a.m. Monday morning, Qabaruak Samayualie saw
the accused who appeared to be normal and sober. She did not smell
anything on him at that time.
[52] The accuseds father, Kooyoo Peter, briefly woke up when the
accused entered their house somewhere between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m.
He did not notice anything unusual or different about the accused. He
said hi my baby to the accused and Mr. Kingwatsiak answered hi
Dad. Mr. Peter then went back to sleep in the TV room while the
accused went to his own bedroom.
[53] Sometime after 2 a.m, Olipika Oshutsiaq was at a window in her
home listening to music when she saw the accused walking alone
carrying two long guns; one in his hands and one, a rifle, strapped on
his back. He was wearing black clothing including a black cap. He
was walking away from his fathers house. He passed Ms.
Oshutsiaqs house and went behind a neighbours house. When he
re-emerged into Ms. Oshutsiaqs line of sight, he was no longer
carrying a gun in his hands. It is unclear whether he still had a gun
strapped to his back. He then entered his mothers house which was
nearby. Ms. Oshutsiaq saw him leave and walk up the hill
approximately ten minutes later. She thought something was wrong
and decided to go out with a flashlight to look for the accused, but she
did not see him.
[54] Qabaruak Samayualie was outdoors at approximately 4 or 5 a.m. He
saw the accused walking behind the graveyard. He had a .22 calibre
rifle in one hand and a 12 gauge shotgun in the other.
[55] At 5 a.m. or very shortly thereafter, the accused knocked on his
mothers door. This is not the same house in which his father, Kooyoo
Peter, lived. Qabaruak got up, opened the door and let the accused
in. She did not notice anything unusual about him. They did not
speak. She went back to bed. Five minutes after lying down she
noticed that the house was unusually quiet. When she got up to check
the accused was gone. She had no concerns for him at that time.

11

[56] At approximately 5:30 or 6:00 a.m., Kooyoo Peter woke up and went
out to smoke in his back porch. He noticed the.22 calibre semiautomatic rifle that he had stored there the day before was missing.
The other firearms brought to his house the day before were still in
the porch.
[57] Again I pause to note that the accused says the.22 calibre semiautomatic rifle was not in his fathers porch. The evidence from the
accused is he retrieved the .22 calibre semi-automatic rifle from his
grandfathers boat.
[58] Between 5:30 and 6:00 a.m., Manu Kingwatsiak woke up and went to
smoke a cigarette. He found his nephew, the accused, standing in the
kitchen beside the washing machine holding a knife. It had a black
handle, a silver blade, and was about one foot long.
[59] Manu asked the accused what he was doing inside the house, but the
accused did not answer. The accused then said he was going to
Ashevak Adlas house to drink.
[60] Manu then went into the furnace room to have his smoke. He bent
down to pick up an ashtray when the accused entered the room and
swung a knife at him slashing his face above his right eye. The attack
was unprovoked and while the accused and Manu were not close,
there was no previous anger or animosity between them. Manu went
black for a moment and then asked the accused why he had done
what he had. The accused did not answer. Manu told the accused to
give him the knife. The accused did not reply, but instead attempted
to stab Manu a couple more times. Manu blocked each attack and
told the accused to stop. He put his arms around the accused,
hugged him, and told him that he loved him. Manu kept asking him
why he had done what he had and the accused replied someone told
me to do it. Manu asked him again and the accused replied I dont
know. Very shortly after, the accused started to leave carrying the
knife. Manu asked him for the knife, but he would not give it to him.
The accused put on his shoes while his uncle said words to the effect
of look Peter, Im bleeding. The accused responded I dont care
and left. He walked in the direction of Mappaluk and Ashevak Adlas
house.
[61] The accused took the knife used in the attack from Manus kitchen
dish rack. It was the only knife Manu owned like that. The knife was
never found by the police.

12

[62] When asked about the accuseds behaviour, Manu said he wasnt
drunk or on drugs but he wasnt normal. Manu did not smell any
gasoline or alcohol on the accused and he later told police that the
accused was not drunk. When Sergeant [Sgt.] Richardson asked if
there was anything different about the accused that night, he said not
that much. There wasnt really much different that I seen in him or
anything. He was just like Peter.
[63] The gash to Manus face required eight stitches and he retains a scar
to this day.
[64] Manu called the Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP] at
approximately 6 a.m. on September 20th. Constables [Cst.] Robert
Driscoll and Ryan Tennant attended his house and after hearing his
account of events, they proceeded to Ashevak and Mappaluk Adlas
residence.
[65] The two officers arrived there at 6:25 a.m. Upon arrival, they found
Mappaluk lying face down on the floor near the entry way. There was
a lot of blood, but no evidence of any struggle. He was lying in a
supine position and police observed blood pouring out of his mouth.
He appeared to be unconscious and unresponsive. He had no pulse.
Efforts to revive him were unsuccessful and he was pronounced dead
at 6:55 a.m.
[66] Photos were taken by police at the Health Centre after the nurses had
washed his face.
[67] Cst. Tennant and Sgt. McLaren observed a small calibre rifle barrel
imprint on Mappaluk Adlas forehead. It was described as a faint
larger circle around a hole in Mappaluks forehead.
[68] Peter Kingwatsiak admits that he shot Mapp in the forehead at the
Adla home without provocation. He admits that he shot him with a .22
magnum calibre rifle and that Mapp died as a direct result of that
gunshot wound to his head.
[69] At approximately 6:45 a.m., Tytoosie Tunnillie heard someone closing
his back door so he got up to investigate. When he entered the living
room he saw the accused standing over his brother Ezeevadluk
Toonoo, who was sleeping on the couch.

13

[70] Tytoosie said hi Peter and the accused, who was startled, replied
right away, hi Titoo. I have just killed Mappaluk. Me., with a smirk
on his face. Tytoosie did not believe him because of the smirk.
Tytoosie walked into the kitchen, then came back and sat down
beside the accused on the couch. The accused said he shot
Mappaluk in the forehead and pointed to the middle of his own
forehead between the eyebrows while saying, here, here I shot him.
He then showed Tytoosie how he had held the rifle using an
imaginary rifle held against his shoulder with his index finger crooked
where the trigger would be and aimed it downwards.
[71] The accused then said he was going to commit suicide. Tytoosie said
no right away and Mr. Kingwatsiak started to cry a little bit.
[72] The accused stayed at Tytoosies home for slightly more than two
hours. They went for a smoke, watched television, and talked. During
that time, the accused appeared to be his normal self. Tytoosie did
not think he was drunk. At no point did he smell any alcohol on the
accused. At one point, all of a sudden, the accused said again to
Tytoosie lots of people dont like him so I killed him. Im telling the
truth.
[73] While the accused was there, Tytoosies brother, Itidloi Tunnillie,
woke up. The accused said hi Itidloi, I just killed Mappaluk. Itidloi
expressed disbelief and the accused said, for real, I did. He shook
Itidlois hand and said he was telling the truth. He told Itidloi this
several times. Itidloi heard the accused say he shot Mappaluk while
he was sleeping. The accused had a kind of a smile when he spoke
and he sometimes cried.
[74] The accused also told Itidloi that he realized he had stabbed Manu
after he already stabbed him. He told them that he was walking
around the mountain area since 1 a.m. and that he went over to
Manus while he was blacked out from sniffing. The accused said he
stabbed Manu above the right eye. He also said when I was doing
this to Manu, I woke up all of a sudden. The accused told Itidloi that
he was a suspect for the police. He kept saying that he wanted to
see his great-grandmother and grandmother first and then he would
give himself up to the police. Tytoosie noticed that the accused was
not in a panic.

14

[75] At around 9 a.m., Tytoosie and the accused were outside having a
cigarette when Tytoosies father, Iola Tunnillie arrived. The accused
told Tytoosie and Iola that he wanted to commit suicide. Tytoosie tried
to comfort him by saying that this would all pass and that people who
kill others go to jail for a long time. Iola also advised the accused not
to kill himself. The accused started crying harder. The accused said it
wasnt on purpose, that he didnt want to do it, and that he was sorry.
During this conversation with the accused and Iola, Tytoosie noticed
that the accused smelled of gas.
[76] The accused told Tytoosie not to call the police because he was going
to turn himself in. He tried calling his mother and his grandmother,
Novalinga Kingwatsiak, but was not successful. Iola redialed the
number and got Novalinga on the line. Iola heard the accused tell
Novalinga that he would be going to jail and that he wouldnt see them
for a long time. The accused said he was sorry.
[77] He also tried to call his paternal grandmother, Nitanie Peter, but he
couldnt get through. Shortly afterwards, his aunt Natsivak Nuna and a
social worker arrived to pick him up and take him to his grandmothers
house before surrendering himself to the police.
[78] Upon leaving the house the accused said to Natsivak just wait. Let
me get something. He went into the Tunnillies shed and emerged
with a rifle, an ammunition magazine, and a pair of pants. The
Tunnillie family was surprised to see the rifle as they did not keep
guns in their shed or their house.
[79] Shortly after 9:30 a.m., the social worker drove the accused, Natsivak,
and the rifle to Novalinga Kingwatsiaks residence where various
family members had gathered.
[80] At approximately 9:40 a.m. the police attended. They seized the rifle
from the social workers truck. It was identified as the firearm missing
from Kooyoo Peters porch and the .22 calibre rifle that was used in
the fatal shooting.
[81] The police entered Novalingas residence with permission and were
told by a young female adult that the accused was not present. Police
replied that he must be in the house because the social worker had
seen him enter. At that point, Peter Kingwatsiak stood up without
anything more being said and identified himself to the police.

15

[82] Novalinga Kingwatsiak did not notice the accused showing any signs
of intoxication while he was at her house and did not smell any
intoxicants, although she told police she did not even think to smell
him.
[83] He was arrested at 10:06 a.m. by Sgt. McLaren. He was told why he
was arrested and was given his Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to
the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter] rights. It appeared to
the police that he clearly understood what was going on. The accused
appeared to be very nervous and was shaking. He was returned to
the police detachment and was processed.
[84] When the accused was searched incident to his arrest, police noticed
that he had the words Geena Rose one and only written in ink on
the underside of his right arm between his elbow and his wrist.
[85] Throughout their dealings with the accused that morning, the three
police officers were in immediate and close contact with him. At all
times he appeared to be oriented to his circumstances. The police
had no difficulty understanding anything said to them by the accused.
The accused appeared to be sober and did not appear to have any
difficulty understanding anything said to him. He responded
appropriately to all police instructions. Peter Kingwatsiak appeared to
them to be sober. At no time did any of the officers smell anything on
the accused, be it alcohol, marijuana, or gasoline.
[86] At approximately 11 a.m., Chris Hayward was on his way to his
cousin Mapps house to check up on him. On his way there three
young teenagers flagged him down and directed him to a spot just up
the hill behind Mapps house where he observed an old, rusty, loaded
shotgun propped up against a rock. About two minutes later, this was
turned over to the police.
[87] Later in the afternoon, Eteriak Peter, the accuseds paternal aunt
entered the accuseds home to retrieve some clothing for him. When
she entered his bedroom she observed three photographs of the
accuseds dead sister, Oolajuk on the bed. The accused and his sister
had been close when she committed suicide several years before.
Ms. Peter also observed a few .22 calibre bullets on the accuseds
bed.

16

[88] During the evening, Constable Rob Daley interrogated the accused at
the RCMP detachment in Iqaluit. In a voluntary statement, the
admissibility of which is conceded, Constable Daley asked what did
you do? The accused answered, murder. Constable Daley then
asked him who did you murder? The accused replied Mappaluk.
F. Agreed Facts: After September 20, 2010
[89] Several days after the shooting, Kooyoo Peter returned home. When
he went into the accuseds bedroom, he found several photographs of
Peters deceased sister as well as a note on the first page of his sons
bible. The note was in the handwriting of the accused and it read, in
part: theres no tomorrow.its too late now Geena doesnt want to
see meIts too late to fixplease dont do anything to Geena Rose
no matter what happens to meI love you all to Tommy, theres a
lot of things going on.
[90] On September 24, 2010, while the accused was in custody at the
Katak Unit of the Baffin Correctional Centre, his cell mate, Jina
Akikuluk, heard him talking on the phone. He was talking about his
girlfriend and how much he loved her. The accused said that he killed
Mappaluk because he loved his girlfriend, Geena.
[91] Around the same time, the accused spoke to Daniel Iqaluk, another
inmate. Out of nowhere he told Mr. Iqaluk that he had shot a guy in
the head. When Mr. Iqaluk replied for real? Is it true? the accused
replied in the affirmative and said hed done it in front of a girl he liked.
He said he got really jealous because the guy had been going out
with his girlfriend. The accused told Mr. Iqaluk he was drunk at the
time of the shooting. The accused also said he shot the guy from
behind the head.
[92] Approximately one week after his arrest, the accused called Tommy
Padluq and asked him to retrieve the .303 rifle and bullets from the
Tunillies shed. The accused, speaking in Inuktitut, told Tommy to go
get the rifle and that he would tell the truth in court so there was no
need for Tommy to say anything about it.
[93] A few days later, Tommy Padluq went to the shed and found a.303
rifle hidden behind some wood. One round was chambered in the
rifle. Tommy also found .22 and .303 calibre bullets in a Coffee Mate
container along with 12 and 20 gauge shotgun shells.

17

[94] Approximately one month after the shooting, the accused called
Tytoosie from jail. He asked Tytoosie if anyone had found the 12
gauge shotgun on the mountain yet.
[95] Soon after this phone call, Tytoosie found some bullets in a Tim
Hortons coffee can in the shed by his house. He also saw what he
thought were two shotgun shells, a lot of small bullets, and two .308
or .30-30 bullets.
G. Agreed Facts: Pathologists Report
[96] Defence took no issue with the report submitted by Dr. Milroy who
examined the deceased post-mortem. His observations and
conclusions are admitted and the report which is now part of the
evidence in this trial was made Exhibit Six.
[97] A very brief summary is as follows.
[98] The gun that killed Mr. Adla was fired a number of centimetres from
the body. He estimated between 30 and 60 centimetres, at close
range.
[99] Dr. Milroy concluded that due to the infliction of the gunshot wound,
incapacitation would have been immediate with death following
rapidly.

III. EXPERT EVIDENCE

[100] Four expert witnesses were called to assist the Court with the issue
of intent. They were Doctors Klassen and Chaimowitz, who are both
Forensic Psychiatrists, Dr. Rosenbloom, who is a Pharmacologist,
and Dr. Mamak, who is a psychologist.
[101] Dr. Mamak did not testify at trial, but her Psychological Assessment
Report is admitted on consent and contains what she would have
said if called. She is a psychologist and a lot of her report is
imbedded in the report and testimony of her colleague, Dr.
Chaimowitz.
[102] As could be expected in such a serious case, a lot of information was
provided by the expert witnesses. Each doctor prepared a report and
a document outlining their experience in the field.

18

[103] None of the experts called had lengthy or specific experience with
respect to the effect on the adolescent brain from sniffing gasoline.
[104] All of them, however, agreed that at least initially the effects of
inhaling are similar to the effects of alcohol. Dr. Klassen described it
as follows: a bit of disinhibition, euphoria, giddiness, initially its a
bit like alcohol, but then like a lot of things with drugs it becomes an
issue of dosing. {Transcript, p 42}.
[105] All of the doctors agree that it is very hard to get a clear sense of
dose when talking to inhalant users. First, because many of them are
so young, and second, because no one is keeping track. No one is
counting the number of times the person inhales the gasoline. No
one is able to adequately measure how hard they are inhaling.
Further, the overall effect is often impacted by the persons method
of inhaling. Some do it directly from the source (which was what the
accused did in this case) and some use a rag soaked in gasoline
which is carried around for purposes of further sniffing and a more
constant feeling of intoxication.
[106] All of the experts testified and wrote their reports based on the
information provided solely by the accused. There was indeed no
one else who could provide this information. The accused testified
that he was alone when he sniffed gasoline and there is no evidence
before the Court that anyone witnessed Peter Kingwatsiak using
inhalants at any time in the days leading up to the death of Mappaluk
Adla.
[107] All of the doctors agree that at the time of the shooting, the accused
was in a considerable amount of distress. He felt that his ex-girlfriend
had been intimate with Mapp and he was very jealous. He wanted
his girl back and she had rejected him a number of times just prior to
the offence.
[108] The evidence given by the experts also takes into account the fact
that Peter Kingwatsiak was very young. He turned 18 just ten days
prior to the offence date. The doctors agree that his brain was likely
that of an adolescent.

19

A. Dr. Philip Klassen

[109] Dr. Klassen testified for the Crown. He was on the witness stand for
one and a half days. A summary of his evidence is as follows.
[110] The accused reported to Dr. Klassen that he did not have a
significant history of alcohol use, but he did report a history of daily
cannabis use. He went on to talk about some inhalant use. He says
he sniffed a bit when he was much younger, age 12 or less. He did it
once when he was 16 and then he sniffed gasoline in the early
morning hours of September 20, 2010. The accused estimated about
eight episodes of inhalant use in total during his young life.
[111] In explaining the phenomenon of sniffing, Dr. Klassen invited the
Court to think of the body as a reservoir for the active ingredient of
the inhalant. In the beginning there is an initial hit to the brain and
then the inhalant goes into a reservoir from which it seeps out at a
relatively low rate. The more hits a person takes, the fuller the
reservoir becomes which relates to more aftereffects.
[112] Increased and frequent use of inhalants makes for a fuller reservoir,
but if the person doesnt continuously keep it up with constant
inhalation, the sniffing has more of an on/off effect. His evidence is
as follows: If you go one hit after another you will fill your reservoir
up and the peaks and troughs arguably become a little bit less and
you have more of a lasting intoxication. {[Transcript, p 43}.
[113] When asked about the clinical symptoms from inhalant use, Dr.
Klassen testified as follows:
The symptoms progress from the initial ones of euphoria, giddiness,
disinhibition, those kinds of things, to more profound neurological
effects which include hallucinations, pseudo hallucinations, cognitive
impairment, memory problems, problems sequencing and executive
behaviours, motor problems, people stumble around, slur their speech,
to ultimately you can get to the point of seizures, coma and death.
{Transcript, p 43}

[114] High doses of inhalants mean high disorganization and stumbling.

What he actually said while on the witness stand is: In higher doses
these people are stumbling around, not making sense and in my
experience their offending tends to be disorganized because theyre
too cognitively impaired. {Transcript, p 44}.

20

[115] The accused mentioned to Dr. Klassen three periods of sniffing on

September 20, 2010. There was an initial period in the boat down by
the beach, a middle period just prior to the attack on his uncle, and a
third period between leaving Manu Kingwatsiaks house and arriving
at the Adla house.
[116] Given what we know about the attack by the accused on his uncle,
Manu Kingwatsiak, Dr. Klassen concludes that inhalants may have
played a role in that incident.
[117] The doctor said that the accused was probably experiencing a
mental state disturbance that may have included intoxication with
respect to the assault on his uncle but, if so, it was likely voluntary
intoxication.
[118] The fact that the accused reports that he woke up at Manus house
is indicative of the acute effect of the dose wearing off.
[119] Dr. Klassen did not feel that the third period of sniffing was significant
in terms of the accuseds mental state at the time of the killing.
[120] He told the Defence that, although he was not discounting that there
were inhalants on board when the accused went into Mr. Adlas
home, the accuseds disclosure that he woke up at Manus, his
behaviour at Mr. Adlas house, and his self-report to Mr. Tunnillie
less than an hour after the shooting, is not consistent with a very
large dose of inhalant use after the attack on Manu Kingwatsiak.
[121] Dr. Klassen felt that the accuseds detailed description of what
happened at the Adla home did not bring intoxication or mental state
to bear in his opinion. Further, taking into account things like bullet
angle and placement, there was no disorganization at the crime
scene which would be consistent with a high degree of intoxication.
[122] The kind of intoxication where you lose touch with reality involves
slurring and people around you would notice. No one noticed this
type of behaviour on the part of the accused. In fact, even with
respect to the attack on his uncle, the accused was speaking to him
in full sentences.
[123] Dr. Klassen concludes that the accused was experiencing a
declining effect of the inhalants at the time he shot Mappaluk.

21

[124] Dr. Klassen says that the most compelling evidence of this is the
accuseds disclosure to his friend, Mr. Tunnillie, shortly after killing
his step-brother.
[125] His evidence on this point is as follows:
When he spoke to Mr. Tunnillie he didnt talk about not remembering,
he didnt talk about memory fragments, he didnt talk about haziness
and he didnt talk about intoxication. He said I shot him, he was
sleeping. I shot him in the forehead and he was a bad guy.
{Transcript, p 106}

[126] The accused did, however, acknowledge to his friend that when he
stabbed his uncle, he was under the influence of inhalants.
[127] There is some evidence that the accused, when speaking with Dr.
Klassen, was shaping his responses and the doctor made note of
some red flags which could result in a finding that Peter Kingwatsiak
was malingering (which is another word for pretending in order to
arouse sympathy or minimize what had happened). In a case like
this where the accused has so much at stake this is not unusual.
[128] An example of this was the inconsistency in his description of what
Mr. Adla was doing at the time Peter shot and killed him. It varied
from sleeping to getting up to being wide awake in three different
accounts. Those different accounts cannot all be correct.
[129] The doctors overall conclusion was that there is no evidence of
profound or significant intoxication which would cause him to find
that Peter Kingwatsiak did not have the capacity to form the requisite
intent for murder at the time that he shot and killed his step-brother,
Mappaluk Adla.
B. Doctor David Rosenbloom
[130] Dr. Rosenbloom testified for the Defence. His evidence was fairly
brief.
[131] He was qualified as an expert to give evidence on pharmacology and
the effects of drugs on a persons system. He admitted that the
culture of gasoline sniffing was not his area of expertise and that he
had very limited field experience.

22

[132] Dr. Rosenbloom had two very short conversations with the accused
over the telephone. The first conversation was very brief as the
accused did not feel he was able to participate and the second
conversation lasted approximately ten minutes.
[133] The accused told Dr. Rosenbloom that he started sniffing gasoline at
around age 18 and that he would sniff it once a day by putting his
nose close to the canister of gas {Transcript, p 351}.
[134] The accused told the doctor that in the hours leading up to the event,
he had sniffed gas on three occasions. The first time was when he
pointed the gun at the deceased and was interrupted by Geena
Rose. The second and third times occurred during the early morning
hours of September 20, 2010. He said he was hitting the gasoline
hard and that he blacked out on one occasion. No further details
were provided.
[135] Dr. Rosenbloom told the Court that the major active ingredient in
gasoline is a substance called Toluene which causes effects which
are very similar to the effects caused by alcohol use.
[136] The doctor testified that the use of marijuana is unlikely to impact the
effects of inhalant use.
[137] The doctor also testified that a person using inhalants would
experience the effect within a few minutes and that it could last five
to six hours.
[138] He agreed that inhalant use could have an effect on memory over
time.
[139] Dr. Rosenbloom says that the accused was confused about the
attack on his uncle, but that he did remember shooting his stepbrother. He told the doctor that he pulled the trigger when the
deceased stood up.
[140] The doctor admitted that his report was compiled without any
analysis of credibility or malingering on the part of the accused. He
relied totally on what he was told.
[141] In cross-examination, he agreed with the Crown, indicating that, like
alcohol, using inhalants reduces inhibitions.

23

C. Dr. Gary Chaimowitz

[142] Dr. Chamowitz also testified for the Defence. He spent a
considerable amount of time with the accused in preparation for his
report and his testimony.
[143] Like Dr. Klassen, he is a forensic psychiatrist.
[144] The accused told Dr. Chamowitz that he started sniffing gas at the
age of 12. He said he used inhalants no more than four times per
year.
[145] Dr. Chamowitz admitted that Dr. Mamak found that the accused had
elevated scores on a test that she administered which was meant to
pick up levels of deception. It was designed to identify when the
accused was either malingering or distorting the facts. She
explained, as did Dr. Chamowitz, that this was to some extent
reasonable given that the accused appeared to be trying to present
himself in a better light.
[146] The doctor admitted that in his discussions with the accused there
were some things that were contradictory at times, even in the same
description of events, such as I wanted to shoot him but I didnt really
want to shoot him. {Transcript, p 592}.
[147] With respect to events just prior to the shooting, the accused told Dr.
Chamowitz that he had been sniffing gas four or five times to the
point of losing consciousness. He also told the doctor that he was
quite distressed at the time.
[148] In Dr. Chamowitzs opinion, the unprovoked attack on Manu
Kingwatsiak increases the likelihood of the accuseds intoxication.
[149] At first, the accused appeared to remember clearly shooting
Mappaluk. Further, at some level, he told the doctor that the
deceased deserved to be shot, but he also said that he didnt mean
to shoot Mapp.
[150] On another occasion, the accused told Dr. Chamowitz that he had
very little memory of going into Mappaluks home and shooting him.
[151] The accused did, however, give Dr. Chamowitz a fair bit of detail and
provided him with a fairly consistent sequence of events from
September 18-20, 2010.

24

[152] The accused also reported to the doctor that he didnt mean it when
he told people that he was going to kill Mappaluk.
[153] In cross-examination, the doctor could not explain how no one
appears to have noticed signs of intoxication after the accused left
Mappaluk Adlas home that morning.
[154] Dr. Chamowitz found no evidence in this particular case of a planned
murder-suicide, although at one point the accused did tell the doctor
that he had thought about shooting himself after this event. He said
that in fact he had held the gun to his chin, but had not been able to
fire it.
[155] The doctor testified that the effects of inhalants can wear off quite
quickly or last a few hours.
[156] He concluded by telling the Court that the accused, on a balance of
probabilities, more likely than not lacked the capacity to form the
necessary intent for murder at the time he shot and killed Mappaluk
Adla on September 20, 2010.

IV. CIVILIAN WITNESSES

[157] Three civilian witnesses were called at trial: Manu Kingwatsiak,
Etidloi Adla, and Tytoosie Tunnillie.
A. Manu Kingwatsiak
[158] Manu Kingwatsiak testified about what happened at his home when
the accused attacked him with a knife.
[159] I find no need to repeat those facts that have already been agreed
to, except to say that they were confirmed by the witness.
[160] The following additional evidence was provided.
[161] Mr. Kingwatsiak was asked if he could smell gas on the accuseds
breath and his answer was absolutely not. The witness also told the
Court that he did not think that he could smell anything coming from
Peters clothes.

25

[162] He testified that Mappaluk Adlas house was close to his own. It was
maybe one block away. After the attack, Manu went to the window
where he saw Peter Kingwatsiak walking towards the Adla
residence.
[163] He observed that the accused was walking straight like everybody
else does.
[164] The witness told us that the door to his home was locked every night,
but on this occasion, for an unknown reason, it was unlocked.
[165] In cross-examination, Manu admitted that Peter was a frequent
visitor during the day, but never at night. He was not invited and his
presence was completely unexpected.
[166] He admitted in cross-examination that if he had not been attacked by
the accused, he would have been okay with the accused being in his
house that morning.
[167] Manu Kingwatsiak also admitted in cross-examination that when he
first saw the accused he was just standing there, not saying anything
and not even noticing that he was present. It was a surprise when he
was attacked. He had never been hit by the accused before and this
whole event was completely unexpected.
[168] Finally, Mr. Kingwatsiak admitted that when he gave his statement to
the police shortly after the incident he was asked the following
question and gave the following answer: Question: what happened
last night to set him off, to cause him to stab you in the face?
Answer: evil spirit I guess.
B. Etidloi Adla
[169] Sometime in mid-August of 2010, Etidloi Adla, Mappaluks older
brother, was with several people on the beach preparing to go
fishing. The group included Kumaarjuk Pii, Kooyoo Peter, the
accused, and Manu Peter. During preparation, Mappaluk came down
to the beach. Mr. Adla testified that when he got off the boat to go
and talk to his brother, he heard the accused say to Manu Peter that
he was going to shoot Mappaluk one day. It was said in a joking tone
and he did not appear to be angry at all when he said it.
[170] Mapp did not come with them on their fishing trip.

26

[171] Later that same day Etidloi, the accused, and Manu were at a
campsite shooting at rocks sticking out of the water. Mr. Adla heard
the accused sort of whisper to Manu Peter, saying that he was going
to shoot at a rock and pretend it was Mappaluks head. Peter
Kingwatsiak then took about five shots at the rock.
[172] Etidloi testified that he was sort of shocked, but he didnt believe the
accused would do that.
[173] He does not recall anyone drinking or taking drugs that day.
[174] Mr. Adla testified that prior to Mappaluks death, he knew that there
was some jealousy going on between Mapp and the accused over
Geena Rose. At the time, he was working with youth in the
community and rumors of the accuseds animus towards Mapp were
spreading like wildfire throughout the community.
[175] Mr. Adla and the accused used to hunt together. Etidloi told the
Court that the accused was just learning and when asked if he was a
good shot, responded that he was typical and that more often than
not he would miss his target, but by a very slight distance.
[176] In cross-examination, it became clear that Mr. Adla gave two
statements to the police. During the first statement following the
death of his brother, he did not say anything about the time when the
accused was shooting at rocks and pretending they were Mapps
head. He waited over a year to tell the police about this incident with
the rocks.
[177] The witness explained that, although he remembered the rock
incident shortly after giving his first statement, he did not contact the
police. He testified that he was sure the police would be calling him
again so he saved the information for the second interview with the
authorities. He went on to say that he did not want to make any old
wounds fresh again by contacting the police himself.
[178] Etidloi Adla did not hide the fact that he wants the accused to be
convicted of murdering his brother, but said he would not lie to make
that happen.

27

C. Tytoosie Tunnillie
[179] Mr. Tunnillie supplied information which is included in the admissions
that form part of the evidence in this trial. I will not repeat things
which were, for the most part, confirmed by his testimony at trial.
This witness did, however, provide some additional facts, which are
as follows.
[180] When Mr. Tunnillie saw the accused that morning he was crying. He
had a smirky look and an unusually red face. He could tell that the
accused had been sniffing gasoline. Tytoosie testified that over two
hours after he arrived at the Tunnillie house and, while he was
talking to Tytoosie and his father, this witness smelled gasoline on
the accused.
[181] Prior to this, the accused had told Tytoosie that he had been
blacking out from sniffing gasoline. He said that he was sniffed out
when he stabbed Manu in the head and that he suddenly woke up
while he was trying to stab him.
[182] The accused kept saying that he wanted to commit suicide and he
was very emotional.
[183] When the witness was demonstrating how the accused told him he
was holding the rifle when he killed Mappaluk, he did so as if the
accused was right handed. At that time, the accused was not crying.
[184] Mr. Tytoosie said that the accused told him he had killed Mapp, but
that it was not on purpose. He remembers the accused saying that
he shot Mappulak, but it was by accident.
[185] Tytoosie admitted in cross-examination that while the accused was
at his house that morning he did not talk like he was drunk. They
went out for a smoke a few times that morning. Each time they did
this the accused had no difficulty putting his shoes on or taking them
off.
[186] When giving his answers, Mr. Tytoosie backtracked a lot and at
times he was very evasive.
[187] When faced with an inconsistency between the statement he gave to
the police shortly after the incident and his testimony, he told the
Court that he was drinking a lot back then and his memory was
better now.

28

[188] In cross-examination, it was put to Tytoosie that when he gave his

statement to the police he heard Peter Kingwatsiak say that he had
just shot the one he hated the most. Tytoosie then said that he had
lied to the police. He followed this by saying that he couldnt
remember if he said that to the police or not and finally Tytoosie
admitted that at some point during the morning of the fatal shot, the
accused did say something about hating Mappaluk.
[189] Many of Mr. Tytoosies answers to important questions were
inconsistent with each other. For instance, at one point he said that
he could not understand what the accused was saying and later he
said that the accused was talking normally.
[190] He first said the smell of gasoline coming from the accused was
strong and later said that it was not that strong.
[191] It appeared to the Court that he was trying his best to minimize what
happened that morning and to support his friend, Peter Kingwatsiak,
as much as possible. His overall credibility suffered as a
consequence.

V. EVIDENCE FROM THE ACCUSED

[192] The accused testified at length during his trial.
[193] As is Mr. Kingwatsiaks right, he chose to testify in Inuktitut using the
services of qualified, experienced, and professional court
interpreters.
[194] His in-chief examination took place Wednesday morning and
afternoon while his cross-examination took most of Thursday and all
of Friday to complete.
[195] Shortly after commencing his testimony, an issue arose with respect
to the quality of interpretation. The accused advised the Court that
he was having some difficulty agreeing to the words the interpreters
were using when translating to the Court in English what he had just
said in Inuktitut.
[196] Counsel and the accused submitted that the difficulty was likely due
to differences in dialect. It was resolved, on consent, that replacing
one of the interpreters with another who was more experienced with
the Cape Dorset dialect was an adequate solution.

29

[197] The trial then proceeded, using consecutive translation throughout.

[198] The issue of appropriate translation was brought to the attention of
the Court by the accused a number of times. In fact, the Court
directed the accused to interrupt the proceedings any time he felt
there was an issue in this regard. He was not shy to do so.
[199] At one point, he felt that the Crown should ask the question in
English without interpretation and then he could answer in Inuktitut
with interpretation. This proved not to be particularly helpful as the
accused continued to ask for translation, noticeably when the
question related to an important issue.
[200] I find that the accused testified in a way that leads this Court to
believe that he was using his command of both Inuktitut and English
to delay many of the responses he gave.
[201] On numerous occasions, particularly on important issues, this Court
finds that he deliberately slowed down the proceedings so that he
could carefully consider what his answer to the question should be,
rather than answering in a forthright and non-evasive manner.
[202] This is not reflected accurately in the transcripts of his evidence.
The written word does nothing to depict demeanour or tone. It does
not reflect long pauses between questions. It does not depict
frustration or anger. Extreme emotions are not recognizable from the
words on the paper.
[203] This is a case where the accuseds testimony at trial was important,
particularly on the ultimate issue of whether Mr. Kingwatsiak had the
capacity to form the intent for murder.
[204] Accordingly, the way the accused answered the questions posed to
him is part of this Courts overall assessment.
[205] I have no difficulty in finding that the accused was extremely evasive
and inconsistent throughout his lengthy cross-examination.
[206] At one point, he told the Court that he was not in love with Geena
Rose and at another he admitted that in September of 2010, he was
in love with her.

30

[207] At times he insisted that he was not jealous of Geena Rose and
Mapp and at other times he admitted to the Court that he did not like
the fact that they were together.
[208] In-chief, the accused testified as to his background. I do not believe it
is necessary to repeat everything he told the Court. Suffice it to say
that his childhood was difficult. He lost two siblings: an older brother
to a hunting accident and his sister to suicide. He was sexually
assaulted by an uncle and he was badly injured when he was 14 or
15 due to his use of inhalants. On that occasion he was sniffing gas
and his clothes caught on fire. He suffered burns to about 45% of his
body; mostly his feet and legs which required treatment in the south
for three months.
[209] He tried to hang himself at least once, but possibly twice, prior to the
burn injuries.
[210] The accused described himself in September of 2010, as a hunter
and a student. At the time of his arrest, he had completed Grade 10
and was starting Grade 11.
[211] He cant remember when he started sniffing gas, but he told the
Court it was sometime before he started smoking marijuana which
occurred when he was approximately 12 years old.
[212] He told his lawyer during the trial that in August of 2010, he would
sniff gasoline whenever he went camping with his grandfathers.
They went out probably every week so he estimated that he was
sniffing every week.
[213] The accused said that on at least one occasion in August, he was
sniffing with his relative, Manu Peter.
[214] The accused denied Etidloi Adlas account of him firing a gun at
rocks in August while pretending that he was firing at Mappaluks
head.
[215] When talking about Geena Rose, even his evidence in chief was
inconsistent. He testified that Geena Rose was his girlfriend prior to
September of 2010. They were not going out on September 18,
2010, but on that date he knew Geena and Mapp were friends.
Mappaluk was 23 and Geena Rose was 15.

31

[216] He knew that Geena Rose and Mapp were together during the
Saturday night dance in Cape Dorset. After the dance he saw them
walking together with other friends.
[217] When asked how that made him feel, he said that he was not jealous
or hurt, but he did not like the fact that they were together.
[218] He admitted that he pointed the gun at Mapp the morning before his
death in front of Geena Rose. He told the Court that the gun was not
loaded and that he did not intend to shoot Mappaluk.
[219] He said the bullets to the gun were in his pocket. The accused later
conceded in cross-examination that the gun was in fact loaded.
[220] He told us that he wanted to be closer to Geena Rose and he
thought she would ask him why he was pointing the gun at
Mappaluk. He tried again to convince her to go out with him, but she
refused.
[221] Later that same day, in the evening, he saw Geena Rose on her way
to church. He asked her to go for a walk with him and she refused.
He asked her to give him back the bullets for his gun, but she would
not do so. He testified that he did not want the bullets back so that he
could kill Mapp, but that he wanted to return them to the place where
he found them. His testimony on this point was far from convincing.
[222] When talking about his feelings for Geena Rose, he was extremely
resistant and evasive. His evidence was extremely inconsistent. At
one point, he said that he was just trying to have a relationship with
her, but it wasnt the most important thing in his life. He denied
several times that he was jealous or hurt because of the situation he
found himself in. He minimized his feelings for Geena Rose
throughout his testimony. When asked, he could not adequately
explain why he had the words Geena Rose. My one and only
written in ink on his arm at the time of his arrest.
[223] On Sunday evening, the accused testified that Geena Rose was
wearing makeup and she looked different. The way she looked
caused him to believe that Geena Rose and Mappaluk had, had sex.
He told his lawyer, when asked how that made him feel, that he
didnt feel anything about it.

32

[224] Later on Sunday night, he was speaking to Geena Rose online. He

again asked her to go out with him and to give him another chance.
She again refused. He told the Court that he knew why she wouldnt
go out with him and it was because he had pointed a gun at Mapp,
although she never said that to him at any time.
[225] On Monday morning he got up early, around 3:00 or 3:30 a.m., and
went to the porch of his fathers house to smoke a cigarette. He then
went to his bedroom and was lying in bed for about ten minutes
before getting up and leaving.
[226] He said that he went to the beach, down to his grandfathers boat.
He was sniffing gas from inside the boat, directly from the fuel tank
up to a point where he says he didnt feel anything, he became
numb. He could not say how many times he sniffed, but he said that
he sniffed as hard as he could. The next thing he remembers is that
he wasnt in the boat any longer. When he became aware of this, he
returned to the boat and continued to sniff. When he was done he
closed the tank. He was feeling high.
[227] When asked by his lawyer why he was sniffing so much gasoline that
morning he said because he was thinking about the anniversary of
his sisters death. He said he was sad because they were very close
and he sniffed every September. When the Crown explored his
answer, it was obvious to the Court that he was being less than
truthful. He told the Crown a number of times that he cant say if his
sniffing that morning had anything to do with Geena Rose.
[228] He took a .22 calibre gun from the boat when he left. When asked
why he took the gun he said, I took it but I wasnt thinking about the
reasons why I took it. {Transcript, p 324}.
[229] During the early morning hours of September 20, 2010, the accused
admitted that he was walking around the community with three guns:
a .22 calibre rifle, a .303 calibre rifle, and a shotgun. At some point
he left the shotgun somewhere on the mountain, but he did not know
where because it was dark.
[230] When asked why he had the three guns that night, he said he could
not tell the Court why.

33

[231] After he left the boat he went to his aunts place. He arrived, but did
not enter. He waited around for a short period of time before leaving.
He next found himself at his uncles house. The accused saw that
there were bikes (described commonly as Hondas) outside Manu
Kingwatsiaks house so he went to one, removed the cap from the
gas tank, and again started to sniff gasoline. After he sniffed out of
this gas tank, he told his lawyer that he doesnt remember anything.
[232] He then said that while he was sniffing gas from the Honda, he
thought he saw his uncle watching him from the window in his home.
He thought that Manu would mention it to his parents which is
something he did not want to happen.
[233] Again his testimony is contradictory. The accused said that after he
saw Manu in the window, he continued to sniff from the Hondas tank
and the next thing he remembers is leaving his uncles place.
[234] He then said that he was blacked out after sniffing from his uncles
Honda and the next thing he remembers is his uncle talking to him
and trying to take the knife away from him.
[235] The accused told the Court that he woke up at his uncles house
and when he became aware of what he was doing, he apologized
and left.
[236] After he left, he started looking for the .22 calibre rifle, which he had
brought with him. He found it next to Mannus house where he had
left it.
[237] He was intending to go home, but on the way he saw a ski-doo and
so he went to the machine, opened up the gas tank, and sniffed
some more.
[238] The accused told the Court that he was sniffing differently from the
snow machine. This time he would breathe in the gas, hold it in his
lungs until he couldnt hold it anymore, and then he would breathe it
out. The high was more intense.
[239] After this period of sniffing the accused blacked out. He told his
lawyer that he doesnt remember anything further until he was down
south and he found out what he had done. In the same response, he
also said that the next thing he remembered after sniffing the
gasoline was leaving Mappaluks house.

34

[240] After leaving Mapps house he walked by the graveyard. He then

went to Tytoosie Tunnillies house.
[241] In-chief, the accused said that he doesnt know if he told Tytoosie
that he had shot someone or not, whereas later he admits that not
only did he tell him that he shot Mappaluk Adla, but he showed his
friend how he did it.
[242] During cross-examination, the accused went from telling the Court
that he did not remember what he did at Mappaluks house to giving
a detailed description of exactly what occurred during the early
morning hours of September 20, 2010.
[243] The accused admitted that he told one of the psychiatrists that there
were five bullets in the gun he used to shoot Mr. Adla and that he
only had to use one of them.

VI. POSITION OF THE PARTIES

A. Crowns position
[244] The Crowns position is that there is ample evidence before the
Court that Peter Kingwatsiak planned to kill his step-brother, he knew
what he was doing when he pulled the trigger, his actions were
deliberate, and he accomplished what he set out to do that morning.
The accused therefore should be convicted of first degree murder.
B. Defences position
[245] The Defences position is that the accused lacked the specific intent
needed to find him guilty of murder due to both his level of
intoxication and also because he was suffering from extreme
emotions at the time of the offence. The accused, therefore, should
be convicted of manslaughter.
[246] If this Court disagrees and finds that Peter Kingwatsiak did have the
specific intent necessary for murder, the murder lacked the essential
elements of planning and deliberation which would be necessary to
find the accused guilty of first degree murder. This would result in a
conviction for second degree murder.

35

VII. ANALYSIS
A. Murder
(i). Did Peter Kingwatsiak have the capacity to form the intent required for
murder when he shot and killed Mappaluk Adla on September 20, 2010?

[247] It is the Crowns job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the

following:
1. That Peter Kingwatsiak caused Mappaluk Adlas
death;
2. That Peter Kingwatsiak caused Mappaluk Adlas
death unlawfully; and
3. That Peter Kingwatsiak had the state of mind
required for murder.
[248] Questions one and two are admitted for purposes of this case. The
accused caused Mr. Adlas death and he did so unlawfully. The
question in this trial is whether or not Peter Kingwatsiak had the state
of mind required for murder.
[249] As I said before, this offence requires proof of a particular state of
mind. For an unlawful killing to be murder, the Crown must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt either that the accused meant to kill
Mappaluk Adla in the early morning hours of September 20, 2010, or
that he meant to cause bodily harm that the accused knew was so
dangerous and so serious that it would likely kill Mr. Adla and he
proceeded despite his knowledge that Mappaluk Adla would likely
die as a result. The Crown does not have to prove both. One is
enough.
[250] Common sense would tell you that when someone walks into a
persons home in the early morning hours, points a loaded .22
calibre rifle at that persons forehead, and pulls the trigger at close
range, he does so with the intention to kill.
[251] The accuseds actions are only part of what must be considered.
[252] The Court is also required to consider whether or not the accused
knew what he was doing when he fired that fatal shot.

36

[253] The Court must consider all of the evidence. It must look to what he
did or did not do, how he did or did not do it, and what he said or did
not say.
[254] The Court must look at the accuseds words and conduct before, at
the time, and after the unlawful act that caused Mr. Adlas death.
[255] The opinions of the experts who testified during this trial must also
be carefully considered to determine Mr. Kingwatsiaks state of mind
at the time of the killing.
[256] Finally, in considering all the evidence, the Court is obligated to use
its good common sense.
[257] For the purposes of my decision, I will refer to those facts which most
inform my overall conclusion.
[258] It is clear that Peter Kingwatsiak was not happy with Mappaluk Adla
at the time of his death. We know this because he told several of his
friends that he was going to kill Mapp and why.
[259] I find as a fact that the accused was very jealous of the deceased
during the months of August and September of 2010. He was both
jealous and later angry because the accused thought that Mappaluk
was interested in, and taking advantage of, his one and only love,
Geena Rose Lampron.
[260] We know that the morning before the accused pulled the trigger that
ended Mapps life, he pointed a loaded .303 rifle at him and was
stopped from pulling the trigger by the very girl he was fixated on.
[261] We know that when he pointed the loaded rifle at Mappaluk and was
interrupted by Geena Rose, the accused told her he was going to kill
Mapp and that he had to do it.
[262] We know that within the 24 hours leading up to Mr. Adlas death,
Geena Rose refused to go out with Peter on at least four occasions.
[263] There is no doubt that the accused was distressed on September 20,
2010. We know that he hardly slept Sunday night and his evidence is
that he decided somewhere around 3:00 or 3:30 a.m. on Monday
morning to sniff gasoline. There is no evidence of sniffing prior to that
time.

37

[264] The accused says he sniffed gas because he was missing his sister
who had committed suicide years before during the month of
September. Although this may have been a contributing factor, the
Court finds that there is ample evidence to conclude that he was
more upset because he was convinced during a conversation with
Geena Rose on Sunday evening that Mapp and Geena Rose had
been sexually intimate with each other.
[265] The accuseds last rejection from Geena Rose was somewhere
around 11:00 p.m. Sunday evening.
[266] After sniffing gas at the boat, the accused was walking around Cape
Dorset with three weapons: the .22 calibre rifle which was used in
the offence before the Court, a .303 calibre rifle, and a shotgun.
[267] When asked why he was walking around with 3 guns, he had no
explanation. In fact, he said he couldnt tell the court why.
[268] He next sniffed gasoline at his uncles house. Manu Kingwatsiak and
the accused testified as to what happened there.
[269] I find for purposes of my decision today that the accuseds level of
intoxication at the time he was at Manu Kingwatsiaks residence was
greater than at the time he was at Mappaluk Adlas residence.
[270] I am convinced by the evidence provided by the witnesses and the
experts in this case together with the evidence from the accused and
Manu Kingwatsiak surrounding this event.
[271] The accuseds testimony is that he woke up while he was stabbing
his uncle.
[272] Although his level of intoxication may have played a part in his state
of mind at the time he attacked Manu Kingwatsiak, his actions and
conduct following this event appear to be those of someone who
knew what he was doing when he went into the Adla home.
[273] Immediately after the attack on his uncle, the accused had the
presence of mind to look for and to find the .22 calibre rifle which he
picked up and took with him to the Adla residence.
[274] I find that the accuseds level of intoxication following the attack on
Manu Kingwatsiak had been significantly reduced by the time he
shot and killed the deceased.

38

[275] I do this for a number of reasons.

[276] All of the experts in this case have based their conclusions on the
accuseds self-report with respect to his inhalant use.
[277] As I have already indicated, I find the accused to be a less than
credible witness.
[278] On the issue of intoxication at the time of the fatal shooting and
before, he told the experts different things.
[279] The accused told Dr. Rosenbloom that he started sniffing gas at age
18. He sniffed it once a day. In the hours leading up to the death of
Mr. Adla, he had sniffed gas on three occasions. The first time was
prior to the incident when he pointed the gun at Mr. Adla and was
stopped by Geena Rose. This was the morning before the fatal
shooting.
[280] He told Dr. Chaimowitz that he started sniffing gas when he was 12
and he used inhalants no more than four times per year.
[281] He went on to say that just prior to Mr. Adlas death he had been
sniffing gas four or five times to the point of losing consciousness.
[282] The accused told Dr. Klassen that he sniffed a bit when he was
much younger, age 12 or less. He sniffed gas once when he was 16
and then he sniffed gasoline in the early morning hours of
September 20, 2010. He estimated about eight episodes of inhalant
use in total during his life.
[283] The accuseds testimony in-chief when asked about his inhalant use,
was that he sniffed every week during the month of August when he
went out camping.
[284] There is no evidence that the accused smelled of gasoline during
any of his interactions with people in Cape Dorset prior to the death
of Mappaluk.
[285] After the shooting, the accused interacted with a number of people.

39

[286] There is only one person who says he smelled gasoline on the
accused. Tytoosie Tunnillie testified that he smelled gas on the
accused after the accused told him he was blacked out from sniffing
when he attacked his uncle. Mr. Tunnillie says he smelled gas when
the accused, he, and Tytoosies father were talking together. This
was at least two hours after the accused entered the Tunnillie home.
[287] There is no evidence from anyone that the accuseds speech was
anything other than normal. He did not slur his words. He did not act
like he was drunk. The evidence of intoxication is not of a significant
nature. It does not leave this Court with a reasonable doubt with
respect to the accuseds intentions at the time he delivered the fatal
shot.
[288] Further, there is very little, if any, evidence of intoxication from those
who interacted with him at the Tunnillie residence immediately
following the death of Mr. Adla.
[289] The accused took his shoes off when he entered Tytoosies house
and he put them back on when he went to the porch to smoke. He
did this a few times that morning. There is no evidence that he had
any difficulty at any time maintaining his balance. Even Manu
Kingwatsiak observed Peter immediately after the attack on him to
be walking like any normal person in the direction of the Adla
residence.
[290] Although the accused was emotional and suicidal at the Tunnillie
home, he was described throughout as appearing to be sober. He
was not in a panic at any time and there was no evidence of bizarre
behaviour.
[291] There was no evidence of disorganization at the crime scene. The
accused walked into the Adla home and fired one shot at close range
to the head of Mr. Adla causing his death. There was no sign of a
struggle.
[292] For all of these reasons, this Court finds beyond a reasonable doubt
that Peter Kingwatsiak not only had the capacity to form the intent
required for murder, but he also intended his actions when he shot
and killed Mappaluk Adla on September 20, 2010.

40

B. Planning and deliberation

(i). Was the murder of Mappaluk Adla both planned and deliberate?

[293] Not every murder is first degree murder. In order to convict, the
Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was
both planned and deliberate.
[294] The words planned and deliberate mean different things.
[295] According to author David Watt,
Planned is a word that we often use when talking to other people
[It] means a calculated scheme or design that has been carefully
thought out. The consequences of it have been thought over and
sized up.
The plan does not have to be either complicated or sensible.
[]
Deliberate is not a word that we often use when speaking to other
people. It means considered, not impulsive, carefully thought out,
not hasty or rash, slow in deciding, cautious 1.

[296] A deliberate act is one where the person has taken time to weigh the
advantages and disadvantages of the act he or she is about to
commit. That deliberation must take place before the act of murder. 2
[297] Once again, the Court must look at what the accused did or did not
do, how he did or did not do it, and what he said or did not say.
[298] The effect of any real or imagined provoking words or conduct from
others that may have affected his state of mind is important, together
with the accuseds overall condition before, during, and after the
offence.
[299] I will refer to portions of the evidence that most impact on my overall
decision.

David Watt, Watt's Manual of Criminal Jury Instructions, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2015) at
691.
2
Ibid.

41

[300] The findings of fact in terms of whether or not the accused had the
requisite intent for murder contribute to, but are not decisive as to
whether or not the murder was planned and deliberate.
[301] Intoxication can raise a reasonable doubt regarding the planning and
deliberation required for first degree murder, even if it leaves no
doubt regarding the specific intent for murder.
[302] The accused maintains that he did not mean to kill Mappaluk Adla. I
find that this evidence is neither credible nor reliable. At one point
when the accused was testifying he said that he did not remember
what happened at the Adla home and yet shortly after the event, the
accused not only tells his friend Tytoosie what he did and why, but
he demonstrates for him exactly how he was holding the gun when
he pulled the trigger.
[303] The accuseds testimony throughout the trial was varied and
inconsistent both internally and externally. At one point, the accused
doesnt remember anything and at another, he remembers
everything.
[304] There is no evidence of confusion on the part of the accused from
any of the witnesses who interacted with him after the fatal shooting.
[305] I find that the accused was both jealous of and angry with the
deceased throughout August and September of 2010.
[306] Although the accused denies it, I found the evidence of Etidloi Adla
to be both credible and reliable. This is the evidence that relates to a
time in August of 2010, when the accused told his friend Manu Peter
that he was going to shoot at rocks and pretend they were Mappaluk
Adlas head.
[307] Even without this evidence, there are ample facts before the Court to
support my finding that during August and September of 2010, there
was considerable malice towards the deceased by the accused.
[308] The accused felt that Mapp and the love of his life, Geena Rose,
were in a relationship. He felt they were more than just friends. He
was completely infatuated with Geena Rose Lampron and he saw
Mappaluk Adla as his competition.

42

[309] The accused felt that the deceased had taken advantage of other
young women in Cape Dorset and he became convinced that Mapp
intended to take advantage of his girl, Geena Rose.
[310] We know this because the accused was not shy to tell many of his
friends about how he was feeling.
[311] We know that in the weeks up to Mapps death, the accused told a
number of people that he was going to kill Mappaluk Adla.
[312] This alone is not enough to find that the accused planned the murder
of his step-brother and that he then deliberately carried out that
murder.
[313] Often people threaten to kill someone they dont like. Generally, they
dont mean to follow through, but this is a case where not only did
the accused threaten to kill Mapp, but he then turned those threats
into action the morning before he delivered the fatal shot. This was
an extraordinary step in the wrong direction. A giant step towards
following through on what he told others he was going to do.
[314] The accused sees Mapp and Geena Rose together both at the
Saturday night dance and later while walking around in the
community early Sunday morning. There is no doubt that he is
extremely jealous at this point. He obtains a loaded .303 calibre rifle
and points it directly at Mapp. While he is doing this, Geena Rose
sees what is happening and begs him not to shoot Mappaluk Adla.
The accused asks her to leave so she wont see him kill Mapp that
morning, but she refuses. The accused says he is going to kill
Mappaluk and that he has to do it. She tells him he doesnt have to
kill Mapp and eventually she convinces the accused to give her the
bullets from the gun.
[315] The time between this event and the actual murder is at most 24
hours. The accused points the loaded firearm at his step-brother
early Sunday morning, September 19, and he delivers the fatal shot
early Monday morning, September 20, 2010.
[316] This Court finds that this incident greatly affected the accused. He
was now not only jealous and angry, but he was also embarrassed
that his girlfriend and others had seen him point a loaded firearm at
Mapp. In fact, the accused testified that he felt his actions decreased
his chances to get back together with the girl he loved, Geena Rose.

43

[317] After this incident, he tries on two more occasions to convince

Geena Rose to give him another chance. He sees her hours after he
points the rifle at Mapp and asks her for the bullets back. She not
only refuses his request, but she tells him she wont go out with him.
It is this meeting with Geena Rose that convinces the accused that
she and Mapp have been intimate with each other.
[318] This is when the accused feels that all is lost. He tries once more to
get Geena Rose to reconsider at 11 p.m. Sunday night, and again
she refuses to go out with him.
[319] It is important to note that no one who came into contact with the
accused prior to the murder noticed any signs of intoxication. No one
smelled gasoline coming from the accused. No one saw the accused
sniffing gas. No one reported that the accused had been drinking or
taking drugs during their interactions with him.
[320] After being online with Geena Rose Sunday evening, the accused is
alone and angry. He barely sleeps while he continues to think about
the situation.
[321] Just prior to sniffing gasoline, the accused goes to his bedroom at
his fathers house and looks at photos of his deceased sister. This
simply adds to his hopelessness. Because his sister took her own
life, he is considering doing the same. This is supported by the
testimony of Dr. Chamowitz who says the accused told him that after
the shooting he did hold the gun to his chin, but could not pull the
trigger.
[322] This Court finds that it is at this point that he formed the plan to
complete the act he had already rehearsed. The accused decided he
would kill Mappaluk Adla that very morning. He decided that he had
to do it in order to protect the girl he loved.

44

[323] The accused then wrote the note which he left to be found by his
family in his Bible. The note is evidence that he considered the
consequences of what he was about to do, but he decided to do it
anyway. The note expressed his hopelessness. The note said that
there was no tomorrow that it was too late to fix what was wrong
and that Geena Rose did not want to see him anymore. The
accused knew his family would find and read the note. He left
instructions that they were not to do anything to Geena Rose no
matter what happened to him. He told his family that he loved them
and he tried to justify what he was about to do to his best friend,
Tommy Padluq.
[324] The accused then armed himself with three firearms. One was the
.22 calibre rifle that he used to shoot and kill Mappaluk Adla.
[325] I pause to note that the accused told one of the psychiatrists that
there were five bullets in the .22, but he only had to use one of them.
After the murder, the accuseds aunt found a number of .22 calibre
bullets on his bed at his fathers house.
[326] The accused then decided to sniff gasoline which may or may not
have been part of the initial plan.
[327] On the way to the Adla residence, he finds himself outside his
uncles house. The accused decides to sniff more gas and thinks he
sees Manu in the window of his home watching him. At this point, the
accused is high on fumes and he is worried that his uncle is going to
tell his family so he goes into the house and attacks his uncle.
During the attack he realizes what he is doing so he apologizes and
leaves. Although this is a bizarre incident, I am convinced that it is
simply an unexpected interruption in the overall plan.
[328] Manu Kingwatsiaks house is on the way to Mapps house. The
accused tells his uncle he is going to the Adla home and Manu goes
to the window and sees the accused walking in that direction.
[329] He does this after he retrieves the loaded .22 calibre rifle he placed
outside his uncles home.

45

[330] The accused goes where he told Manu Kingwatsiak he was going: to
his step-brothers house. He knows the house and he knows the
occupants are likely to be sleeping at the time he enters. The
accused walks in, sees Mappaluk Adla sleeping on the couch, puts
the barrel of the loaded .22 calibre rifle that he brings with him to
Mapps forehead, and deliberately pulls the trigger.
[331] He then leaves quickly and picks up the .303 rifle which he left close
by earlier that morning. He hides both rifles (the .303 and the .22) in
the Tunnillie shed after the incident. The shotgun had already been
discarded somewhere on the mountain that morning.
[332] The accused then spent at least two hours at the Tunnillie residence.
He did not appear to be drunk or confused. At one point he seemed
to be bragging to Itidloi Adla about killing Mappaluk and at another
point he admits to his friend Tytoosie that he has just killed the
person that lots of people dont like.
[333] The accused did not tell Tytoosie that he was sniffed out on gas
when he killed Mappaluk, but he did tell him that he was sniffed out
when he attacked Manu Kingwatsiak.
[334] The accused eventually left the Tunnillie home to speak with his
family before he turned himself in to the police.
[335] Prior to leaving the Tunnillie residence, the accused retrieved the
murder weapon, ammunition, and a pair of pants from the Tunnillie
shed.
[336] The accuseds level of intoxication from sniffing gas that morning
does not raise a reasonable doubt with respect to his ability to plan
Mappaluk Adlas death and it does not raise a reasonable doubt with
respect to his actions in deliberately carrying out that plan.
[337] For all of these reasons, I find that the accuseds murder of
Mappaluk Adla was both planned and deliberate.

VIII. FINAL CONCLUSION

[338] This Court finds Peter Kingwatsiak guilty of the first degree murder of
Mappaluk Adla on September 20, 2010.

46

[339] With respect to the charge of break, enter, & commit aggravated
assault on Manu Kingwatsiak, the evidence supports a conviction for
aggravated assault pursuant to section 268 of the Criminal Code,
RSC 1985, c C-46. The Court does have a reasonable doubt with
respect to whether or not the accused broke into his uncles home.
The testimony is that the door was open and Manu Kingwatsiak said
that he would have been ok with his nephew being in the house that
morning if the attack had not taken place.

Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 2nd day of February, 2016

___________________
Justice B. Tulloch
Nunavut Court of Justice