Félix Michaud

Case Summary

On the evening of December 3, 1991, a snowstorm hit the town of Claire, New Brunswick while Félix Michaud babysat his five-year-old daughter.1 Later that night, Michaud went out to his shed to work on a car starter with his brother, Clifford.2 Just after midnight, when Michaud was putting away his tools, his neighbour, Marco Albert, arrived at the front door.3 Albert, a petty criminal, asked Michaud to drive him 30 kilometers away to Edmundston so that he could purchase drugs. When Michaud refused, Albert left angrily.4 Michaud and his common-law wife, Suzanne Oakes, then got ready for bed.5

At about 4:00 a.m. on December 4, Oakes’ 73-year-old second cousin Rose Gagné’s house burned down. Gagné’s body was found in the rubble.6 Police concluded that the fire was an accident and closed their investigative file, after which Gagné was buried.7

In May 1992, Claire resident Luc Bonenfant contacted police, saying that Albert had told him Gagné’s death was a murder, and the fire had been set intentionally.8 Investigators reopened their file, and upon re-examining the scene, concluded that the fire had been deliberately set. They also observed that the telephone wires to the house had been cut.9 Gagné’s remains were exhumed and pathologists concluded that she had died before the house fire started.10

Police wiretapped the phones of individuals they regarded as persons of interest, including Albert and Michaud. They also enlisted Bonenfant as a police agent and arranged for him to wear a recording device while in the two men’s presence. Bonenfant later recorded a conversation between Albert and himself, wherein Albert insisted that Michaud had nothing to do with the murder and was not “the kind of guy to do something like that.”11 However, as the investigation progressed, Albert began making inconsistent statements in response to police questioning. Ultimately, Albert was arrested for Gagné’s murder – only after which did he change his story to implicate Michaud.12 Albert told police that he and Michaud had gone to Gagné’s house with the intention of robbing her, but Michaud had then sexually assaulted and murdered her. He claimed that Michaud had subsequently set the fire. In exchange for testifying to this version of events, the Crown reduced Albert’s charge from murder down to robbery, with the result that he received a two-year prison sentence.13

Michaud was arrested on July 7, 1992, and charged with Gagné’s murder.14 In preparation for Michaud’s trial, his lawyer requested that the Crown provide disclosure of all the wiretap and recording device evidence. The Crown claimed to have already shared all the evidence in its possession.15

At trial, defence counsel successfully pointed out inconsistencies and discrepancies in Albert’s testimony.16 The investigation had “turned up little evidence that implicated Michaud[,] other than Albert’s statement”, and no inculpatory physical evidence.17 Perhaps seeking to gain ground with the jury, the prosecutor graphically described the attack on Gagné in her closing address, and misrepresented the forensic evidence as if it linked Michaud to the murder. She painted a picture of Michaud as the kind of person who would kill.18 Michaud was found guilty of first degree murder on May 22, 1993, and sentenced to life imprisonment.19

Michaud appealed his conviction to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. In 1995, the Court ordered a new trial on the basis that the prosecutor had been “unprofessional and in breach of her duty to be fair”, due to her inflammatory comments to the jury and misleading presentation of the facts.20 The Court further found that the trial judge had a duty to “restore the proper balance of fairness and clearly indicate to the jury that the guilt of Michaud was to be determined on the basis of legal evidence identifying him as the perpetrator”, and not because of his alleged bad character.21 The Crown appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada; however, the Court found that the Crown’s jury address had indeed been improper, which the trial judge ought to have addressed.22 Michaud applied to be released on bail prior to his new trial, but his request was denied.23

Albert took his life before the second trial commenced. The trial judge permitted Albert’s testimony from the previous trial to be read into the court record.24 In response, Michaud’s lawyers called evidence from three prison inmates, who stated that Albert told them he had lied about Michaud’s alleged involvement in the murder. Nonetheless, on September 26, 1996, the jury again found Michaud guilty of first degree murder.25

Michaud appealed his conviction for a second time, and the Court of Appeal ruled that the trial judge had made a legal error in addressing the jury.26 However, the Court concluded that the judge had not “err[ed] in allowing Mr. Albert’s previous testimony to be read into the record” – meaning that a future jury might still convict him – and sent Michaud’s case back to trial a third time.27

In 2000, Michaud’s lawyers requested disclosure of the police investigative file in preparation for his third trial. Many months later, they received a package that included 2,200 pages of documents, as well as some boxes of audio files. By contrast, the Crown had previously provided only 300 pages.28

This new disclosure included Albert’s recorded statement to Bonenfant that Michaud did not commit the murder. Following this revelation, Michaud’s lawyers brought an application for the proceedings against him to be stayed. The trial judge ruled that Michaud’s third trial could still proceed, but the Crown would not be permitted to read in Albert’s testimony. The court found that the Crown had displayed a “high degree of negligence . . . in failing to disclose [this] information” before Michaud’s first trial, resulting in his being deprived of the “opportunity to fully cross-examine” Albert and thus undermining his right to a fair trial.29 In response, the Crown chose to stay the murder charge.30 After nearly nine years, Michaud was finally free.31

Michaud subsequently sued the government, prosecutors, and police for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.32 No public record has been found regarding the outcome of this litigation. Rose Gagné’s murder remains unsolved.


[1] R. v. Michaud, 1995 CanLII 5581 (NB CA) at p. 4 [Michaud First Appeal].
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid. at p. 1.
[7] Michaud First Appeal, supra note 1 at p. 1.
[8] R. v. Michaud, 2001 NBQB 37 at para. 4 [Michaud Motion for Stay].
[9] Michaud First Appeal, supra note 1 at p. 1.
[10] Ibid. at p. 3.
[11] Philip Lee, “An eight-year odyssey through injustice: An over-zealous prosecutor and ‘missing’ police tapes scuttled Felix Michaud’s chances of getting a fair trial -- twice. Philip Lee reports,” The Ottawa Citizen (23 June 2001): B1 [Lee 1].
[12] Ibid.; Michaud First Appeal, supra note 1 at p. 2.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Michaud Motion for Stay, supra note 8 at para. 7.
[15] Lee 1, supra note 11 at p. 4.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Philip Lee, “Grave consequences; The case against Felix Michaud in Rose Gagne’s murder rests on the testimony of a man who is now dead. Convicted in two trials, Michaud has served eight years in prison for a crime he may or may not have committed. Now he waits while the Court of Appeal,” New Brunswick Telegraph Journal (5 February 2000): n/a [Lee 2].
[18] Michaud First Appeal, supra note 1 at pp. 12-13.
[19] Michaud v. The Queen, 2000 CanLII 14347 (NB CA) at paras. 1-2 [Michaud Second Appeal].
[20] Michaud First Appeal, supra note 1 at pp. 12-17.
[21] Ibid. at p. 15.
[22] R. v. Michaud, 1996 CanLII 211 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 458 at paras. 1-2.
[23] R. v. Michaud, 1996 CanLII 4796 (NB CA).
[24] Michaud Motion for Stay, supra note 8 at para. 36.
[25] Michaud Second Appeal, supra note 19 at paras 1, 7.
[26] Ibid. at para. 12.
[27] Ibid. at paras. 31-32.
[28] Lee 1, supra note 11 at p. 6.
[29] Michaud Motion for Stay, supra note 8 at para. 48.
[30] Lee 1, supra note 11 at p. 7.
[31] Ibid.
[32] “N.B. man twice convicted of murder, twice released files lawsuit,” Canadian Press NewsWire (21 January 2003): n/a.

 

 

Case Details

  • Full name:

    Félix Michaud

  • Gender identity:

    Male

  • Race/ethnicity:

    Unknown

  • Age - at the time of conviction:

    27

  • Charges - specific offences:

    First degree murder

  • Date of conviction:

    1993-05-22

  • Date wrongful conviction was overturned:

    2001-05-29

  • Sentence - total time served:

    08 years, 10 months, 23 days

  • Legal mechanism by which wrongful conviction was overturned:

    Other

  • Status of alleged crime:

    Unsolved

  • Compensation Received?

    Unknown

  • Guilty plea?

    No

  • Cause(s) of wrongful conviction:

    Michaud was wrongfully convicted of murder based on dubious testimony from the man first charged with this offence – who had that charge dropped to robbery, in exchange for his evidence against Michaud.