Case Summary
On April 18, 1986, a jury convicted Yves “Colossus” Plamondon on three counts of first degree murder, chiefly on the word of two police informants who were both convicted killers. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 25 years.1
Plamondon was a drug trafficker based in Montreal and Quebec City, who was well known to police.2 He was charged in connection with three homicides apparently connected to organized crime. The victims were Armand Sanschagrin (who was killed December 1, 1983), Denis Ouellet (April 13, 1985), and Claude Simard (August 13, 1985).3
Plamondon’s trial began on February 18, 1986.4 The prosecution called evidence that he arranged the execution of all three men because they owed him money in connection with the drug trade. The Crown’s star witness, André “Bull” Desbiens, testified that he had been Plamondon’s accomplice. Desbiens claimed to have been present at Simard’s execution, and also to have hidden the weapon with which Plamondon killed Ouellet.5 He further claimed that Plamondon confided in him that he had killed Sanschagrin.6
Desbiens himself had at first been charged with the murder of Claude Simard. Desbiens had also been charged with two other, unrelated counts of murder. But ultimately, he pled guilty to a reduced charge of manslaughter for all three offences, and was sentenced to a mere 7 years’ imprisonment.7
Another key Crown witness, Michael Blass, was a hit man turned police informant. Blass claimed that Plamondon confided in him that he had killed Simard, and moreover had contracted with Blass to kill another indebted drug dealer (however, Blass alleged that this was unsuccessful because he had the wrong address).8 Notwithstanding that Blass had admitted to killing twelve different people, he was permitted to plead guilty to manslaughter – and expected to spend only eight years in jail – on account of his new status as a police informant.9
Two additional Crown witnesses, Jean-Noël Daley and Pierre Gaudreault, testified that they had seen Plamondon, Desbiens, and Simard together in a tavern on the night of Simard’s death.10 This appeared to accord with Desbiens’ account that later that evening, he and Plamondon had taken Simard to a remote location where Plamondon killed him.11
Plamondon unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the Quebec Court of Appeal in 1991.12 Later that year he sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but the court denied his request.13
In January 1995, Desbiens recorded a deathbed confession, in the presence of Plamondon’s lawyer, recanting his trial evidence.14 Desbiens admitted to having perjured himself, at the behest of police, in order to implicate Plamondon in the three murders. He stated that Plamondon had in truth played no part in Simard’s murder, which he had himself carried out, along with a second man whom he did not name. Regarding the Ouellet and Sanschagrin murders, Desbiens stated that he merely heard rumours that perhaps Plamondon was involved.15 He recalled that police simply did not want to accept that Plamondon was not guilty of Simard’s murder: “It wasn’t me they wanted, it was Plamondon they absolutely wanted.”16 Police proceeded to coach Desbiens on how to implicate Plamondon in his testimony.17
In exchange, covert arrangements were made for Desbiens to spend years of his prison sentence instead living at two fishing chalets (in the Beauce region and another undisclosed location) and then a house in the Magdalen Islands. He was allowed to live with his girlfriend, and police brought him groceries as well as luxuries such as a television, canoe, and ATV.18 Gilles Blanchard, of Quebec’s Public Security Department, confirmed much of this account in a 1995 media interview. Blanchard stated that he had signed an agreement with Desbiens, in exchange for his evidence against Plamondon, and “confirmed the accounts of fishing chalets and the Magdalen Islands.”19
In addition to this troubling revelation, it emerged that the Crown had failed to disclose prior conflicting statements made by both Daley and Gaudreault in connection with their testimony against Plamondon. His trial lawyer had thus not been able to cross-examine these witnesses on the inconsistencies between their accounts, meaning that the jury lacked this information in its assessment of Daley and Gaudreault’s credibility.20
On the basis of new information, Plamondon applied to then Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson to have his case reopened.21 The Minister referred the case back to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which quashed Plamondon’s conviction and ordered a new trial.22 However, given that almost three decades had elapsed since his conviction, the prosecutor chose not to proceed with a new trial.23
Plamondon spent 28 years in prison, but the Quebec Superior Court and Court of Appeal nonetheless dismissed his subsequent lawsuit seeking compensation for his wrongful conviction.24 The Supreme Court of Canada denied Plamondon's leave to appeal.25