 |
| John L. Hill |
Eduardo Balaquit, 59, disappeared on June 4, 2018, after leaving home for Westcon Equipment and Rentals in Brandon, Man., where he worked as a contract cleaner. The court was told that Pietz, a former Westcon employee, needed cash and killed Balaquit for his bank cards and PIN numbers. Both men worked at Westcon. An intensive ground search in the Arborg area, where the body was suspected to have been deposited, failed to uncover Balaquit’s body.
Pietz received credit for time already served, reducing his sentence to under 15 years. He appealed both conviction and sentence. The Manitoba Court of Appeal decision was handed down on Jan. 22, 2025 (R. v. Pietz, 2025 MBCA 5). The reasons for the decision are somewhat surprising because the main grounds for appeal were not Pietz’s factual innocence. Instead, it was argued that the trial judge did not grant a stay of proceedings for alleged Charter violations after Pietz’s arrest.
Almost a year after Balaquit disappeared, Pietz was arrested and cautioned against giving a statement. He exercised his s. 10(b) Charter right to consult with counsel and was interviewed on May 30, 2019, at police headquarters. After questioning, police still had not received a confession, so they decided to
MicrovOne: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
Once at Arborg he was removed from the police cruiser, still handcuffed, but wearing light clothing and shoeless despite chilly conditions. The recorded conversation with the police showed he was pressured by unprofessional comments such as: "Your life is going to end here," "Do you want to be left out here" and "You're looking like a retard. You're looking stupid now.” Expletives were also used to describe what Pietz was doing to his own life and that of his children. No incriminating statements were made.
On a voir dire at trial, the accused submitted that, during the time he was in police custody, his rights protected by ss. 7, 9 and 10(b) of the Charter were violated by the conduct of the police officers and argued he should be granted a stay of proceedings under Charter s. 24(1). His application was denied. The trial judge found that R. v. Storrey, 1990 1 SCR 241 was authority allowing police to cause the accused to be transported from police headquarters to further their investigation and nothing on the drive to Arborg constituted arbitrary detention. The lack of shoes and light clothing did not make the detention arbitrary either.
The trial judge also considered R. v. Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35 in concluding that his right to counsel was not affected by the drive to Arborg or the police manner of questioning. He maintained his s. 7 right to remain silent throughout.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge on these matters. It commented that while the police conduct and language cannot be condoned, nothing rose to the level of implied threats or exceeding permissible boundaries as in R. v. Z (MJ), 2022 MBCA 61. The court also agreed that Sinclair states that absent a change in circumstances, an initial warning coupled with a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel obviated the need for another s. 10(b) warning. The failure to provide an additional opportunity to consult counsel will constitute a breach of s. 10(b) only when it becomes clear, as a result of changed circumstances or new developments, that the initial advice, viewed contextually, is no longer sufficient or correct.
In the sentence appeal, counsel asked for a reduction of incarceration by “a year or two.” The basis for the reduction was on the failure by police to provide Pietz with warmer clothing once at Arborg and their use of profanities. However, the Appeal Court stated, “In this case, there is a sufficient evidentiary record and findings of fact were made regarding the police officers' conduct, but we are not satisfied that the interests of justice require us to consider the issue”. It noted that in R. v. Gorman, 2023 NLSC 34, a reduction in sentence is not to punish police. A sentence is imposed to recognize the harm to the offender and society. Even though R. v. Nasogaluk, 2010 SCC 6 allows a sentence reduction for state misconduct, the police officers’ conduct was not so egregious as to make the sentence demonstrably unfit.
With no error having been found by the Appeal Court, the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.