His Majesty the King v. Adam Odette, 2026 ONSC 760

CITATION: R. v. Odette, 2026 ONSC 760

OSHAWA COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-16551

DATE: 20260213

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

ADAM ODETTE

Defendant

M. Newell and C. Enright, for the Crown

M. Wyszomierska, A. Di Fazio for the Defendant

HEARD: Nov 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 27, December 2,4,5,8,11,12, 2025

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LEIBOVICH J.

1In the early morning hours of March 12, 2023, Mr. Odette stabbed Katie Kainz 14 times in her apartment resulting in her death. He also stabbed her roommate Ashley Bernard in the face and elsewhere, but she survived. These facts are not in dispute. The Crown submits that Mr. Odette should be convicted of murder and attempted murder. The defence submits that Mr. Odette should be convicted of manslaughter and aggravated assault. A number of admissions were made, streamlining the trial, so that it was focused on the critical issue, the accused’s state of mind at the time of the incident and whether the Crown is able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Odette had the requisite intent for murder and attempt murder.

Trial Evidence

Brief Overview

2The witnesses, trial exhibits, and admissions together establish that Mr. Odette killed Katie Kainz and inflicted significant injuries on Ms. Bernard in the early hours of March 12, 2023. Mr. Odette started the day on March 11, 2023, with his girlfriend, Alyssa, and her daughter. They went to Ripley’s Aquarium in Toronto before returning to drop Alyssa’s daughter off. Mr. Odette went to the following places and with the following people from the evening on March 11, 2023, to the early morning hours on March 12, 2023:

a) He attended in the early evening of March 11th with Alyssa at 744 Hortop Street, the residence of Chase Leaitch-Henry;

b) He and Alyssa attended the victims’ apartment at 201 Simcoe Street North at 8:06 p.m.;

c) He and Alyssa attended Alyssa’s friend Asia’s residence at 425 Perry Street;

d) He, Alyssa, and Asia attended Chaser’s Bar and Grill, to be joined later by Mr. Leaitch-Henry;

e) Mr. Odette and Mr. Leaitch-Henry left the bar at 12:40 a.m., and returned to 744 Hortop Street;

f) Mr. Odette attended at the victims’ apartment at 201 Simcoe Street North at 3:51 p.m.;

g) Mr. Odette left the residence at 4:00 pm; and

h) Mr. Odette was picked up by Mr. Leaitch-Henry and his mother at 4:09 a.m., and subsequently returned to Asia’s residence at 425 Perry Street, arriving at 4:23 a.m.

3A very helpful video timeline was created, merging footage from various houses’ surveillance cameras and Chaser’s Bar and Grill. Mr. Mackinnon, a forensic video analyzer who created the video timeline, testified at trial and was able to verify the various time stamps that were seen and explained how they should be adjusted. His evidence was not in dispute. In these reasons, I will refer to the actual time that the various events took place, which I have determined based on Mr. Mackinnon’s evidence. For example, if the video in question depicts an event at 3:00 a.m., but Mr. Mackinnon has explained that the time is off by an hour, I will simply refer to the time as 4:00 a.m.

4At trial, the Crown called the forensic pathologist who detailed Ms. Kainz’s injuries. In addition, two forensic psychiatrists and a toxicologist also testified to shed some light on the effects of Mr. Odette’s consumption of alcohol and drugs on his ability to form the requisite intent for murder.

First Visit to 744 Hortop Street, Chase’s Residence

5Chase Leaitch-Henry testified. His wife is Mr. Odette’s cousin. Mr. Odette often came over to his house. Mr. Leaitch-Henry lived at 744 Hortop Street. Mr. Odette attended at his house on March 11, 2023, sometime in the afternoon. Mr. Leaitch-Henry was unsure when, but the sun was still up. Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that he was not very good with time, but he believed that the visit was not very long, approximately 30-45 minutes. In cross-examination, he said that it could have been an hour. Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that Mr. Odette arrived with Alyssa. They went into the garage, or his “man cave.” During the course of the visit, Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s wife, Brooke, backed into Alyssa’s car, causing some damage. She dented Alyssa’s car “pretty good.” Mr. Leaitch-Henry promised to fix it.

6Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that during the course of the visit, he did not see anyone consume drugs. He testified that Mr. Odette would not consume drugs in front of Alyssa, as he was hiding it from her. They talked about going to a bar later on.

7Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that, that day, he started a mini keg of Heineken, which is the equivalent of 12 beers. In cross-examination, he said it would be the equivalent of 14 12-ounce beers. He testified that he and Mr. Odette were drinking the beers, but he did not know how much Mr. Odette drank. Mr. Leaitch-Henry agreed in cross-examination that there was some harder liquor in the garage, but he did not remember if Mr. Odette had any of it. In cross-examination, Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that he did not recall Mr. Odette smoking meth during this visit. He agreed that he was not with Mr. Odette the entire time and it was possible that Mr. Odette smoked some meth.

8Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s mother, Agnes, testified at trial. She came home around 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. She went into the garage and saw Chase there with Mr. Odette and Alyssa. She was only there briefly and did not recall any alcohol or drug consumption. She had no concerns about their sobriety.

9Mr. Odette testified that he did not recall how long he was at Chase’s garage. He agreed in cross-examination that there was a car accident with Alyssa’s car.

10Mr. Odette testified that he somewhat remembers that he drank some beers, but he did not know how much. He said that there was a bong on the counter with meth and he grabbed and smoked it. He testified that he believed Alyssa was there and then said that he recalled Alyssa giving him a look. He responded that she should not worry about it. It was suggested to him in cross-examination that he would not have done that in front of Alyssa. He responded, “I, I can't say that for sure. I don't know.” He testified in cross-examination that there was a possibility that Alyssa was not present. He then said that she was present. He testified that he consumed 4 or 5 bong loads. He had no idea how much was in a bong load. He testified that he thought that Alyssa would have been mad at him for smoking meth, but she was not.

11Dr. Pierce testified that Mr. Odette was unsure if he drank alcohol at Chase’s house during this visit. Dr. Bouskill testified that when she spoke to Mr. Odette, he could not quantify his drug use at this time.

First Visit to 201 Simcoe Street North for Tanning Foam

12Mr. Odette and Alyssa attended at 201 Simcoe Street North to pick up a tanning foam that Alyssa was going to purchase from Ms. Bernard. According to a text exchange that was filed, Alyssa and Mr. Odette arrived at 201 Simcoe Street North at 8:06 p.m.

13Ms. Bernard testified that she did not know Alyssa before she met her on March 11th, nor did she know the person that Alyssa introduced as her boyfriend. However, it was evident that they knew Katie. Alyssa and Mr. Odette came upstairs and saw the baby. There was an incident with their neighbour, Crystal. Ms. Bernard testified that she did not see anyone consume drugs or alcohol.

14With respect to this first visit, Mr. Odette’s testimony was similar to Ms. Bernard’s. Mr. Odette testified that he knew Ms. Kainz from before and he had smoked meth with her in the past. Mr. Odette testified that he drank from his bottle of crock when he was at the residence. He did not know how long he stayed. He did not consume any drugs there. Afterwards, he and Alyssa went to Asia’s house.

First Visit to Asia’s Residence at 425 Perry Street

15Asia O’Shaunessy testified at trial. She was friends with Alyssa at the time of the incident. She testified that on March 11, 2023, she had plans to go with Alyssa to the bar. Alyssa came to her place, with Mr. Odette, at around 9:00 p.m. Everyone was in a good mood. Alyssa and Mr. Odette brought alcohol to the house, some sort of vodka, but Asia did not see them drink it. There were no issues. Mr. Odette borrowed Asia’s black Volcom hat. Ultimately, that hat was left at 201 Simcoe Street North after the stabbing. She agreed in cross-examination that she was trying to get ready to go out and she was not trying to observe Mr. Odette or his gait. She agreed in cross-examination that when they arrived, their bottle was already ½ empty.

16Asia drove Alyssa’s car. They briefly attended the Fox and the Goose and then went to Chaser’s Bar and Grill.

17Mr. Odette testified that while at Asia’s house, he took multiple swigs from the crock that he had brought. He did not know how much he drank. He agreed that he did not consume any drugs at the Fox and the Goose, nor did he recall drinking anything there.

18Dr. Bouskill testified that Mr. Odette told her that he did not remember much about this visit to Asia’s house and was unable to quantify the amount of alcohol that he had.

Arriving at Chaser’s Bar and Grill

19Surveillance footage from the bar shows that Mr. Odette, Alyssa, and Asia arrived at Chaser’s Bar and Grill at approximately 11:16 p.m., on March 11, 2023.

20Asia testified that she had a drink or two at Chaser’s. Given that she was driving, she did not drink a lot. She did not know how much Alyssa or Mr. Odette drank. She testified that she was not talking with Mr. Odette, nor watching him, nor interested in him.

21Mr. Leaitch-Henry arrived at Chaser’s at approximately 11:30 p.m., according to the bar’s surveillance video. Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that he had three beers and two shots while at Chaser’s and that Mr. Odette had the same. Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that he paid for Mr. Odette’s drinks. Mr. Leaitch-Henry agreed that he told the police that he and Mr. Odette had 4-5 beers and 5-6 shots at Chaser’s. The police told him that it did not seem that much from the video they watched, so Mr. Leaitch-Henry lowered his estimate. He believed that his original estimate was more accurate.

22Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that Mr. Odette was slurring his words and was not balanced. Mr. Leaitch-Henry said that he was fairly tipsy, but that Mr. Odette was “drunker”. Mr. Leaitch-Henry did not use drugs at Chaser’s, and he did not see Mr. Odette use any either. Mr. Leaitch-Henry described Mr. Odette as very intoxicated. At one point, he had his hand on Mr. Odette’s back because Mr. Leaitch-Henry did not want Mr. Odette to fall. Mr. Leaitch-Henry said that he had some difficulty understanding Mr. Odette because he was intoxicated. Mr. Leaitch-Henry agreed in cross-examination that he was Mr. Odette’s babysitter, and was concerned because Mr. Odette was “super super drunk.”

23Video footage from inside Chaser’s Bar and Grill shows that around 12:39 a.m., Alyssa came up to Mr. Odette and hit him once, then returned and hit him again. After the second time, Mr. Odette punched Alyssa in the face. Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that he told Mr. Odette to calm down, let it go, and that it was not worth it. He told him that its time to go and guided/pushed him out of the bar. Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that Mr. Odette was very intoxicated and he did not respond. They were then picked up by their friend Jason, and driven to Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s house.

24Asia testified that Alyssa had a bleeding nose and her eye was watery and swelling up a bit. After the bar closed at 1:52 a.m., they drove to the house of a friend of Asia’s. They stayed there for a bit and then Asia drove back to her house.

25Mr. Odette testified that when he was at Chaser’s, Chase was buying his drinks. Mr. Odette testified that he had 2-3 beers and 2-3 shots. He testified that he recalled the incident with Alyssa slightly differently. He testified that he only recalled Alyssa coming to hit him once and that he struck her back. He testified that his level of intoxication at this time was extremely high. He did not consume any drugs at this time. Dr. Pierce testified that Mr. Odette told him that he had some shots and beer, but he could not quantify it. Dr. Bouskill testified that Mr. Odette initially was unable to quantify the amount of alcohol that he drank at the bar.

The Return to 744 Hortop Street

26Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that Jason drove them back to 744 Hortop Street and they went into the garage. Mr. Leaitch-Henry recalled that, on the way home, Mr. Odette was crying and was emotional. Jason did not stay long. Mr. Odette testified that he did not recall the ride back.

27Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that he and Mr. Odette then drank alcohol and consumed drugs.

28Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that there was ½ a keg left, and he and Mr. Odette drank 6 beers worth. Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that he was not keeping track of what Mr. Odette was drinking. Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that he and Mr. Odette were drinking from a Captain Morgan bottle that was ¾ full. Mr. Leaitch-Henry was drinking his Captain Morgan with coke while Mr. Odette was drinking his straight. They finished most of the bottle. Mr. Leaitch-Henry was cross-examined on whether they polished off the bottle, as he stated at one point in his statement to the police. Mr. Leaitch-Henry explained that it was mostly finished and that there was a couple of shots left in the bottle.

29Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that the mood was quiet, and they did not talk much.

30Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that he smoked meth from his bong. He took 10 or so hits. Mr. Odette was mixing meth and fentanyl that he brought. He put it on a tinfoil and lit it and inhaled it through a straw. Mr. Odette had four hits. Mr. Leaitch-Henry disagreed in cross-examination that he gave Mr. Odette the meth. Mr. Leaitch-Henry explained that Mr. Odette took out his supply and then Mr. Leaitch-Henry took out his. Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that at the time, he sold drugs and he had an addiction issue that he was embarrassed about. Once Mr. Odette took the meth and fentanyl out of his pocket, Mr. Leaitch-Henry felt comfortable taking his out.

31Mr. Leaitch-Henry agreed that it was possible when he was not looking that Mr. Odette also smoked meth from Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s bong. Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that it is possible that Mr. Odette took some packages of meth and a pipe when he left. Mr. Leaitch-Henry did not see this.

32Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that at one point, he went back inside the house. His mother was on the couch watching a movie. Mr. Odette was alone in the garage for around 45 minutes.

33Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that he had a knife that looked like the knife that was found by the police. It had been in his garage. After he spoke to the police, Mr. Leaitch-Henry looked for the knife but never found it.

34Agnes testified that she went into the garage briefly when Jason was still there and saw that Chase and Mr. Odette were drinking. She did not see any drug consumption.

35Mr. Odette testified that when they returned to 744 Hortop Street, he consumed from a bottle of liquor. He did not know how much. He smoked two bong loads from Chase’s bong. He did not recall smoking meth from a tin foil although he had done it that way before. He could not describe his level of intoxication. Mr. Odette testified that sometimes Chase was in the garage with him, sometimes he was not. Mr. Odette did not recall if Chase consumed drugs or alcohol.

36Dr. Pierce testified that Mr. Odette described that this period was “pretty much a blur”, but he did drink more, and he did have two more bong loads of meth.

37Dr. Bouskill testified that in her initial meeting with Mr. Odette, he told her that he did not remember being there. In their subsequent conversation, he recalled being in the garage, using crystal meth when he arrived and also when he departed in the cab. He also said he drank a lot, but he could not quantify it. Dr. Bouskill testified that Mr. Odette did not report that he used fentanyl on this occasion.

The Second Visit to 201 Simcoe Street North

38Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that Mr. Odette wanted to continue the party with a couple of girls. Mr. Leaitch-Henry agreed in cross-examination that he never initially told the police about the “couple of girls” comment. Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that initially he was planning to go but did not feel well because of the alcohol and meth that he consumed so he decided not to go. Mr. Leaitch-Henry had hot flashes, spins, and was sweating. He told Mr. Odette that he was not going, and Mr. Odette said okay.

39Mr. Leaitch-Henry called Mr. Odette a cab. The call to the taxi service was played. Mr. Leaitch-Henry and Mr. Odette testified that Mr. Odette provided the address to Mr. Leaitch-Henry for the taxi service. Agnes testified that when Mr. Odette left in the cab, he was intoxicated. She saw him leave through the front door of the house. It was suggested that Mr. Odette was heavily intoxicated. Agnes testified she was uncertain if he was heavily intoxicated. She adopted her statement to the police that he was pretty hammered.

40The taxi records show that the taxi was called at 3:28 a.m., that Mr. Odette was picked up at 3:47 a.m., and that he arrived at 201 Simcoe Street North at 3:51 a.m. Mr. Odette had accidently called 911 from his phone. During the call, you can hear Mr. Odette telling the driver to turn and then to drop him off. He then gave the driver $10. The timing of the 911 call was at 3:51 a.m. It also coincided with the activation of the backyard motion-activated lights from 201 Simcoe Street North.

41Mr. Odette testified that he wanted to go somewhere else, and he just wanted to keep going. Mr. Odette testified that he got into a cab, although he did not know how. He did not recall the cab ride.

42Ashley Bernard testified that she heard a knock on the door. She was up because of her baby. Ms. Bernard testified that she was wearing a sweater. Ms. Bernard testified that she saw that it was Mr. Odette. He said just open the door. She did. He came in. Katie arrived at the door and asked where Alyssa was. Mr. Odette mumbled. Ashley testified that she walked away. She said that Mr. Odette walked towards the kitchen. She testified that he was pacing with long strides. Ms. Bernard testified that Katie and Mr. Odette went into the smoking room. Ashley went afterwards to the smoking room and smoked a popper. Ms. Bernard testified that she was standing near the radiator, near the left window in the left corner. Katie and Adam were in the back corner of the room. Ms. Bernard was cross-examined at length regarding her ability to fit into the corner near the window given that there was a broom there. Ms. Bernard testified that she could fit there, as she is tiny and there is plenty of space. She testified that she is certain that she was there.

43Ms. Bernard testified that Mr. Odette asked if they wanted meth and cocaine. Katie responded that they do not do that there. Ms. Bernard responded “ya, my baby is here.” Ms. Bernard testified that Mr. Odette said that “to be honest I just wanted to get naked and fuck.” At the time, Ms. Bernard was staring at the wall. Katie responded that “we don’t do that here, sorry.”

44Ms. Bernard testified that she heard a hit. This snapped her out of it. She saw that Mr. Odette was standing looking down at Katie who was kind of on the ground. It sounded like a punch, it could have been a slap. Katie was holding her face. Ms. Bernard testified that Katie said, “what did I do, what did I do, did I say something wrong.” Mr. Odette did not answer. His back was towards Ms. Bernard. She testified that he pulled a knife up from the right pocket of his jeans. He stabbed her in the face and wherever else. He stabbed her more than once. It was with the force of a punch. She watched it but was unsure for how long. Her baby popped into her mind, and she said, “please my baby.”

45Ms. Bernard testified that Mr. Odette then turned and focused on her. He still had the knife. She backed up towards the baby’s room. Mr. Odette stabbed her in the face when she was in the door frame of the room. He stabbed her more than once. She fell back. He kept stabbing her. She blocked her face with her arms and he stabbed her arms. Katie screamed “hey.” Mr. Odette then got off Ms. Bernard and went back towards Katie. Ms. Bernard testified that she did not see Mr. Odette in Katie’s room the second time.

46Ms. Bernard testified that she was having an out-of-body experience and then she saw her son laying there and woke up and ran out the door. It was double-locked, but she was able to undo it. She ran out the door and down the stairs, pushing herself off from the wall for momentum. She testified that he was right there. She ran outside the door. She testified that when her foot hit Simcoe Street, she saw Mr. Odette run down Elgin Street.

47Ms. Bernard testified that she ran up Simcoe Street North towards the downtown area until a car pulled over and stopped. The video surveillances from the houses captured Ms. Bernard traveling south screaming, “Help me, Help me.” A passer-by asked her what happened. She stated that she had been stabbed and her baby is inside her home.

48Ms. Bernard testified that when he arrived at the apartment, Mr. Odette seemed irritated and edgy. He looked antsy. She agreed that she told the police he looked sketchy, but she did not know what she meant by that. He did not appear angry. She also testified that he was muttering and mumbling.

49Ms. Bernard testified that Mr. Odette was walking towards her causally and slowly like the killer in a scary movie where the girls are running but the killer is moving slowly. She testified that Mr. Odette looked right through her. She explained that it was like he knew what he needed to do as if he was on a mission. She agreed with the following description that she gave at the preliminary inquiry:

Like a blank face as in, like he’s, he looked right, I’ve never seen somebody look right through me in my life like this, like. And I’ve been in like abusive situations where like, they’ve looked me right in the eyes and like, I never, like I’ve never, like I’ve heard the expression ‘like they looked right through me’, but I’ve never seen somebody look right through me like that.

50She also testified at the preliminary inquiry that he looked like he was on a mission.

51Ms. Bernard agreed that Katie had significant drug abuse issues. Ms. Bernard testified that she told Katie no drugs in the apartment. When Ms. Bernard saw the pipe that was discovered in Katie’s belongings, she was upset. She testified at the preliminary inquiry that she has not used drugs since Katie died. She testified that she would not allow street drugs in her home. Ms. Bernard agreed that the day before the incident, she had consumed meth. She explained that she was not a regular user and that she had a relapse. She also agreed that she arranged for Katie to obtain meth from Ms. Bernard’s friend Josh. Yet, she agreed that she testified at the preliminary inquiry that to her knowledge Katie only smoked weed. Ms. Bernard agreed that her crystal drug meth use was an embarrassing part of her life, but she disagreed that she was going to lie in court because of it. She noted that her embarrassment was petty compared to what happened to Katie. She disagreed that she was lying. She disagreed that she had no problem lying to the police.

52Ms. Bernard also disagreed with the suggestion that she was in her room when the attack started. She did not adopt her statement at the scene to Officer Preston. She did not say this to Officer Preston. She testified that she was “1000 per cent” certain she was in the room. She testified that she was not in the room for the second attack by Mr. Odette on Katie. All Ms. Bernard could recall telling the first responders is that her baby was inside her home and then she passed out.

53Mr. Odette testified that he recalled knocking on the door and Ashley answering. He entered the apartment. He did not know what they discussed, but he recalled asking Katie if she wanted to smoke cocaine or crystal meth. He did not know where Ashley was. Katie said yes. They went to the other room. Mr. Odette had the drugs on him. He took the meth from Chase’s garage, but he had brought the fentanyl and cocaine on him. He testified that he recalled having to go to the other room because of the baby. He then described what happened next:

Q. Do you recall what happened in the smoking room?

A. I, I sat down on something. I proceeded to put the drugs in the pipe; the crystal meth and the Fentanyl. I smoked the drugs. I, I must have nodded off, because when I came to, I was leaned over like this.

Q. And you’re just – you, you said you were leaning over like this, Adam, and you're basically doubled over with your head down?

A. Yes.

He then described what happened:

Yeah. So I just – I come to and I'm sitting like this, and I just recall a hand going into my right pocket. And I just – like everything just happened so fast. I just see my hand smack the hand away, stand up, and next thing you know, I have a knife in my hand, and I stabbed one time. They fell down. I, I recall seeing their arm go up. I stabbed another time in the arm, and then I – that's – I seen it was Katie at that time. And then, I, I just recall hearing a scream and I took off.

54Mr. Odette testified that he did not know who screamed, that he did not know who he was stabbing, and he was not in control of his actions. He did not recall seeing Ashley. He did not intend to harm or kill Katie, nor did he intend to harm Ashley. He believed that he had taken off through a back door. He recalled going down out the door and down the stairs and jumping the fence. He testified that he did not recall anything until he was in Chase’s car. He recalled arriving at Asia’s house. He also recalled hugging Chase after he exited the car. He testified that he found out the next day that Ashley was hurt and he was very confused. He did not recall sexually propositioning Katie or Ashley.

55Mr. Odette testified that he did not know where the knife came from, nor did he know what happened with the knife. He testified in cross-examination that he had been carrying around the cocaine for awhile. He did not recall smoking marijuana at the apartment. He did not recall what he did with the drugs and pipe. He could not explain why they were not found in the apartment.

56He agreed in cross-examination that he did not call 911 or stay and help. He testified that he did not recall walking down Elgin Street or walking behind a shed to get rid of the knife. He did not recall hearing Ashley screaming on the roadway. He did not recall any phone calls or talking to Alyssa. He testified that he remembered more when he entered Chase’s car. He testified that he did not break his phone once he arrived at Asia’s and that his phone was working just fine. He agreed that he remembered the address to Katie’s place and Asia’s place.

57Mr. Odette testified in cross-examination that later on, when he knew the police were looking for him, he saw Agnes. He lied to Agnes and told her that he did not do anything. Agnes similarly testified. Mr. Odette agreed that he also lied to Alyssa and told her that he did not do anything. He agreed that he subsequently bought new clothes and changed into them at the store.

The Departure from 201 Simcoe Street North and the Return to Asia’s House

58Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that after Mr. Odette left, Mr. Leaitch-Henry went and laid down on the couch. His mother was also sleeping on the couch. Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that he spoke later with Mr. Odette, but he was unsure when. Mr. Odette had called him for a ride. Mr. Leaitch-Henry did not have a license, so he woke his mother up. She was not happy, but she agreed. Mr. Odette said that he was on Mary Street at O’Neill. Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that he was not feeling well. He noticed that there were a lot of police cars on Simcoe Street North. Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that they could not find Mr. Odette. He called him back and asked where he was. Chase agreed in cross-examination that he called Mr. Odette a few times and he was not picking up. Mr. Odette then picked up and Mr. Odette told Chase that they drove past him. His mother turned the car around and noticed that he was near O’Neill Collegiate School. Mr. Leaitch-Henry agreed in cross-examination that it was him who said that they passed him. Mr. Leaitch agreed that the pickup was disorganized.

59Mr. Leaitch-Henry said that Mr. Odette’s colostomy bag was leaking. He asked Mr. Odette to roll down his window. He did. Mr. Leaitch-Henry said that Mr. Odette gave him the address of where to go and Mr. Odette provided his mother directions on where to go. Mr. Leaitch-Henry agreed in cross-examination that he had also entered the address on Apple Maps on his phone.

60Mr. Leaitch-Henry said that his head was down, and he was not paying attention, but from what he could gather, Mr. Odette was calm, normal, and not on edge. Mr. Leaitch-Henry agreed in cross-examination that he was still high on alcohol and meth and he was not paying attention to Mr. Odette’s sobriety level. Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that he asked Mr. Odette if the police had anything to do with him. He said no, of course not. Agnes testified that she heard this conversation when Chase was on the phone with Mr. Odette when they were en route to picking him up. They arrived at Asia’s house and Mr. Odette and Chase hugged goodbye.

61Agnes testified and confirmed that she agreed to drive to pick up Mr. Odette. Agnes testified that Mr. Odette relayed directions to her through Chase to Asia’s house. In cross-examination, Agnes agreed that Mr. Odette seemed hesitant and unsure about the directions. Agnes testified that Adam sounded normal. He was quiet.

62Asia testified that they returned to her house at around 4:00 a.m. She adopted her statement to the police where she indicated that she arrived home shortly before 4:00 a.m.

63Asia testified that on the drive home, Alyssa was on the phone with Mr. Odette. The phone was on speaker. Mr. Odette seemed fine and calm. He had the same tone as always. Alyssa wanted to pick him up. Asia refused. Mr. Odette said not worry as he would get a ride. Asia agreed in cross-examination that she was not taking notes of the conversation, as she was not particularly interested in what he was saying. Mr. Odette did not say much on the phone call.

64Asia testified that she went to bed when they arrived home and Mr. Odette came at around 4:30 a.m. Asia was irritated. He asked where he could wash his pants. Asia showed him and offered to do it for him, but he said he was fine. Asia testified that she understood him. He had no issues with his balance, and she did not notice anything unusual about his speech. She agreed in cross-examination that she was not trying to assess his gait. She just wanted to go back to sleep.

65The next morning, Alyssa told her that Mr. Odette had done drugs in her house. Asia found a bag under her main floor bathroom counter. It looked like there was meth inside. She threw it in the toilet. She testified in cross-examination that the drugs were in a bag that was clear on one side, red on the other. Mr. Odette testified that he used the same drugs and pipe from Simcoe Street North at Asia’s house. Mr. Odette agreed that he never told Dr. Pierce that he consumed drugs afterwards at Asia’s house. He explained that Dr. Pierce never asked.

66The audio from a camera from 146 Simcoe Street North captured a scream at approximately 4:00 a.m. That scream belonged to Ashley Bernard. At the same time of the scream, the rear motion light at 201 Simcoe Street North was activated again.

67At approximately 4:03 a.m., a man was seen first running, then walking with his cell phone lit up. The phone was raised to his ear. In my view, the clothes match that of Mr. Odette as seen in the video clips from Chaser’s Bar. The man was on the south side of Elgin Street walking east bound. The man was then seen later at approximately 4:05 a.m. closely behind a group of three other people. He was seen walking with them at 4:07 a.m. as well. At 4:22 a.m., Mr. Odette was in Agnes’ car en route to 425 Perry Street. The car arrived at 4:24 a.m. and Mr. Odette was seen hugging Chase.

68The Bell telephone records show that Alyssa’s phone called Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s phone at 3:59 a.m. The records also show that Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s phone called Mr. Odette’s phone at 4:00 a.m., 4:05 a.m., and 4:07 a.m. on March 12th. The calls lasted 46, 41, and 44 seconds, respectively. Alyssa’s phone called Mr. Odette’s phone nine times from 4:01 a.m. to 4:24 a.m. on March 12th. The calls at 4:01 a.m. and 4:03 a.m. lasted over a minute.

The injuries to the victims

69On March 12, 2023, Ashley Bernard was admitted to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and remained in their care until March 18, 2023. She suffered the following wounds from Mr. Odette’s attack:

1. An approximately 10-15 cm laceration on left side of her face, that penetrated the eyeball. Ms. Bernard testified that she wore an eye patch for two years until she could not wear it anymore. She still has no vision in her eye.

2. A one cm scalp laceration.

3. A two cm superficial laceration on her right posterior shoulder, that penetrated soft tissues.

4. Two lacerations about 3 cm bilaterally on her forearms.

70Photographs of her injuries were made exhibits at trial. Ms. Bernard testified that she could not hold her baby for a month and a half.

71Dr. Bellis testified at trial and was qualified on consent as an expert in forensic pathology. He performed the postmortem on Ms. Kainz and his report was filed at the trial. He testified that the cause of death was sharp force injuries. Ms. Kainz suffered the following:

1. An incised stab wound of the head: It was a curvilinear, 6.5 cm incised stab wound of the left parietal scalp (7.5 cm left of the midline) surrounded by a 3 x 1.2 cm blue/purple bruise. The wound path went through the scalp and penetrated the outer table of the skull. A metallic fragment resembling part of the tip of a knife was stuck in the bone. The wound was associated with focal subscalp hematoma. The brain was uninjured.

2. A stab wound of the head: There was a 1.5 cm stab wound to the right of the vertex of the scalp (2.7 cm right of the midline) that perforated the scalp and penetrated the skull with a small hairline fracture on the inner table of the calvarium. There was an associated focal subscalp hematoma.

3. An incised wound of the head: It was a curvilinear, vertically oriented, 5.0 cm incised wound of the posterolateral right scalp (7 cm right of the midline), which injured the soft tissue (scalp) only. There was an adjacent 2.5 cm abrasion at the inferior corner of the wound.

4. There was an incised wound of the face: An obliquely oriented incised wound 1.6 cm of the glabella (8 cm from the top of the head in the midline).

5. A stab wound of the left neck: It was a horizontally oriented, 2.5 cm stab wound of the lower left neck (23 cm from the top of the head, 7 cm left of the midline) that was surrounded by a purple bruise, 8.5 x 2.7 cm. The wound path was through the soft tissues of the neck and into the 1st intercostal space and had a direction of left to right and downwards.

6. A stab wound of the posterior right neck: It was horizontally oriented, 4 cm stab wound of the lower posterior right neck (20.5 cm from the top of the head, 1.5 cm right of the midline) surrounded by a purple bruise, 8 x 7.5 cm. The wound path was through the soft tissues of the neck and punctured the right subclavian vein. The direction was back to front and downwards. This was a fatal injury.

7. A stab wound of the right arm (superior-most): It was an obliquely oriented, 4.5 cm stab wound of the posterior right arm (9.5 cm from shoulder tip) surrounded by a blue/purple bruise 15.5 x 11 cm. The wound path was through the soft tissues of the arm and axilla, transecting the axillary artery. The wound direction was back to front, right to left and upward. It was a fatal injury that went through the skin and muscle and cut the artery.

8. A stab wound of the right arm (inferior-most): It was a horizontally oriented, curvilinear, 6.5 cm stab wound of the posterior right arm (17.5 cm from the shoulder tip). The wound path was through the soft tissues of the arm penetrating the humerus, but it did not go all the way through. The wound direction was back to front.

9. A stab wound of the anterior right forearm: It was a vertically oriented, 3.0 cm stab wound of the anterior right forearm (43 cm from the shoulder tip) surrounded by a purple/blue bruise 15.5 x 7.5 cm. The wound path injures were soft tissues. The wound direction was front to back.

10. A stab wound of the lateral right forearm: It was a 2.5 cm stab wound of the lateral right forearm (44 cm from the shoulder tip) injuring the soft tissue. The wound direction was front to back.

11. A stab wound of the posterior right forearm: It was an obliquely oriented, 7 cm stab wound of the posterior right forearm (50 cm from the shoulder tip) injuring the soft tissue. The wound direction was back to front.

12. An incised wound of the right little finger: It was 3.8 x 2.6 cm in area, injuring soft tissue, bone, and cartilage. The wound was a slice through the medial aspect of the finger, creating a flap of dangling tissue.

13. An incised wound of the anterior right ring finger, 1.5 cm, surrounded by a faint blue bruise 1.5 x 1.5 cm.

14. An oblique incised wound, 2.3 cm, of the anterior index finger surrounded by a faint blue bruise 2 x 1.7 cm.

72The three sets of incised wounds can be termed defensive wounds, and they occur usually when attacked by a sharp object. Sometimes the blade is grabbed, or the hands are injured as they are protecting the rest of the person. The injuries to the arm and forearm could also be defensive wounds but they were not typical.

73Ms. Kainz also suffered blunt force trauma (i.e. injury from a non sharp cutting object). She suffered the following:

a) Horizontal intermittent abrasion/superficial incised wound, 8 cm across the lower forehead/left brow.

b) Two linear abrasions, 2.5 cm and 4.5 cm, on the lateral right neck.

c) A blue/purple bruise, 18 x 6 cm, on the anterior right axilla.

d) A round abrasion, 0.5 cm, on the anterolateral right arm.

e) A faint blue bruise, 6.5 x 3.0 cm, on the right antecubital fossa.

f) A horizontal abrasion, 1.5 cm, on the posterolateral right arm.

g) Several abrasions, pinpoint to 2.5 cm, surrounded by a 20.5 x 9.5 faint blue bruise, on the posterior right forearm.

h) A curvilinear abrasion, 2.5 cm, on the posterolateral right wrist.

i) An intermittent vertically oriented abrasion, 5.0 cm, along the lateral aspect of the left arm.

j) An intermittent abrasion, 1.5 cm, on the posteromedial left wrist.

74Dr. Bellis summarized his conclusions in his report as follows:

This 26-year-old woman was stabbed in her apartment. Death was pronounced in hospital several hours later, after failed attempts at resuscitation.

At postmortem examination, the body was that of a young woman with blunt and sharp force injuries to her body. There were several stab and incised wounds of the head, neck, and right upper limb. Two sharp force injuries to the head penetrated the skull, and one of [the]wounds contained a metallic fragment resembling part of a knife tip; another metallic fragment was identified in the subscalp soft tissue. One of the stab wounds to the neck injured the subclavian vein, and another of the right arm severed the axillary artery. These were fatal wounds. Incised wounds to the right hand were in keeping with defensive-type injuries. The blunt force injuries identified were minor and did not contribute to death.

There was no evidence of natural disease.

Histology was non-contributory.

Toxicological analysis of postmortem blood was positive for methamphetamine and ketamine, and their metabolites. These findings were not contributory to death.

The discovery of the knife

75The following information regarding the knife was set out in the agreed statement of facts.

76During the post-mortem examination, Dr. Bellis identified a metallic fragment found beneath Ms. Kainz’s scalp. He also identified a metallic fragment resembling part of the tip of a knife stuck in the bone of Ms. Kainz’s skull.

77On April 3, 2023, P.C. Mckenzie assisted with an evidence search proximate to Elgin Street in Oshawa. He searched an area beginning at 201 Simcoe Street North, towards Elgin Street. P.C. McKenzie searched the southwest corner of the property at 21 Elgin Street. He searched behind a large shed and discovered a knife with the tip of the blade broken off. 21 Elgin Street is around the corner from 201 Simcoe Street North.

78The broken knife and the metal fragments recovered during the autopsy were submitted to the Centre of Forensic Sciences for further examination. Dr. David Ruddell, a forensic scientist in the Centre’s Chemistry Section, found physical matches identified between the broken knife and the broken pieces of metal from Katie Kainz, which he noted likely indicated that they were once part of a single object. In his report, dated June 21, 2023, Dr. Ruddell stated:

When an item is broken, a distinctive fracture edge and/or surface is ordinarily formed. It is extremely unlikely that another broken object of the same type could also be, at random, physically matched to these pieces, however it cannot be proven to be impossible.

Mr. Odette’s past substance use

79Mr. Odette testified about what can, at best, be described as a chaotic upbringing. He testified that, growing up, there were always parties with drunk people at his house. He started sipping alcohol when he was six years old. He was drunk the first time when he was 10 years old. He started taking opioids when he was 14 years old. He took Percocet. He tried all of them, including OxyContin. He started taking fentanyl in 2012 or 2013. He would consume it through a pipe or off tinfoil or anything that burned. He started taking meth in 2019 because at the time, he was heavily addicted to fentanyl and heard that meth helped with the fentanyl withdrawals. It worked and then he started mixing the two of them together.

80He testified that he has overdosed multiple times. He had to be administered Narcan on multiple occasions. He has been hospitalized twice for overdosing. On May 31, 2020, he was shot at a drug house and as a result, he has a colostomy bag. He was in the hospital and was released two weeks later but continued to do drugs. He was in jail in May 2021, and he did not do any drugs while in jail. He was released in April 2022, and he felt good and healthy. However, in the summer, he started drinking and then he started occasionally doing meth. He started with fentanyl again and he overdosed in July 2022.

81In January 2023, he was going out with Alyssa. He was still consuming drugs, fentanyl, and cocaine and still consuming alcohol. Alyssa caught him using drugs. He wanted help. He went to live with his sister in Etobicoke. He stayed there for 2-3 weeks. He was not doing drugs on the same scale as before, but his sister caught him doing drugs in her bathroom and kicked him out. His mother also caught him doing drugs there.

82He was allowed to live with Alyssa and her family in Little Britain. He recuperated there and maybe would have a couple of beers. He testified that he did not consume any drugs. He testified that it was very hard to get drugs there, it was in the middle of nowhere. He was living there for a month until the time of the incident. Mr. Odette agreed that he had cocaine and fentanyl with him while he was living with Alyssa during the period that he said he was abstaining. He testified that he had drugs on him, but he chose not to take them.

Testimony of Dr. Pierce and Dr. Bouskill

83Dr. Pierce and Dr. Bouskill were both qualified as experts in forensic psychiatry. They were called by the Crown and defence respectfully. They agreed on the following areas:

1. Mr. Odette does not suffer from a major mental illness.

2. There is no evidence that he was at the time experiencing psychosis or delusions.

3. Mr. Odette was not in a state of automatism at the time of the offence.

4. Mr. Odette suffers from a severe polysubstance abuse disorder.

5. Alcohol and fentanyl are central nervous system depressants while methamphetamine is a central nervous system stimulant.

6. Inhaling methamphetamine is the fastest way for it to reach the brain. It happens within seconds. Dr. Bouskill testified that the resulting flash or rush phase can impair cognition.

84Dr. Pierce testified that alcohol can affect memory and coordination and it can impair the ability to foresee the consequence of ones’ actions. Dr. Bouskill similarly testified that consumption of meth is not associated with memory lapses unless one is in a psychosis. Central nervous system depressants are more associated with memory gaps.

85Dr. Pierce testified that methamphetamine causes agitation and distortion and in high doses, it can mimic psychosis and cause one to misinterpret threats and act paranoid. It can compromise decision-making. Dr. Pierce testified that the stimulant affects of methamphetamine can mask intoxication. One may appear energetic but still be cognitively impaired. Methamphetamine can make one overestimate one’s abilities. He agreed that methamphetamine can reduce the sedative affects of alcohol, but judgment, impulse control, and risk assessment can still be impaired. Dr. Bouskill testified that ingesting both toxicants, central nervous system depressants and stimulants can impair a person’s cognition, and they can affect foresight and one’s ability to solve problems.

86Dr. Pierce testified that he did not know what would happen when you combine stimulants and depressants. He explained that he is aware of how they are supposed to work but he could not say what effect they would have had when they are being mixed at unknown doses.

87Dr. Pierce testified that slurred speech is consistent with alcohol use. A fluctuating mood can also be a symptom of methamphetamine or alcohol use.

88Dr. Pierce testified that the results of combining alcohol and meth can be unpredictable. Dr. Pierce was asked about opining on the effect of the polysubstance use of, for example, alcohol, methamphetamine, and fentanyl, on a person’s cognition. He testified that his ability to do so was very limited:

But when you mix them all together, at doses that I'm not sure what the dose was or the timing was, I think it's hard for me to say anything with any confidence about what the effect was. I can say what the effect could have been, but I think it's hard for me to be confident to say about what the effect was.

89Dr. Bouskill testified that she agreed with this statement. She could say whether the symptoms are consistent with what Mr. Odette has reported and what the witnesses has reported. She agreed in cross-examination that she could not determine the doses of the illicit substances he used or the actual nature of the substances because they are street drugs. She was though, on a balance of probabilities, confident with her estimate of the timing of consumption and the frequency of consumption.

90Dr. Pierce was asked why he did not attempt to quantify the amount of alcohol and drugs that Mr. Odette took given the file information he was provided with. He testified that Mr. Odette really could not quantify the amount of alcohol he consumed at all. He really could not say if it was 3 or 30 drinks. Dr. Pierce testified that:

I knew he had, he had consumed heavily. I, I thought he consumed heavily. He told me that. I, I, I believed that when he said that. And in terms of his actual — the actual amount of substances in his blood at 4:00 a.m., I, I don’t know. And I didn't think I could figure it out with the information provided. And I, I typically wouldn’t, wouldn’t, wouldn't figure it out either because I’m not a toxicologist.

91Dr. Bouskill agreed with this assessment. She testified that she knew he had consumed heavily but she did not know what amount of substances was in his blood at 4:00 a.m.

92Dr. Pierce opined on Mr. Odette’s sobriety when he left Chaser’s Bar and Grill:

And, and I mean, all this to say is that I don’t think he was severely intoxicated, but I think he was mildly to moderately intoxicated, probably closer to the moderate level of intoxication at that time. You know, you know, as best as I can ascertain.

93Dr. Bouskill testified that she agreed with this assessment.

94Dr. Pierce testified that someone who has gone through a period of abstinence will then be more sensitive to the effects of the substance.

95Dr. Pierce agreed that he could not rule out severe intoxication in this case or the possibility that Mr. Odette could not appreciate the consequences of his actions.

96Dr. Bouskill attempted to create a timeline of consumption for Mr. Odette from March 11, 2023 until the incident, based on her conversations with Mr. Odette and the file information she was provided with. She testified that Mr. Odette consumed the following:

a) From 5-6 pm, he consumed crystal meth.

b) He then consumed liquor, vodka at about eight o’clock. He continued using or drinking the vodka before going to the bar.

c) He then went to the bar and consumed somewhere between four and eight drinks in total between beer and shots.

d) He then returned to Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s house, where he drank beer and liquor, rum. Mr. Odette consumed about eight standard drinks at that time as well as crystal meth. Mr. Odette recalled himself smoking at least twice the crystal meth but that there may have been more.

e) He then consumed crystal meth at the victim’s home.

f) He then returned to Ms. O’Shaunessy’s home and took a dose of crystal meth.

97Dr. Bouskill testified that she had confidence in her overall assessment.

98Dr. Bouskill testified in cross-examination that overall, the timeline of consumption was consistent across various sources. She testified that she accepted Mr. Odette’s account where it was consistent with other sources. However, she agreed that she accepted Mr. Odette’s evidence regarding what he consumed at the victim’s home before the stabbing over Ms. Bernard’s account. Dr. Bouskill testified that it was supported by Ms. Kainz’s toxicology report, which showed that she had methamphetamine in her system. However, Dr. Bouskill agreed that the report could not say when the drugs were taken just that it was within recent days. She also testified that she believed that Ms. Bernard may not have been with Mr. Odette the entire time.

99Dr. Bouskill testified that at the time of the incident, just before 4 a.m.:

So with the quantity consumed and over the course of time he had consumed it, I would certainly expect that Mr. Odette would most likely be moderately to severely intoxicated both from alcohol and crystal meth.

100She testified that based on her calculations, Mr. Odette would have had between 23 and 33 drinks. She testified that her opinion would not be affected if it was found that Mr. Odette drank less but consumed more fentanyl since fentanyl is also a central nervous system depressant.

101Dr. Bouskill testified the following:

So based on the description as well as a combination of substances that he consumed, in my opinion that at the time, Mr. Odette was experiencing what we would consider from a psychiatric perspective as at least a moderate to severe intoxication involving both dangerous levels of alcohol and repeated methamphetamine use over an approximately eight hour. At the time, he also met the diagnostic criteria for alcohol intoxication, stimulant intoxication, likely opiate intoxication, alcohol use disorder, opiate use disorder, and methamphetamine use disorder. All of which are considered severe.

102Dr. Bouskill was asked if, at the time of the offences, Mr. Odette was capable of appreciating the consequences of his actions. She testified that:

So in my opinion, the combination of substances likely created quite a dangerous toxidrome characterized by both CNS suppression that was also masked by stimulant effects, which would have led to severely impaired judgment and loss of behavioural control at the time. His mental state during that period was dominated by those direct effects of substances, the intensity and the functional impact of symptoms that were described likely did render him incapable of reliable memory formation as well as reason decision making at the time.

103Dr. Bouskill testified that she did not believe that Mr. Odette would have been malingering or feigning his symptoms. She explained with respect to the tools that she used:

A. So they play a part in the overall assessment but no, they don’t directly speak to malingering of that symptom at that time.

Q. The SEARS-2, I saw is not case-specific. It’s not that you’re asking him about the offence or events that happened and then you find out about rare symptoms.

A. No.

Q. In the time frame that you’re focused on in terms of the SEARS-2, I think you had noted it as the last three months.

A. That’s correct.

Q. And you would agree with me it’s quite possible for a person to be candid and open in the malingering test and then choose to later lie about some aspects of the substantive discussion about the offence?

A. That’s possible, yes.

Q. That’s probably something you’ve seen clinically as well.

A. Yes.

104Dr. Bouskill testified that she agreed that hiding the knife suggests a purposeful act and that it supports a contemplation of the possibility of being caught. She testified that hiding the knife was not a reflexive act but indicated that Mr. Odette seizing upon the calls to him to get out of the area was him seizing the opportunities that arose.

105Dr. Bouskill agreed that a critical factor in assessing Mr. Odette’s cognition at the time of the offence was her understanding from Mr. Odette that he consumed meth at the apartment causing a flash. She testified that:

A. Yeah, so without that additional use of substances in the apartment, his reports would be inconsistent with what we would expect of his other consumption pattern over the course of that night.

Q. How so?

A. So there wouldn’t necessarily be a correlation in terms of the timeline of his symptoms, his behavior. It would be inconsistent with what we would expect. So by that time though Mr. Odette had continued drinking and using crystal meth over that time, at the time he would have got to the victim’s home, we would have expected that the acute effects would likely be tapering off by then.

106Dr. Bouskill testified that she understood that Mr. Odette had drastically reduced his alcohol consumption in the period before March 11th. She testified that a person who is using alcohol may actually present with a lower blood alcohol level than a person who is naïve to alcohol and consumes the same amount. She testified that “conversely, having stopped using alcohol, his body to a certain extent would return to what you would expect of somebody who is more alcohol naïve.” Dr. Woodall, the toxicologist, testified that this was possible, but we do not know.

107Dr. Bouskill testified that abstinence and the effects of abstinence from alcohol are material aspects of her opinion.

108Dr. Bouskill was cross-examined on the fact that in her report where she discussed Mr. Odette’s consumption pattern, she did not include Mr. Odette’s self report that he also consumed fentanyl at the victim’s residence. She testified:

Yes, I considered whether or not that use would have significantly or meaningfully impacted his overall presentation without knowing exactly what the crumb he had referred to that was in his pocket contained. And going off of only his report, I didn’t feel I had enough evidence to consider that in my overall summary.

109She testified that she did not believe his self report in this regard. She agreed that fentanyl is a central nervous system depressant that can result in diminished consciousness, but she testified that she did not understand from his description that he had nodded off in a typical way that you would see with opiate intoxication.

110Dr. Bouskill testified that Mr. Odette had told her about past flash experiences that he has had when using meth in conjunction with other substances. She agreed that he did not say that he was using meth on its own at the apartment.

Testimony of Dr. Woodall

111Dr. Woodall is an experienced toxicologist. Dr. Woodall testified that it is easier to say that alcohol impairs cognition as opposed to drugs. Drugs are more complicated and using multiple drugs makes it even more complicated.

112Dr. Woodall testified that impairment and intoxication are two distinct terms. If a person is highly intoxicated, they may be both intoxicated and impaired. However, sometimes even when there are no external signs of intoxication, a person might still be impaired. Dr. Woodall posited impaired driving as an obvious example.

113Dr. Woodall testified that meth is a powerful stimulant. It gets into the brain quickly and has rapid effects where there will be an intense rush. The effects of the drug can last for 12 hours. The higher the dose of the drug, the more adverse effects the drug has.

114Dr. Woodall testified that fentanyl is a depressant that slows the brain down, once it wears off then drowsiness develops. Alcohol is similarly a depressant. The more you consume, the more it slows down the brain.

115Dr. Woodall testified that meth can counteract the drowsiness of alcohol and can make you seem less drunk.

116Dr. Woodall testified that alcohol has the largest effect on memory. Fentanyl can have some effect. Fentanyl can also reduce the agitation of meth.

117Dr. Woodall testified that assessing fentanyl, meth, and alcohol is complicated.

118Dr. Woodall testified that Ashley’s description of Mr. Odette muttering, pacing, and looking through her could be from the meth. It is not a typical description of alcohol.

119Dr. Woodall looked at Dr Bouskill’s timeline of consumption. She testified that even if half that amount was consumed, it would be a high amount. She testified that one can build up tolerance and some can consume extreme quantities and function. Tolerance to alcohol allows you to metabolize faster. Dr. Woodall testified that if one drinks less, it must be over a longer period of time for it to affect tolerance. She testified that if the person had been abstaining, there would be more observable signs of intoxication.

120Dr. Woodall testified that there was a large concentration of meth that was found in the victim’s body. She testified that the average half-life for meth is 12 hours, but it is difficult to be precise. Because the concentration was so high, Ms. Kainz could have consumed a lot of meth over a few days. Dr. Woodall testified that it was a difficult question to answer. It could also be consistent with the victim having smoked meth at the time of the incident or earlier.

121Dr. Woodall agreed that at Chaser’s Bar and Grill, Mr. Odette was mildly to moderately intoxicated.

122Dr. Woodall testified that using meth and fentanyl can cause an intense high for a few minutes and then 30 minutes of decline, depending on the ratio of the two drugs.

123Dr. Woodall testified that she could calculate a person’s blood alcohol level based on weight and timing of consumption. Studies show that the larger amount of alcohol consumed, the more unreliably the calculations. In addition, it might not be helpful given the inaccurate estimates. For Dr. Woodall, she understood that there was a lot of alcohol consumed and it would not have made a difference to her opinion to have known the actual amount.

124Dr. Woodall could not say what the potential effects that Mr. Odette was experiencing when he arrived at the apartment.

Law and Analysis

Legal Principles

125Mr. Odette is charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder. The burden is on the Crown to prove Mr. Odette’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption is only discharged when, and if, the Crown proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown at all times bears the onus of proving the case. The Crown is required to prove the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. I must assess the case on the whole and decide whether, on the basis of all of the evidence, or lack thereof, the Crown has proven the guilt of Mr. Odette beyond a reasonable doubt: R. v. Lifchus, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320.

126The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is an exacting one. It is more than probable or likely guilt. Indeed, proof beyond a reasonable doubt falls much closer to absolute certainty than it does to proof on a balance of probabilities. Mr. Odette cannot be convicted unless after considering all the evidence or lack of evidence, I am sure that he is guilty of tan offence.

127The defence concedes that Mr. Odette unlawfully caused the death of Katie Kainz and that he stabbed Ashley Bernard. The defence submits though that the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Odette had the requisite intent for murder and attempt murder and submits that Mr. Odette should only be guilty of manslaughter and aggravated assault.

128For an unlawful killing to be murder, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Odette either meant to kill the person (Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 229 (a)(i)) or meant to cause the person bodily harm that he knew was likely to kill the person, and was reckless whether the person died or not (Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 229)(a)(ii)). The Crown does not have to prove both routes.

129With respect to s. 229(a)(ii), the essential element is that of intending to cause bodily harm of such a grave and serious nature that the accused knew that it was likely to result in the death of the victim. The reckless criterion is considered an afterthought. As explained by Fairburn J.A. in R. v. Zoldi, 2018 ONCA 384, 360 C.C.C. (3d) 476, at para. 40:

Once the Crown establishes the principal’s intention to cause such grave and serious bodily harm that he knows it is likely to result in death, recklessness follows as almost a matter of course: R. v. Nygaard, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1074, at p. 1088. See also: Cooper, at p. 154-155; Rodgerson, at para. 23, aff’d on other grounds, 2015 SCC 38, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 760; Moo, at para. 63. This is why being “reckless whether death ensues or not” is often referred to as an “afterthought.”

130In R. v. Hodgson, 2024 SCC 25, 494 D.L.R. (4th) 501, the Supreme Court of Canada summarized the mens rea requirement for a conviction for murder. The Court stated at paras. 48 and 49:

In contrast, “a conviction for murder cannot rest on anything less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt of subjective foresight” (R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636, at p. 654 (emphasis added); R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633, at p. 646). Murder is distinguished from manslaughter “only by the mental element with respect to the death” (Vaillancourt, at p. 654, quoted in Creighton, at p. 17, per Lamer C.J., concurring). The requisite intent for murder is “an intent to kill or an intent to cause bodily harm that the offender knows is likely to cause death and is reckless as to whether or not death ensues” (R. v. Walle, 2012 SCC 41, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 438, at para. 3).

A conviction for murder requires subjective intent because it is an offence that “carries with it the most severe stigma and punishment of any crime in our society” (Martineau, at p. 645). The law requires subjective foresight of death because the criminal liability for murder is of the highest kind and cannot be justified except where the actor possesses a culpable mental state in respect of that result (Martineau, at p. 645, citing R. v. Bernard, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 833). Thus, the harsh stigma and punishment associated with murder is reserved for “those who choose to intentionally cause death or who choose to inflict bodily harm that they know is likely to cause death” (Martineau, at p. 646).

131To prove that Mr. Odette committed murder, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either Mr. Odette meant to kill Ms. Kainz or that he meant to cause Ms. Kainz bodily harm that he knew was so serious and dangerous that it would likely kill Ms. Kainz and proceeded despite his knowledge Ms. Kainz would likely die as a result of that bodily harm.

132To find Adam Odette guilty of the attempted murder of Ashley Bernard, the Crown must prove: (1) that the accused took some steps towards the commission of the offence beyond mere acts of preparation, and (2) that he had a specific intention to kill. Recklessness does not suffice to establish the mens rea for attempted murder: R. v. B.F., 2025 SCC 41, at para. 69, R. v. Boone, 2019 ONCA 652, at para. 49; and R. v. Ancio, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 225.

133As summarized by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Collins, 2023 ONCA 394, at para. 54: “It has long been settled law in Canada that the mens rea for attempted murder is a specific intention to kill: see The Queen v. Ancio, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 225, at pp. 250-251; and R. v. Cunningham, 2023 ONCA 36, at para. 36.” The reckless route in s. 229(a)(ii)is not an available pathway to a conviction for attempted murder. As stated by the Court of Appeal in Boone at para. 57, in the context of attempted murder:

Recklessness is not, however, to be equated with intention based on a belief in the virtual certainty that the consequences will flow: Buzzanga, at p. 384. The mens rea required for attempted murder is not satisfied by recklessness as to the consequence. A person who appreciates that his acts may, or probably will, lead to the victim's death is not guilty of attempted murder unless killing his victim was his purpose: Ancio, at pp. 248-51.

134There is evidence that Mr. Odette consumed drugs and alcohol prior to the killing. An accused who was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs and thus in a state of advanced intoxication may not have had the requisite intent to commit murder. As explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Daley, 2007 SCC 53, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 523, at para 49:

Second, there is what we might call “advanced” intoxication. This occurs where there is intoxication to the point where the accused lacks specific intent, to the extent of an impairment of the accused’s foresight of the consequences of his or her act sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about the requisite mens rea. The Court in Robinson noted that this will most often be the degree of intoxication the jury will grapple with in murder trials:

• In most murder cases, the focus for the trier of fact will be on the foreseeability prong of s. 229(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, that is, on determining whether the accused foresaw that his or her actions were likely to cause the death of the victim. For example, consider the case where an accused and another individual engage in a fight outside a bar. During the fight, the accused pins the other individual to the ground and delivers a kick to the head, which kills that person. In that type of a case, the jury will likely struggle, assuming they reject any self-defence or provocation claim, with the question of whether that accused foresaw that his or her actions would likely cause the death of the other individual. [emphasis added]

135The British Columbia Court of Appeal in R. v. Crossley, 2025 BCCA 224, at para. 33 explained the inquiry that must be conducted:

Instead, the focus of the “advanced” intoxication inquiry is the overall impact of intoxication on the accused's state of mind at the time of the offence, as borne out by the entirety of the evidence. In the murder context, evidence of “advanced” intoxication is evidence that reasonably supports a finding that intoxication impaired the accused’s “...foresight of the consequences of [their] act sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about the requisite mens rea”: Daley at para. 41. In other words, it is evidence that reasonably raises a doubt as to whether the accused intended to kill the victim or meant to cause the victim bodily harm that the accused knew was likely to cause their death and was reckless as to whether death ensued.

The Positions of Counsel

136It is the defence’s position that Mr. Odette’s should be believed, or his version of events should at least raise a reasonable doubt as to Mr. Odette’s ability to form the requisite specific intent. The defence submits that his account is corroborated by the evidence led in this case, both by the Crown and the defence. Throughout the night, he consumed copious amounts of alcohol and drugs and at the time of the stabbing, Mr. Odette was severely impaired and was in a state of advanced intoxication, where he was unable to appreciate the consequences of his actions. It is the Crown’s position that Mr. Odette’s evidence was not credible, contradicted by other evidence, and does not raise a reasonable doubt. The Crown submits that while the accused experienced some level of impairment, the only reasonable inference available, on a consideration of all the evidence, is that the accused, when he repeatedly stabbed Katie Kainz and Ashley Bernard, targeting vulnerable and vital areas of their body, had the requisite intent for murder and was not in an advanced state of intoxication sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about the requisite mens rea.

Ignoring Evidence of Bad Character

137On consent, evidence was led as part of the narrative that Mr. Odette punched Alyssa in the face. The evidence was relevant to explain why Mr. Odette separated from Alyssa at this juncture of the evening and was relevant to Mr. Odette’s state of impairment as the night progressed. At the end of oral submissions, the Crown conceded that the evidence cannot be used for any other purpose. Mr. Odette also has a criminal record. He also has possessed illegal drugs. There was also a brief reference, contested, that Mr. Odette has an anti-social personality disorder. In our system of justice, no one is convicted based upon their character or any propensity they might have to engage in bad behaviour. I will not use the described evidence to infer that Mr. Odette has the propensity or disposition to commit the acts charged nor will I punish Mr. Odette for these acts by finding him guilty of the charges in this case.

138Mr. Odette’s criminal record was introduced as one of the tools to assess his credibility. I do not find the criminal record helpful in this regard. While Mr. Odette has numerous convictions for breaching court orders, those convictions are dated with his last conviction being in 2009. I will ignore his criminal record.

The Testimony of Mr. Odette

139Mr. Odette testified that, given his consumption of drugs and alcohol, he was not in control of his actions, and he did not intend to harm or kill Katie Kainz, nor did he intend to harm Ashley Bernard. I must consider his testimony in the context of all the evidence, and if I believe it, I must acquit him of murder and attempted murder. Even if I do not believe him in the context of all the evidence, but it leaves me with a reasonable doubt, I must acquit him of murder and attempted murder. Even if I am not left in doubt by his testimony, I must still consider, on the basis of the evidence that I do accept, if I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of Mr. Odette’s guilt. At the end of the day, the Crown has the onus of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt: see R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, 3 C.R. (4th) 302; and R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3, at paras. 66-67.

140Like the testimony of any witness, I can believe all, none, or part of Mr. Odette’s testimony. I accept that he has a long history of alcohol, substance, and now polysubstance abuse. I accept his description of his general movements on March 11, 2023 and March 12, 2023, as they are supported by the other witnesses and surveillance evidence. I accept that in the evening of March 11th, 2023 and into the early morning hours of March 12, 2023, Mr. Odette consumed a significant amount of alcohol and drugs as the other Crown witnesses had described.

141Mr. Odette testified that when he was at 201 Simcoe Street North, he sat down and proceeded to smoke crystal meth and fentanyl. He then nodded off and doubled over. He came to and recalled a hand going into his right pocket. Everything happened fast. He saw his hand smack the hand away. He had a knife in his hand, and then “I stabbed one time. They fell down. I, I recall seeing their arm go up. I stabbed another time in the arm, and then I – that’s – I seen it was Katie at that time. And then, I, I just recall hearing a scream and I took off.”

142I do not accept this description, nor do I think it can reasonably be a true description, of what happened at 201 Simcoe Street North.

143In making this assessment, I am fully aware of the expert evidence led at trial that it is possible to experience a flash/rush effect of consuming meth and fentanyl. I am also fully cognizant of the expert evidence that alcohol and drug consumption can impair a person’s ability to engage in rational thinking and foresee the consequences of their actions. Furthermore, in assessing his evidence, I am also well aware of the expert evidence that alcohol consumption can affect one’s memory. However, I reject Mr. Odette’s evidence, nor can it reasonably be true for the following reasons:

a) Mr. Odette testified that he did not realize that he had a knife, nor did he know where the knife came from. He testified that he was not armed when he attended Chaser’s Bar and Grill. The evidence introduced at trial overwhelmingly shows that Mr. Odette must have taken the knife from Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s residence. Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that he had a knife like the one that was found behind 21 Elgin Street. The knife that was found had its tip broken off and it matched the metal fragments found in Ms. Kainz’s head. Again, I appreciate the expert evidence that alcohol and fentanyl can affect memory. However, Mr. Odette testified that he remembers taking meth from Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s garage. Taking meth was not an unusual occurrence for Mr. Odette. Yet, he purported to recall taking the meth but not the knife.

Furthermore, the knife in question does not fold. I have held it. It has some heft and size. It would not fit comfortably in his pants. Mr. Odette took a cab to 201 Simcoe Street North. According to him, he also sat down at 201 Simcoe Street North when he started consuming the drugs. It would have been awkward to sit with a knife in the pocket of his jeans. He would clearly have known it was there. In my view, Mr. Odette’s lack of recall in this regard is a convenient lie to shield himself from answering difficult questions. This lie is a significant one that colours his account of what happened at 201 Simcoe Street North

b) I accept Mr. Odette’s evidence that he has consumed meth with Ms. Kainz in the past. She had addiction issues and meth was found in her system, which could have been taken at the time of the incident. On Mr. Odette’s version of events, Ms. Kainz agreed to his request to consume drugs. However, he testified that he first sat down to consume the drugs. Mr. Odette testified that he smoked meth and fentanyl together, passed out, awoke to feeling a hand, realized he was stabbing Katie, heard a scream, and then took off. On his account, he left the apartment suddenly. Just like his hat was left at the apartment, one would have expected the drugs and pipe to still be there or some remnants of them. After all, according to his version, Ms. Kainz had not yet consumed the drugs. He did not describe collecting his drugs or pipe nor given what he said happened would it have made any sense that he did. He ran out of the home. Yet, there was no meth or fentanyl, or any related drug paraphernalia found. Only the popper shaft and associated pipe was found out in the open.

The defence submits that Ms. Bernard is lying when she testified that Mr. Odette did not consume meth. I will address that submission later on. The defence also submits, in the alternative, that perhaps Ms. Bernard did not see the meth and fentanyl consumption because there was a period of time when Ms. Kainz and Mr. Odette were alone in the smoking room. I agree that Ms. Bernard testified that Ms. Kainz and Mr. Odette went to the smoking room first and she followed after she put the baby to sleep. However, Mr. Odette arrived at 201 Simcoe Street North at 3:51 p.m. A mere nine minutes later, he had stabbed both women and was out of the apartment. Everything happened quickly. There could be no lengthy period of time when Mr. Odette was alone with Ms. Kainz. If meth and fentanyl was consumed, it would have been seen.

Mr. Odette said he subsequently smoked meth at Asia’s and Asia discovered some meth. The meth was in a bag that was described as similar to the bags that Mr. Leaitch-Henry had in his garage. I have no difficulty with Mr. Odette’s evidence that he took meth from Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s garage. I just do not accept that he smoked it at the victims’ apartment.

c) Mr. Odette testified that he recalled leaving the residence after the scream but did not recall anything until he was in the car with Agnes and Chase. Specifically, he did not recall what he did with the knife. The knife was found tucked in the back of a shed in the backyard at 21 Elgin Street. It was not casually discarded or simply tossed aside. It was, in my view, carefully hidden. I do not believe that Mr. Odette does not recall this action. I do not agree with defence counsel’s submission that the melting of the snow from March 11th until when the knife was discovered would have affected the placement of the knife. The melting would not have moved the knife. It makes no sense that he remembered running out of the apartment but not the next more involved action of hiding the knife.

d) Similarly, Mr. Odette testified that he fled when he heard the scream. Yet, he testified that he did not hear Ms. Bernard screaming when she was outside. I have heard the audio and video from the neighborhood surveillance camera. Ms. Bernard’s scream echoed through the night. I do not believe Mr. Odette. This is another deliberate lie that he made up to shield himself from answering tough questions.

e) The accused lied to Mr. Leaitch-Henry when he told him that the police cars in attendance were not for him.

f) The accused lied to Agnes when confronted later on and said that he did not do anything.

g) The accused also agreed that he subsequently lied to Alyssa that he did not do anything when they were driving from Kingston to Durham region.

h) The accused testified that his cell phone was still working “fine” after the events in question and that he did not break it so as to prevent the police from tracing him. Yet, the Bell records show no activities at all on his phone after March 12th, 4:24 am.

i) Mr. Odette testified that he abstained from drugs in the weeks before March 11th when he was staying with his girlfriend’s parents. He testified that Little Britain is in the middle of nowhere and you cannot get drugs there. Yet, he testified that he brought cocaine and fentanyl with him. I also accept Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s evidence that Mr. Odette had his own supply of meth at the garage. Mr. Odette testified that he chose not to consume the drugs. I do not believe Mr. Odette had the ability to be in possession of illicit drugs given his polysubstance abuse disorder but not to consume them. I believe that he had drugs on him and while he might have been doing better, as Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified, I do not accept that he abstained for the period that he said he did.

j) I do not accept Mr. Odette’s assessment of what alcohol he consumed and the amount of drugs he took. His trial evidence is inconsistent with what he told the psychiatrists¹. The defence submits that Mr. Odette did not exaggerate his drinking or drug consuming. And yes, some of his estimates are lower than that offered by Mr. Leaitch-Henry. However, on a number of occasions his original inability to quantify his consumption morphed into more concrete estimates at trial. For example:

i. He told Dr. Bouskill that he could not quantify his drug consumption during his first trip to 744 Hortop Street. He testified at trial that he consumed 4 or 5 bong loads.

ii. He told Dr. Bouskill and Dr. Pierce that he was unable to quantify his alcohol consumption at Chaser’s Bar and Grill. He testified at trial that he had 2-3 beers and 2-3 shots.

iii. He initially told Dr. Bouskill that he did not remember being at 744 Hortop Street the second time. He then told her that he recalled consuming meth twice.

Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Odette had the requisite intent for murder and attempted murder?

144Rejecting Mr. Odette’s evidence in no way ends the inquiry. The defence relies on the other evidence of alcohol and drug consumption emanating from the witnesses, the expert evidence, and all the circumstances to support its assertion that the Crown has failed to meet its onus. The defence submits that Mr. Odette was in an advanced state of intoxication and unable to have the requisite intent for murder or attempted murder.

Evidence of Alcohol and Drug Consumption that I Do Accept

145I generally accept the evidence of Mr. Leaitch-Henry, his mother Agnes, and Asia regarding Mr. Odette’s consumption of alcohol and drugs. I also have the video evidence from Chaser’s Bar and Grill.

146I accept Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s evidence that he and Mr. Odette drank from the mini keg of Heineken but did not consume any drugs when Mr. Odette and Alyssa attended at his residence on the first occasion. I found Mr. Leaitch-Henry to be a credible witness. He was close with Mr. Odette prior to this incident. Mr. Odette was his wife’s cousin. It was clear to me that Mr. Leaitch-Henry was attempting to testify to the best of his recollection and not trying to favour one side over the other. There were a few inconsistencies between his trial evidence and his prior statement but they are minor in nature. I agree that supporting Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s version that no meth was consumed at that time of the first visit was the fact that the visit was relatively short, there were a lot of people around, and the visit was interrupted by Ms. Leaitch-Henry’s wife backing her car into Alyssa’s car. Mr. Odette testified that he consumed 4-5 bong loads but as stated earlier, I have rejected his evidence and on this specific point he was inconsistent. I also note another inconsistency in this regard. In describing this consumption at trial, he explained that Alyssa was present when he consumed the meth and that they exchanged looks, but then he also testified that there was a possibility that she was not present when he consumed the drugs.

147I accept that Mr. Odette bought alcohol at the LCBO and brought it to Asia’s house. Asia testified that she saw the bottle and although she did not see it being drunk, I accept Mr. Odette’s evidence that he engaged in pre-drinking to save money given the cost of alcohol at bars.

148I accept Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s testimony that he paid for Mr. Odette’s drinks at Chaser’s and that he bought Mr. Odette beers and shots. The amount of beers and shots vary from Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s statement to the police and trial testimony. He appeared to adopt the higher amount that he initially told the police. I also appreciate that it is difficult for someone who is consuming to gage the amount that they and others have had. In my view, the exact amounts do not really matter. What is more germane is Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s assessment of Mr. Odette’s sobriety. Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that, at the end of the night at Chaser’s bar, Mr. Odette was very intoxicated. He was slurring his words, difficult to understand, and not balanced. I have been presented with video clips from Chaser’s Bar and Grill. There is no audio to the videos, and it is somewhat difficult to assess a person’s level of sobriety. However, it is not inconsistent with Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s assessment and I accept his evidence.

149Mr. Odette then spent approximately the next three hours at 744 Hortop Street. Mr. Leaitch-Henry testified that over this time, he and Mr. Odette together drank 6 beers worth from the keg. They also mostly finished ¾ of the Captain Morgan bottle. I accept Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s evidence that Mr. Odette used his own meth and fentanyl that he brought and had four hits. I accept Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s elaboration that he was embarrassed about his own drug use but that when Mr. Odette took out his drugs, Mr. Leaitch-Henry felt comfortable taking out his own drugs.

150More critically, I accept Agnes’ testimony that when Mr. Odette left in the cab, he was very intoxicated. Agnes was sober that night and she had the ability to reliably observe Mr. Odette.

Expert Evidence that I Do Accept

151Dr. Pierce, Dr. Bouskill, and Dr. Woodall all gave very similar testimony regarding the effects of alcohol and drugs on memory and cognition. I accept their evidence on the possible effects that consuming drugs and alcohol can have on cognition and memory. I accept the following derived from their evidence:

a) Alcohol and fentanyl are central nervous system depressants while methamphetamine is a central nervous system stimulant.

b) Alcohol can affect memory and coordination, and it can impair the ability to foresee the consequence of ones’ actions.

c) Slurred speech is consistent with alcohol use.

d) Methamphetamine use can compromise decision making.

e) Methamphetamine can mask the intoxicated effects of alcohol. For example, since methamphetamine gives one energy, it can reduce the sedative effects of alcohol, but impulse control and risk assessment can still be impaired. As Dr. Pierce noted, you do not sober up from alcohol by taking meth.

f) Ingesting both toxicants, central nervous system depressants and stimulants can impair a person’s cognition, and they can affect foresight and one’s ability to solve problems.

g) That inhaling meth is the fastest way to feel its effects. Both Dr. Woodall and Dr. Bouskill testified that inhaling can cause an intense rush within the first few minutes. I accept Dr. Woodall’s evidence that using meth and fentanyl can cause an intense high for a few minutes and then 30 minutes of decline, depending on the ratio of the two drugs.

152Dr. Pierce and Dr. Woodall testified that they could not say what the potential effects Mr. Odette was experiencing when he arrived at 201 Simcoe Street North. As Dr. Pierce testified, “I can say what the effect could have been, but I think it's hard for me to be confident to say about what the effect was.”

153Dr. Bouskill did offer an opinion. She testified that to a medical certainty:

His mental state during that period was dominated by those direct effects of substances, the intensity and the functional impact of symptoms that were described likely did render him incapable of reliable memory formation as well as reason decision making at the time.

154I accept Dr. Bouskill’s general pronouncements of the effects of alcohol, meth, and fentanyl consumption and I will use them in assessing whether the Crown has met its onus in this case. However, I do not accept her specific conclusions regarding what Mr. Odette was experiencing in this case. I say so for the following reasons:

a) A key pillar in her opinion is her acceptance of Mr. Odette’s evidence that he consumed meth at the apartment. She agreed in cross-examination that without consuming additional substances at the apartment, the effects of his prior consumption would be tapering off. For the reasons set out earlier, I have rejected Mr. Odette’s evidence of what he consumed and said happened at the apartment. That key pillar is gone. However, I have additional concerns. Dr. Bouskill testified that she accepted Mr. Odette’s version of what happened because it was supported by Ms. Kainz’s toxicology report. However, she agreed that in her view the only thing one could conclude from the report is that Ms. Kainz consumed meth within recent days. A more troubling oddity is that while Dr. Bouskill accepted Mr. Odette’s version in this regard she purposely did not include in her assessment that Mr. Odette said he took fentanyl with the meth at the apartment. She left the fentanyl out of the equation. She testified that she was concerned about relying on his self report with respect to the fentanyl, but she in essence relied on his self report with respect to consuming meth. Her thought process, in this regard, lacks a logical basis and makes no sense to me.

b) Dr. Bouskill relied in part on the fact that Mr. Odette had abstained from consuming drugs. For the reasons set out earlier, I do not accept Mr. Odette’s evidence in this regard.

c) I do not fault Dr. Bouskill for attempting to set out a timeline for consumption. However, ultimately, especially where there is conflicting evidence, her opinion is vulnerable to my finding of facts. I do not find that Mr. Odette consumed meth the first time when he visited 744 Hortop Street. In addition, I accept Mr. Leaitch-Henry’s evidence that while at 744 Hortop Street the second time, Mr. Odette consumed meth mixed with fentanyl. Dr. Bouskill’s opinion does not satisfactorily address how adding the fentanyl could affect things. However, Dr. Woodall who is an extremely experienced and qualified toxicologist, and Dr. Pierce, also an experienced forensic psychiatrist testified that in essence assessing the effects of meth, fentanyl, and alcohol together is complicated.

Testimony of Ashley Bernard

155The defence does not quarrel with the general sequencing of the attack that Ms. Bernard described, in other words that Mr. Odette attacked Ms. Kainz first, then Ms. Bernard, and then returned to attack Ms. Kainz. The defence also relies on certain aspects of Ms. Bernard’s testimony, that she observed Mr. Odette muttering, was agitated and pacing, and that he looked right through her. The defence submits that Ms. Bernard’s description of Mr. Odette’s action shows that he was engaged in tunnel vision.

156Ms. Bernard and Mr. Odette disagree on Ms. Kainz’s response to Mr. Odette’s offer of drugs. I have explained why I have rejected Mr. Odette’s evidence but that does not automatically mean that I accept Ms. Bernard’s evidence on this point or regarding whether Mr. Odette sexually propositioned her and Ms. Kainz.

157The defence contests Ms. Bernard’s evidence that Ms. Kainz refused the offer of drugs, that Mr. Odette said that he wanted to have sex, or that Ms. Bernard was even present in the same room when the attack of Ms. Kainz started. The defence submits that Ms. Bernard is not credible or reliable having regard to the following:

a) She told the officer who arrived on scene that she was not in the room when the attack took place.

b) She testified that she was standing in the smoking room leaning in a corner when the attack started but the photos show that a broom was present there, making it impossible.

c) She testified that Mr. Odette stabbed Ms. Kainz repeatedly in the face, which is not supported by the forensic examination.

d) She testified that Mr. Odette hit Ms. Kainz in the face, but that is not supported by the forensic examination.

e) She testified that she was stabbed in the door frame of her room and then in her room, but this is not supported by the little amount of blood found in her room.

f) She testified that when she left the apartment, Mr. Odette was right behind her.

g) She lied about the identification cards that were found in her room.

h) She lied about whether she or Ms. Kainz consumed street drugs, such as meth.

i) She has a criminal record with crimes of dishonesty.

158I disagree with the first six submitted defects of Ms. Bernard’s evidence for the following reasons:

a) Officer Preston attended to Ms. Bernard on the scene. According to her notes, Ms. Bernard told her that she was in the other room when the attack against Ms. Kainz started. On its face, this is inconsistent with Ms. Bernard’s trial testimony. This purported inconsistency causes me no concern in the circumstances. It is evident that Officer Preston’s note is really a very short summary of what happened. The note reads as follows:

Ashley then told me that she was sitting on the couch on her phone out of view while this was happening and then she heard the male hit Katie. Then the male started stabbing Katie. Ashley said her reaction was “No, my baby,” and the male ran at her.

More critically, I have had the benefit of listening to Ms. Bernard’s evidence. The manner in which she speaks and her phraseology makes it, at the best of times, difficult to follow her, and this was in the relative calm setting of a court room. The statement was taken at the scene, when she was distraught, bloodied from being stabbed and concerned about her baby. In that regard, I have also had the benefit of hearing Ms. Bernard scream for help as captured by the neighbourhood footage, frantic about her baby being left in the apartment. In my view, the inconsistency can easily be explained by either Officer’s Preston’s inability to capture what Ms. Bernard was saying or Ms. Bernard’s inability to properly articulate what she wanted to say given the situation. I also note that Officer Preston never read back the note to Ms. Bernard.

b) I have seen the photos of the broom in the corner. I have seen Ms. Bernard. She is tiny. I do not see any issue with her being able to physically lean in that area with the broom.

c) Ms. Bernard did not say, as defence counsel submitted, that Mr. Odette stabbed Ms. Kainz multiple times in the face. She testified that he “proceeded to stab her in the face and wherever else.” She then said it was like seeing somebody get punched in the face and punched a bunch of times but with a knife. I did not take her evidence as suggesting that he stabbed her a lot of times in the face, but rather that he stabbed her in the face and elsewhere. Regardless, her testimony is consistent with Dr. Bellis’ evidence in this regard. He testified that Ms. Kainz suffered a stab wound to the face, three stab wounds to the head, and two to the neck. The multiple stab wounds in the neck and head region are consistent with Ms. Bernard’s account. In addition, a significant amount of blood was found in the smoking room consistent with where Ms. Bernard described the initial attack on Katie Kainz occurring.

d) Ms. Bernard testified that she was smoking her popper when she heard a slap or hit. She saw Ms. Kainz holding her face. I agree that there is no evidence of a bruise on Ms. Kainz face. I do not see this inconsistency of being indicative of anything given that Ms. Bernard was describing a sound.

e) I agree that it is possible that Ms. Bernard may be incorrect when she pinpointed the first stabbing of her in the door frame of her room given the relative absence of blood. It is also possible that her sweater prevented a lot of blood from flowing out. In addition, while she testified that she was on the ground she also testified that she got up and escaped and pushed down the wall as supported by the blood stain on the wall. Even if Ms. Bernard is wrong regarding the location of the attack on her, I do not see why this matters or how this error affects her evidence as a whole.

f) Ms. Bernard testified that she felt as she was exiting that Mr. Odette was right behind her. I agree with defence that Ms. Bernard’s perceptions are inaccurate. Mr. Odette did not chase Ms. Bernard out of the building, but he did leave the apartment within moments of her departure. Given the circumstances, her misperception is completely understandable.

159I agree with defence counsel that Ms. Bernard has a criminal record that contains crimes of dishonesty. I also agree with defence counsel that she minimized her own drug use and that she testified at the preliminary inquiry that, to her knowledge, Ms. Kainz only smoked weed when the evidence showed that Ms. Bernard clearly knew she smoked meth, as she arranged for her boyfriend to sell her some “tina.” I also agree with defence counsel that Ms. Bernard was somewhat inconsistent regarding her knowledge of the stolen credit cards. That being said, the overall thrust of her evidence across her police statement to the preliminary inquiry and her trial evidence is that the cards belonged to her boyfriend Josh. However, given her criminal record and her answers regarding Ms. Kainz’s drug use, I agree that I must carefully and cautiously consider her evidence.

160I have no difficulty concluding that Ms. Bernard was in the room when the attack of Ms. Kainz started. Ms. Bernard was able to paint a fairly compelling picture of going into the room and smoking a popper near the window, which was her usual spot, when the attack happened. Her testimony is supported by the scene evidence that showed marijuana out in the open. Her and Mr. Odette both testified that drug consumption would not have occurred in the baby room. I do not see any reason for Ms. Bernard to lie regarding where she was when the stabbing occurred. I note that Ms. Bernard testified that she did not see the second attack on Ms. Kainz by Mr. Odette, rather she only saw him returning to her after Ms. Kainz called out. I did not sense she was embellishing her evidence. Overall, she was fairly consistent on her description of the events that night. Defence has pointed to the fact that Ms. Bernard’s phone was found in her room, not the smoking room. The fact that her phone was on the couch in her room, in my view, simply means that the phone was on the couch.

161I also note that Ms. Bernard’s testimony is consistent with Mr. Odette’s in several areas:

a) They both said that Ms. Bernard opened the door and let Mr. Odette in.

b) When Mr. Odette entered the apartment, Ms. Kainz was there.

c) They both said that Mr. Odette went into the smoking room with Ms. Kainz. They had to go there because of the baby. Ms. Bernard testified that they went into the room and that she followed them. Mr. Odette’s testimony on this point is that he did not know where Ms. Bernard was but he agreed that they had to go into the other room because of the baby.

d) They both said that Mr. Odette asked if they wanted to do cocaine or meth.

162The defence submits that Ms. Bernard was embarrassed about her drug use, hence she denied agreeing to smoke meth and she was willing to lie about it and that she saw herself as speaking for her deceased friend. I disagree. I turn back to the words Ms. Bernard testified that Ms. Kainz said to Mr. Odette, “No, sorry, I don’t do that here.” This was followed by Ms. Bernard saying, “Yeah, my baby’s here.” It made sense that Mr. Odette, given his testimony that he had consumed meth in the past with Ms. Kainz, asked if she wanted to do so again. It also made sense that she said no, given that there was a new factor, a baby in the house. I note that Ms. Bernard was consistent in her evidence that there was no street drug consumption in the house. I also accept Ms. Bernard’s testimony that Mr. Odette then said, “to be honest I just wanted to get naked and fuck.” This made perfect sense given the circumstances. If Mr. Odette simply wanted to keep consuming meth, he could have stayed at Chase’s residence. Mr. Odette was welcome there and there was meth there. 201 Simcoe Street North offered him, potentially, something else: two females. I also note that Mr. Odette did not say that he did not proposition the girls. He simply said he did not recall:

Q. Do – and you deny telling Ashley and Katie that, to be honest, I’m just trying to get naked and fucked.

A. Yeah. I don’t recall that.

Q. All right. Are you saying it didn’t happen? That you didn’t say that? Or you don’t remember?

A. I don’t recall.

Q. It’s possible that you said it.

A. I don’t recall.

163I accept that it was the refusal to have sex that precipitated the attack. The question remains whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Odette, after being rejected and attacking the victims, had the requisite intent for murder and attempted murder given his consumption of alcohol and drugs and all the circumstances.

Level of Impairment

164I accept that Mr. Odette, as mentioned earlier, had consumed significant amounts of alcohol and had consumed meth and fentanyl. Agnes testified that when he left in the cab to attend 201 Simcoe Street North, he was very intoxicated. When he arrived at 201 Simcoe Street North, Ms. Bernard said he was muttering and irritated. The defence relies on Ms. Bernard’s comment that Mr. Odette was pacing. The defence also relies on Ms. Bernard’s comment, in conjunction with Dr. Woodall’s evidence, that he was walking slowly and causally while looking right through Ms. Bernard, as indicative of meth impairment. It is correct that Dr. Woodall testified that this description could be symptomatic of someone who has used meth. However, Ms. Bernard explained that she meant that Mr. Odette looked like he was on a mission and his expression was similar to the killer in a scary movie who walks slowly towards the victim who is running away. I am not sure that this description advances the defence position regarding Mr. Odette’s level of impairment given that he then stabbed Ms. Bernard in the eye.

165The defence also submits that Mr. Odette engaged in tunnel focus while at 201 Simcoe Street North indicative of another symptom of meth consumption. Dr. Bouskill testified that tunnel focus means “as though they can only attend to one thing at a time.” The defence submits that Mr. Odette exhibited tunnel focus when he allowed Ms. Bernard to escape because he was pre-occupied and focused on his attack on Ms. Kainz. However, the evidence also showed that Mr. Odette switched his focus twice, first when he attacked Ms. Bernard and second when Ms. Kainz interrupted him.

166That being said, I agree that there is evidence that Mr. Odette was feeling the effects of his alcohol and drug consumption when he was at 201 Simcoe Street North.

167However, when I consider all the evidence, I do not agree that he was experiencing a high level of impairment and disorganized thinking. I say so for the following reasons:

168Dr. Bouskill and Dr. Woodall described the intense rush that takes place within the first few minutes of meth being inhaled. They both described the subsequent tapering-off effects. The cab was called at 3:28 p.m. Mr. Leaitch-Henry agreed in cross-examination that he would have called the cab from the garage and that he then left Mr. Odette in the garage. However, this is contradicted by his mother Agnes who said that they were in the house when he made the call and that they left from the house. I accept Agnes’s evidence on this point. She did not consume 10 lines of meth or drink like her son did. She also testified that Mr. Odette left from the house. One can hear from the audio that Mr. Odette was present with Mr. Leaitch-Henry when the call for the cab was made. The difference matters because there is no evidence of drug or alcohol consumption from the house. One can safely conclude that at the very least, by the time the cab was called, at 3:28 a.m. from the house, Mr. Odette had stopped consuming alcohol and drugs. The break in consumption that flowed would have lessened the impairment effects of the intoxicants.

169Even though Mr. Odette had only been there once, he was still able to remember Ms. Kainz and Ms. Bernard’s address. He had never been there before that day. He also remembered where Asia lived. It also appears that he had never been there before that day. I note that he was able to direct the cab driver to 201 Simcoe Street North as heard on the audio and direct Agnes to Asia’s house afterwards.

170Mr. Odette’s actions after the stabbing speaks volumes to his level of impairment and his ability to engage in rational thought. He was able to realize that it was in his best interests to flee the scene, hide the weapon, and lie to Mr. Leaitch-Henry when he was questioned so he would not be caught. These actions cannot be used to assess Mr. Odette’s level of culpability, and it cannot be used as actual evidence that Mr. Odette had the intent to kill. However, it can be used as circumstantial evidence to assess Mr. Odette’s degree of impairment and Mr. Odette’s ability to engage in rational thought: R. v. Pierre, 2025 ONCA 589, at paras. 60-61. As Justice Coroza noted in R. v. Ahmadi, 2025 ONCA 219, 446 C.C.C. (3d) 497, at paras. 76-77:

This court has held that “[e]vidence of post-offence conduct may be relevant to discredit a defence that relates to an accused’s state of mind”, such as intoxication, and “thus be relevant to the accused’s ability to form the requisite intent”: R. v. Chretien, 2014 ONCA 403, 309 C.C.C. (3d) 418, at para. 105.……

The trial judge concluded that the after-the-fact conduct of the appellant assisted him in finding that the appellant had the state of mind for murder. He reached this conclusion after considering decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and other courts of appeal that have held that an accused’s after-the-fact conduct may be probative of an accused’s culpability, but not the level of the culpability: see R. v. Angelis, 2013 ONCA 70, 296 C.C.C. (3d) 143, at para. 53; R. v. Arcangioli, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 129, at pp. 143-146; R. v. White, 2011 SCC 13, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 433. As noted above, the trial judge specifically stated that the after-the fact conduct was not being used to demonstrate a consciousness of guilt. Rather, it was “being used to assess the level of the accused’s intoxication, and his ability to form intent at the time of the crime.” Because defence counsel at trial ran an intoxication defence, the evidence of what the appellant did immediately after the offence was instructive as to his state of mind…

171Mr. Odette left the apartment as soon as Ms. Bernard escaped. He was clearly able to appreciate that he was in trouble and that after Ms. Bernard bolted screaming from the apartment, he realized that he had to leave as well.

172I agree with the Crown that Mr. Odette not only left but was somewhat strategic in how he navigated the streets of Oshawa. I have looked long and hard at the compilation video, which contains the neighbourhood surveillance. I agree with the Crown that the man running and then walking with his cell phone lit up is Mr. Odette. The size of the man and the clothing matches that seen earlier at Chaser’s Bar and Grill. In addition, that same man, who I find to be Mr. Odette, then blended in with a group of three. He clearly had the capacity to understand that he would arouse less suspicion if he was not walking alone.

173Ms. Bernard saw Mr. Odette turn up on Elgin Street. The surveillance shows him running on Elgin Street at 4:03 a.m. The knife was found secreted behind the shed at 21 Elgin Street. Within minutes of the attack, Mr. Odette had the mental wherewithal to realize that he had to get rid of the weapon. He also had the acumen to hide it in a fairly good spot as it was not discovered for a few weeks. Again, I reject defence counsel’s suggestion that perhaps the knife moved during that period. That is pure speculation.

174I agree with defence counsel that in this case, given that Mr. Odette was fortuitously receiving calls from Alyssa and Mr. Leaitch-Henry as opposed to making the calls, his arrangement of a ride out of town does not really indicate much to me regarding his level of impairment. However, his decision to lie to Mr. Leaitch-Henry, within approximately 5 minutes or so of leaving the apartment, that the police were not there for him speaks to his level of impairment.

175In addition, both Mr. Leaitch-Henry and Agnes testified that, in essence, Mr. Odette was fine when they picked him up. I appreciate that Mr. Leaitch-Henry was still himself recovering from his consumption of alcohol and drugs and was not actively monitoring Mr. Odette. I also appreciate that Mr. Odette was not talking a lot, but he did provide directions. However, Agnes said that he sounded normal and she is also the same person who was able to assess earlier that he was intoxicated when the cab was called. Similarly, Asia who heard Mr. Odette on the phone with Alyssa, slightly before Agnes, also testified that Mr. Odette sounded normal. Again, I appreciate that she wasn’t actively listening but it is telling that the people who saw Mr. Odette within minutes of the attack testified that he seemed fine. Again, this supports that the effects of the drugs and alcohol were waning.

176With respect to Ms. Kainz, looking at all the circumstances, I find that despite his consumption of drugs and alcohol that night, Mr. Odette had the ability to form the intent for murder and he did in fact form the intent to commit murder. While I do not find that he had the requisite intent to kill Ms. Kainz pursuant to s. 229(a)(i), I do find beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the requisite intent pursuant to s. 229(a)(ii).

177I appreciate that the stabbing was over a very short period of time. It started and ended quickly. I also appreciated that it started after clearly a rush to anger and violence. I also appreciate that Ms. Kainz did not die on scene, rather she died 18 hours later at the hospital. However, I find that Mr. Odette was able to subjectively foresee the consequences of his actions, despite his consumption of drugs and alcohol. I find that Mr. Odette meant to cause Ms. Kainz bodily harm that he knew was so serious and dangerous that it would likely kill Ms. Kainz, and Mr. Odette proceeded despite his knowledge Ms. Kainz would likely die as a result of that bodily harm.

178In this short period of time, Mr. Odette inflicted significant injuries on Ms. Kainz with a deadly weapon. Leaving aside the blunt force trauma that he inflicted, Mr. Odette stabbed Ms. Kainz 14 times with a knife. The sheer number of stab wounds speak to Mr. Odette’s foresight of likely death as does where he inflicted those wounds. He stabbed her in the face, three times in the head, and twice in the neck, clearly and obviously vital regions that would be particularly sensitive to a knife attack. He inflicted two fatal injuries. Ms. Kainz attempt to defend herself, as reflected in the defensive wounds she suffered was for nought.

179As stated in R. v. Herlichka, 2020 ONCA 307, 150 O.R. (3d) 734, at para. 11, leave to appeal refused, [2020] S.C.C.A. No. 341: “These injuries demonstrated the brutality of the attack, both in terms of the sheer force of the blows and the spread of the attack over different parts of the body which spoke to the appellant's foresight of likely death under s. 229(a)(ii).” Further, as stated in Ahmadi at para. 31, “the brutality of the attack and the nature of Mrs. Widholm’s injuries spoke to whether the appellant would have foreseen the likelihood of her death.”

180In addition, the evidence shows that Mr. Odette returned to continue his attack on Ms. Kainz after she called out, interrupting his attack of Ms. Bernard.

181The defence submits that while the Crown does not have to prove motive, there is no motive for the crime. I disagree. Mr. Odette was angry that his offer for sex was rebuffed and he responded violently. It is sadly as simple as that.

182Mr. Odette, I find you guilty on count 1 of the second-degree murder of Ms. Kainz.

183Mr. Odette is charged with the attempted murder of Ms. Bernard. The mens rea for attempted murder is, as mentioned earlier, slightly different than for murder. There is no equivalency to s. 229(a)(ii). In order to convict, I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Odette meant to kill Ms. Bernard. The amount of stab wounds that he inflicted was significantly less than with respect to Ms. Kainz. However, he did stab her in the eye, an incredibly deadly act. She had another wound to her forehead. Her forearm was used effectively to block other stab wounds to her face area. Yet, Mr. Odette curtailed his attack to re-engage with Ms. Kainz. He could have continued to stab Ms. Bernard and then resume his attack on Ms. Kainz if his motive was to kill Ms. Bernard. In my view, though looking at all the circumstances, Mr. Odette was motivated to cause Ms. Bernard bodily harm that he knew was so serious and dangerous that it would likely kill her, and Mr. Odette proceeded despite this knowledge. Yet, that is not sufficient to ground a conviction for attempted murder.

184Mr. Odette is acquitted of count 2, attempted murder but convicted of count 3, aggravated assault.

Footnotes

1. 1The Crown and defence agreed with how the accused’s statements to the psychiatrist can be presented at trial. Dr. Pierce testified for the Crown and relayed what the accused told him. Dr. Bouskill the defence psychiatrist was present when Dr. Pierce testified. The accused then testified. Dr. Bouskill then testified for the defence and relayed what the accused told her. The protected statements can only be used for impeachment purposes. They cannot be used to prove the accused’s guilt; 672.21(3)) of the Criminal Code; R. v. Kipussi 2026 ONCA 86.