A jury had convicted Carl Girouard of Quebec's deadliest murders in years. Four years later, the Court of Appeal erases everything — over a single jury instruction the trial judge forgot to give.
The Quebec Court of Appeal — Justices Vauclair, Gagné and Baudouin — allowed Carl Girouard's appeal, quashed his first-degree murder and attempted murder convictions, and ordered a new trial. The error: the absence of a final jury instruction on the limited use of the right to silence.
| Court | Quebec Court of Appeal, Quebec City |
| Date | March 31, 2026 |
| Panel | Justice Martin Vauclair, J.C.A. (majority reasons) · Justice Suzanne Gagné, J.C.A. (concurring reasons) · Justice Christine Baudouin, J.C.A. (concurring with Vauclair) |
| Appellant | Carl Girouard (accused) |
| Respondent | His Majesty the King (DPCP) |
| Defence counsel | Me Pierre Gagnon |
| Crown counsel | Me François Godin, Me Pierre-Alexandre Bernard, Me Olivier T. Raymond |
| Appeal hearing | October 8, 2024 |
| Outcome | Appeal allowed · Conviction quashed · New trial ordered |
| Charges | First-degree murder (2 counts) · Attempted murder (5 counts) · Criminal Code ss. 235, 239 |
Halloween Night 2020: The Facts
On October 31, 2020, Carl Girouard left his home in Sainte-Thérèse, in the Greater Montreal area, with a destination in mind: Old Quebec City. Two weeks earlier, he had placed a Japanese sword in the trunk of his car. He also prepared a medieval costume for the occasion. Containers of gasoline were also found in the vehicle.
In Quebec City, he parked near the Château Frontenac — a setting he would describe as medieval, similar to that of video games. His original plan was to enter the hotel and carry out a mass killing. Instead, he chose to walk through the streets of Old Quebec. The people he encountered became his victims. He killed two and physically injured four others. Witnesses saw the attacks unfold. Surveillance cameras captured multiple scenes.
The two victims who died were François Duchesne and Suzanne Clermont. Five others survived their injuries.
After the attacks, Girouard heard sirens. He realized police were closing in, hid, then understood that his "mission" no longer made sense. He was located and arrested on November 1st, just before 1:00 a.m., near the Saint-André wharf.
Carl Girouard testified that since the age of 16, he had been driven by what he called a "mission": to kill people while wearing a costume, in order to send a message to his "alter egos" scattered across the world, and to launch a movement aimed at creating a better world. Old Quebec City, the full moon and Halloween night were deliberately chosen elements to attract their attention.
He stated that there were "two Carl Girouards": the one in everyday life, who enjoys helping and making others laugh, and the one of the mission. He said he did not want to commit the murders that night.
The May 2022 Trial: A Jury Rejects the Mental Disorder Defence
The trial took place in May 2022 before the Honourable Richard Grenier, J.S.C., of the Superior Court, Quebec City district. Carl Girouard pleaded not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder, under section 16 of the Criminal Code. He did not dispute having struck the victims. The sole issue was his mental state at the time of the acts.
Three experts testified on the question of mental disorder. The defence expert, psychiatrist Dr. Chamberland, concluded that Girouard suffered from schizophrenia at the time of the events and that his condition prevented him from understanding that his acts were wrong. Psychiatrist Dr. Faucher, called by the Crown, argued there was no mental disorder within the meaning of the Criminal Code, relying in part on the accused's calm, coherent and cooperative behaviour after his arrest — and on his prolonged silence during the police interrogation.
On May 20, 2022, the jury found Girouard guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder. It rejected the mental disorder defence.
The Five-and-a-Half-Hour Interrogation — and the Silence at the Heart of Everything
On November 1, 2020, at around 10:00 a.m., Carl Girouard was brought to an interrogation room at the police station. Lieutenant-Detective Gionnet interrogated him for five hours and thirty minutes. Girouard remained almost entirely silent. After approximately two and a half hours of police monologue, he spoke his only sentence of the interrogation: "I want to speak to my lawyer."
Throughout the trial, this silence became a contested battleground between the parties — but for opposing reasons:
- For the defence (Me Pierre Gagnon): the silence demonstrated unusual, even abnormal behaviour, supporting the mental disorder defence.
- For the Crown: the fact that Girouard knew how to methodically invoke his right to silence demonstrated he was lucid and aware of his actions — evidence that the alleged mental disorder did not exist.
Expert Dr. Faucher testified that in 26 years of practice, he had seen only two or three cases where an accused remained as silent during an interrogation. He used this silence to support his opinion: an individual in psychosis would generally struggle to maintain such silence and would tend to "let things slip" verbally.
"He knows that everything he says could be used against him. He therefore stays the course and keeps silent."— Dr. Sylvain Faucher, Crown psychiatrist, in his expert report — passage cited and analyzed by the Court of Appeal
It is precisely this passage — which attributes to Girouard the conscious motivation to remain silent — that the Court of Appeal identified as crossing the line of permissible inferences in law.
The Fatal Error: A Missing Instruction
Mid-trial, after Lieutenant-Detective Gionnet's testimony, Justice Grenier gave the jury a general instruction on the right to silence. He explained that in Canadian law, this right is fundamental and that no inference — positive or negative — can be drawn from an accused's choice to exercise it.
But in his final charge to the jury, Justice Grenier did not repeat this warning. He made only a generic mention that instructions given during the trial still applied.
The problem: between the mid-trial instruction and the jury's deliberations, the theme of silence had continued to permeate the proceedings. Dr. Faucher had dwelt at length on the interrogation. And in his closing address, the Crown had explicitly invited the jury to draw inferences from that silence:
"He invokes his right to silence on multiple occasions with multiple people. [...] He understands there is a second level. Don't talk to the police — but he is in psychosis at that moment."— Excerpt from the Crown's closing address, reproduced in the Court of Appeal's decision
This closing argument — presenting silence as evidence of a guilty mind — directly contradicted what the mid-trial instruction had told the jury. Without a repetition of the warning in the final charge, the jury was left without legal guidance on how to compartmentalize these two incompatible uses of the same silence.
The right not to speak to authorities means that the silence of an arrested or detained person generally cannot be used against them as evidence of guilt. This principle, affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Noble and consolidated in Turcotte, applies even when silence is admitted into evidence for a legitimate purpose — such as assessing an accused's mental state.
In those limited cases of admissibility, a clear instruction is required: the jury must be told the precise purpose for which the evidence was admitted, the unacceptable inferences that must not be drawn from silence, the limited probative value of silence, and the dangers of relying on it. This instruction must appear in the final charge — not only mid-trial.
The Three Justices' Decision: Convergence, Distinct Nuances
Justice Vauclair (majority reasons, concurred in by Justice Baudouin)
Justice Vauclair concludes that Girouard's silence was relevant in two contradictory ways: it could, on one hand, support the mental disorder defence (abnormal behaviour of a psychotic individual) and, on the other, be used — unlawfully — as evidence of a guilty mind. This double edge required precise instructions that the trial judge failed to give.
He identifies two cumulative problems. The mid-trial instruction was overly broad and prohibited all use of the silence — which actually contradicted the legitimate relevance that the defence itself wanted to assign to it. And that instruction was not repeated in the final charge, at the moment it mattered most.
"If the silence was relevant to the mental disorder defence, it could not be so, in law, for guilt."— Justice Martin Vauclair, J.C.A., 2026 QCCA 435
"The absence of a final instruction is fatal."— Justice Martin Vauclair, J.C.A., 2026 QCCA 435
Justice Gagné (concurring reasons)
Justice Gagné reaches the same result — a new trial — but by a slightly different path. For her, the crucial distinction is between evidence of silence (admissible as observable post-offence behaviour) and evidence of the underlying motivation for exercising the right to silence (inadmissible under any circumstances).
In other words: experts could observe and comment on the fact that Girouard was calm and silent after his arrest. But neither experts nor the Crown could infer the reasons for that silence — particularly the idea that he knew his answers could be used against him. It is this inference about motivation that was inadmissible, both for evaluating the mental disorder defence and for determining guilt.
"The exercise of the right to silence could not, in law, be used as evidence of a guilty mind."— Justice Suzanne Gagné, J.C.A., 2026 QCCA 435
What Comes Next: A New Trial, Possibly in Another District
The Court of Appeal orders a new trial. It pronounces no acquittal — Carl Girouard is not released. He will face all charges again: two counts of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder.
- Me Pierre Gagnon, defence counsel, has not ruled out requesting that the next trial be held in a different judicial district, given the massive media coverage the case has received in the Quebec City region.
- The DPCP stated it was taking note of the decision and proceeding with its analysis, declining to comment on the matter for the time being.
What This Decision Says About Our System — and What It Does Not
The first reaction to the Court of Appeal's ruling is often the same: how can a procedural detail erase two murders? The question is legitimate. It deserves an honest answer.
This is not a procedural detail. The right to silence is a cornerstone of the adversarial system. If an accused can be convicted in part because they chose not to speak to police, the right guaranteed by the Charter becomes meaningless. The person who stays silent is just as exposed as the one who speaks. A trap has been set — one recognized by Supreme Court jurisprudence since at least 1997.
But there is a question the decision raises and deliberately does not resolve: was the Crown right, on the merits, to use that silence to counter the mental disorder defence? The Court of Appeal explicitly states it is not ruling on this broader question — the parties will be able to argue it fully at the new trial.
What is clear, however, is that the trial judge found himself in a difficult position that the Court of Appeal openly acknowledges. "The challenge for the trial judge was significant in this context, as an accused's silence is legally treacherous terrain in many respects." This is not a casual remark. It does not excuse Justice Grenier's error — but it recognizes its complexity.
What is harder to understand is the absence of any reaction from counsel in the courtroom. The mid-trial instruction had been given. An amended version had been discussed at the pre-charge conference. The judge had indicated his intention to include it in the final charge. And yet no one — neither defence nor Crown — flagged its absence when the final charge was delivered. Me Pierre Gagnon acknowledged he had made no comment at that moment. The Court of Appeal notes this, but concludes it is not enough to validate an insufficient charge. The rights of accused persons do not depend on the vigilance of their lawyers — they depend on the guarantees the system provides.
For the families of François Duchesne and Suzanne Clermont, this decision is another ordeal. A new trial means new testimony, new exposure, a new and uncertain verdict. The system asks them to go through what law calls the search for truth once more. What it does not guarantee is that this path will be swift or painless.
What this decision confirms, however, is that the right to silence is not a privilege extended to the guilty. It is a protection granted to everyone who is arrested — before anyone knows whether they are guilty or not. The Court of Appeal did not free Carl Girouard. It ordered that his next trial be conducted according to the rules of law. That is not the same thing.
Full decision: Girouard v. R., 2026 QCCA 435 (200-10-003992-224) · Rendered March 31, 2026 by Justices Vauclair, Gagné and Baudouin, Quebec Court of Appeal, Quebec City.
Case law cited in the decision: R. v. Noble, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 874 · R. v. Turcotte, 2005 SCC 50 · R. v. Chambers, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1293 · R. v. Jaw, 2009 SCC 42 · R. v. Jacquard, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314 · R. v. Prokofiew, 2012 SCC 49 · R. v. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26 · R. v. Bertrand, 2017 QCCA 488 · R. v. Tshilumba, 2022 QCCA 1591 · R. v. Calnen, 2019 SCC 6 · R. v. Abdullahi, 2023 SCC 19.
Radio-Canada report by Yannick Bergeron, published March 31, 2026.
Publication note: A publication ban was issued pursuant to section 486.5(1) of the Criminal Code prohibiting publication of any information that could identify certain victims or witnesses. Justice-Quebec.ca complies with this order.
This article does not constitute legal advice. Justice-Quebec.ca is an independent civic platform. Information is provided for informational purposes only.
Ajouter un commentaire
Commentaires