Escaping justice? Accused double murderer in a coma at Chilliwack General Hospital

85-year-old Robert Freeman facing trial for murders of John Kavaloff and Valerie Smith over dog dispute now apparently clinging to life 

If a double-murderer dies before he goes to trial, that might be a relief to family members of his victims or it could enrage them that the killer escaped justice.

But what if the accused killer lingers on the edge of death unable to participate further in the criminal proceedings in BC Supreme Court?

This is what family of John Kavaloff and Valerie Smith face after learning Tuesday (March 24, 2026) the man who apparently shot and killed the couple in a Chilliwack River Valley trailer park in 2023 is in a coma at Chilliwack General Hospital.

“I hope he dies so myself and family can move on, finally,” the couple’s Travis Finnigan told me Tuesday.

Now 85, Robert Amede Freeman is charged with two counts of second-degree murder for killing Kavaloff and Smith, allegedly over a dispute about the couple’s dog, a Yorkie named Suzie. 

The case has been subject to numerous delays over the years with three dozen court appearances. The latest delay was caused by Freeman’s lawyer Simon Buck for too busy with another case to continue forcing the accused double-murderer to find new counsel.

Further aggravating to the family members of the murder victims is that Freeman is out on bail, living in the community with his son in a townhouse near downtown Chilliwack.

At the last court appearance, their children Travis Finnigan, Joy Watson-Finnigan, and others held a small rally on the Chilliwack Law Courts front steps. Travis held a framed photo of his parents, while others held signs with various messages: “Catch & Release Fails Families and Communities” and “Justice Delayed = Prolonged Trauma,” among them.

“If everyone in the system knows this doesn't work – judges, Crown, politicians – then who is actually responsible for fixing it?" victims' son Travis Finnigan said on Friday (Feb. 27, 2026) after yet another court appearance where nothing happened.

"Right now, families like ours are paying the price for inaction.”

The last court appearance before March was for what’s known as a case management conference on Feb. 27, 2026, a hearing to discuss practical matters of the case. It mostly would have been to discuss the situation with Freeman’s legal counsel.

Another case management conference was scheduled for March 24, at which time the family learned that Freeman’s son apparently found his father unconscious on Saturday, March 21, and called an ambulance. Freeman was apparently in a coma at Chilliwack General Hospital. The case was adjourned a week to determine if the jury trial will move forward.

What now?

The Criminal Code states – in a way that sounds obvious – that a person is determined to be fit to stand trial unless they are determined to be unfit to stand trial.

The definition of “unfit to stand trial” and subsequent case law are what’s important. Under Section 2 of the Criminal Code, which defines important terms in the Code, “unfit to stand trial” means a mental disorder makes a person unable to conduct a defence at any stage of the proceedings or to communicate with a lawyer. Specifically, to be unfit an accused must be unable “on account of mental disorder to:
“(a) understand the nature or object of the proceedings;
“(b) understand the possible consequences of the proceedings; or
“(c) communicate with counsel.”

Being unconscious in a coma obviously means the accused can do none of those things. 

If, however, Freeman is to emerge from that coma, his mental state would be of utmost importance in deciding if the case could continue. This invokes Section 672.23 of the Criminal Code and the test for fitness to stand trial. This a so-called Taylor test in reference to a 1992 Ontario court decision of R. v. Taylor, which says that when an accused is of limited cognitive ability, they can be deemed fit to stand trial if they understand the nature of the proceedings, the possible consequences, and can recount the facts to counsel to mount a defence.

It’s a relatively low bar.

“It is not necessary that the accused be able to meet some higher test of analytic capacity or capacity to make rational decisions beneficial too himself,” according to annotations in the Criminal Code referencing Taylor.

A much later 2023 Ontario decision, R. v. Bharwani further clarified this with a series of principles. To wit, “the accused must have a reality-based understanding of the nature and object and possible consequences of the proceedings.” 

He or she must also be able to make decisions, understand pleas, consequences, but importantly, the accused does not actually need to be able to analyze what is in their own best interests. In short, the accused can be in a state that might seem mentally incapacitated or “crazy” or barely awake, but even with a “limited cognititive capacity” to communicate with counsel and understand what’s going on, they can be prosecuted.

The Ontario Court of Appeal even determined that “the presence of delusions do not vitiate the accused's fitness to stand trial unless the delusion distorts the accused’s rudimentary understanding of the judicial process.”

So, now the family of John Kavaloff and Valerie Smith are left to wait to see if the 85-year-old man accused of killing the couple will die, which would mean the charges would be abated, or wake up and it can continue. Or, maybe it would be the worst-case scenario, he emerges from the coma and is deemed unfit. 

-30-

Want to support independent journalism?
Consider becoming a paid subscriber or make a one-time donation so I can continue this work.

Paul J. Henderson
pauljhenderson@gmail.com
facebook.com/PaulJHendersonJournalist
instagram.com/wordsarehard_pjh
x.com/PeeJayAitch
wordsarehard-pjh.bsky.social