Accused Chilliwack River Valley double murderer spikes jury trial, re-elects to judge alone

Anyone called for jury selection in late April for a 20-day trial in May should be told that is cancelled

April 21, 2026

The man accused of murdering John Kavaloff and Valerie Smith in cold blood in the Baker Trails Mobile Home Park in September 2023 is once again throwing a spanner in the works of his BC Supreme Court trial.

This time, however, 85-year-old Robert Amede Freeman’s latest move may in fact help speed up the case that he has caused delays in for months and years.

Freeman appeared in courtroom 202 in Chilliwack on Tuesday (April 21, 2026) for a re-election from judge and jury to judge alone in BC Supreme Court.

Want to support independent journalism?
Consider a one-time donation or subscribe for less than $1 a week so I can continue this work.

Donate to support this work

In an non-amusing irony, Freeman sat alone in the courtroom just after 9:25 a.m. at one point groaning in seeming frustration at the delay to the court appearance, which was scheduled for 9:15 a.m. This from an accused who has been living out on bail in the community for more than two-and-a-half years having delayed the proceedings numerous times to the dismay of the victim’s family members.

A 20-day jury trial in the case was scheduled to be held in November 2025 but was delayed to May 2026 because of his lawyer’s unavailability. Freeman has since fired that lawyer and moved on to Chilliwack lawyer Martin Finch.

On Tuesday, Justice Andrea Ormiston cancelled the jury selection that was scheduled for late April because of the re-election. The status of the trial dates scheduled for May was not discussed but, if anything, switching to judge alone should simplify the proceedings.

Killing over a pet

Freeman is charged with shooting Kavaloff and Smith in the mobile home park where they were neighbours allegedly over a dispute about a small dog. He was released on bail eight days after his arrest in September 2023 and has been living freely with his son in a townhouse in Chilliwack since then.

The case has been subject to numerous delays over the years with three dozen court appearances. 

At a court appearance in February, their children Travis Finnigan, Joy Watson-Finnigan, and others held a small rally on the front steps of the Chilliwack Law Courts to express their frustration with the delays.

Almost incredibly, a month later in court on March 24, 2026, the family learned that Freeman fell ill and was in a coma at Chilliwack General Hospital, potentially further delaying the matter, certainly adding more uncertainty.

Then, a week after that at a hearing on March 31 for an update, the family learned that Freeman had woken up and was deemed fit to stand trial, which was to go ahead in May with that jury selection in late April. 

Now, we’ll see what’s next at a court appearance on April 30 hopefully attended by his new lawyer, Martin Finch.

Publication ban isn’t what you think

While the family of the murdered couple languish with the torment of the situation, pain further delayed by Freeman’s frequent delays, the now 85-year-old acts perfectly sane and capable in court, driving himself to and from the courthouse unaccompanied.

He does, however, clearly have little interest in self-reflection as he acts with sarcastic rudeness to this reporter at a court appearance in February. He continued what seems like passive-aggressive belligerence towards the proceedings and its public nature in court on Tuesday. A court clerk posted a “Publication Ban” sign on the small window on the door of courtroom 202 in response to which, Freeman turned to the only other person in the courtroom, this reporter, and grumbled “That’s what he’s doing there.”

“You worry about you,” I replied. “I’ll worry about me.”

He asked the sheriff if “he can still do that,” to which the sheriff replied, “he can still listen.”

To once again briefly explain how publication bans work to the public and to those accused of criminal offences in court: There are several types of publication bans under the criminal code. For example, some elements of section 486 involve bans on the publication of names of victims and/or witnesses; section 517 is a ban usually put in place to stop publication of evidence at bail hearings; and section 539 similarly bans sharing of evidence at a preliminary inquiry.

Publication bans of these kind do not, however, forbid sharing the name of an accused, the charges they face, the reasons for appearances, the outcomes, court dates, bail status, and so on. 

The publication ban in this case means evidence that comes out in court cannot be shared, something that is not occurring at these short procedural appearances.

-30-

Want to support independent journalism?
Consider becoming a paid subscriber or make a one-time donation.

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