The Alberta Court of Appeal has dismissed an application from a man who used a U-Haul truck to kill his wife during a dispute more than six years ago. Ronald John Candaele, who was given 15 years for manslaughter in the death of Melissa Blommaert, appealed that term, saying that the sentencing judge put too much emphasis on aggravating factors, leading to an “excessive and unfit” decision. According to court documents, Blommaert had been evicted from her apartment on Feb. 1, 2020, and Candaele helped her load her belongings into a rented U-Haul truck. The next day, the pair got into argument, which resulted in Blommaert leaving the vehicle and running down the middle of the road. “Video footage showed that, after Ms. Blommaert began running, the truck was put into reverse and then proceeded in her direction, driving over the spot where her body was later found, with the rear end bumping up and then dropping, after which it returned and drove in the opposite direction,” the appeal court said in its decision. Blommaert was discovered about two hours later and was later pronounced dead at the hospital. Candaele, following the incident, went to McDonald’s for breakfast, then indicated to various people throughout the day that he didn’t know where Blommaert was and “was concerned she had jumped off a bridge.” He later called 911 with a story about her possibly being kidnapped, but he was later arrested by police. Candaele was later found guilty of second-degree murder, but the court said his mental state at the time of the killing fell short of the standard required for murder, so a conviction of manslaughter was substituted instead. He was given a 15-year sentence on Dec. 2, 2024. In the appeal, Candaele’s lawyer argued the sentencing judge double counted aggravating factors and that Blommaert “was not especially vulnerable.” The appeal court said that both claims were false, saying that even if the sentencing judge repeated certain facts, it did not lead him to weigh them more than once. It also found the Blommaert’s “precarious financial position” put her in a position of vulnerability. “The appellant argues these cases are inapposite, as the victim in this case had been evicted but was not truly homeless because she had a friend she could stay with, and both she and the appellant were financially fragile,” the court said. “This position, haunted by the spectre of stereotypes regarding domestic violence, requires overly fine slicing of the victim’s vulnerability into distinct parts, followed by the allegation of erroneously weighing some of those parts. “The sentencing judge did not err by considering all facets of the victim’s vulnerability in a holistic way.”
