Saskatchewan Man Amends Appeal in COVID-19 Abduction Case, Seeks New Trial
A Saskatchewan man convicted of abduction after taking his young daughter on the run to prevent her COVID-19 vaccination has amended his appeal and submitted comprehensive written arguments to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. Michael Gordon Jackson, 57, is requesting either a new trial or a more lenient sentence, arguing that judicial errors occurred during his original proceedings.
Case Background and Conviction
On April 19, 2024, a jury found Jackson guilty of abduction in contravention of a parenting order. The charges stemmed from incidents between December 6, 2021, and January 21, 2022, when Jackson took his seven-year-old daughter from Carievale, Saskatchewan, to Vernon, British Columbia. Police located them in late February 2022.
Jackson testified during his trial that his actions were motivated by a desire to stop his daughter from receiving COVID-19 vaccinations. He represented himself throughout the trial proceedings.
Sentencing and Initial Appeal
Justice Heather MacMillan-Brown sentenced Jackson to one year in custody on December 6, 2024. Due to credit for time served while awaiting trial, his custodial sentence was considered already served. However, he received an additional two-year probation period.
Jackson filed his initial notice of appeal on the same day as his sentencing, indicating he would seek legal representation for the appeal process. He has since retained lawyers Thomas Hynes and Nathan Metivier, who prepared the amended appeal documents filed on January 30, 2026.
Grounds for Appeal
The amended appeal presents a more detailed examination of what Jackson's legal team views as errors by Justice MacMillan-Brown. The central argument focuses on the judge's decision not to instruct the jury on the legal defence of necessity.
The necessity defence requires three elements:
- A reasonable belief that the person or a third party faced clear and imminent danger
- A reasonable belief that no legal alternative existed to breaking the law
- That the harm caused by breaking the law was not disproportionate to the harm being avoided
Justice MacMillan-Brown ruled there was no "air of reality" to the necessity defence in Jackson's case and therefore did not present it to the jury for consideration.
Legal Arguments and Potential Outcomes
Jackson's legal team argues that sufficient evidence existed to warrant jury consideration of the necessity defence. Their factum states: "At bottom, instead of acting as a legal screen for the jury, the trial judge usurped the jury's duty as fact finder." They contend this requires a new trial.
Alternatively, if the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal does not grant a new trial, Jackson's lawyers argue that sentencing errors occurred that should result in a reduced penalty. The appeal documents provide a comprehensive legal analysis of both potential paths forward.
The case represents a significant legal examination of how courts handle parental actions motivated by pandemic-related concerns, particularly when those actions conflict with court-ordered parenting arrangements. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal will now review the amended arguments to determine whether Jackson's conviction or sentence should be reconsidered.
