Question about post-trial confessions for Canadian lawyers

[viper37]

Judge Delisle case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Delisle

He has been judged guilty, 1st degree murder of his wife.  His 2 appeals have been declined (Quebec court of appeal and Supreme court).

Now, he's appealing to the Justice Minister.  He now says he helped his wife commit suicide by giving her his gun, he put the gun on a table near her where she could take it (she was half paralyzed, had difficulties moving by herself).  He says he gave her the gun, tried to dissuade her, but when her mind was set, he agreed to leave for an hour, then came back and called the cops.

Given that during his trial and appeal, he always said his gun was in a drawer and he left the house, never hinting at any kind of assisted suicide ("she did it herself"), will the Justice Minister take into account his revised statement of the facts or is he bound by the facts presented at trial?

Since the crime was committed before the Supreme Court ruled on the subject of euthanaisa, does it have any weight on this appeal to the Justice Minister (even if the ruling is suspended 'til 2016)

[Barrister]

The process Delisle is trying - appealing to the Justice Minister, is so rare I have no idea what may be considered.

[viper37]

No wonder I did not know!

[Barrister]

I looked into it - both the Court of Appeal (man, that's got to be awkward, hearing the appeal of a former Court of Appeal justice), and the Supreme Court refused to hear  his appeal.

As you run a case defence have a whole variety of tactical decisions to make.  Whether or not to call evidence is one of the biggest of them all.  Those tactical decisions are pretty much never the basis for hearing a new trial (about the only way it is is by arguing incompetence of counsel).

[viper37]

As you run a case defence have a whole variety of tactical decisions to make.  Whether or not to call evidence is one of the biggest of them all.  Those tactical decisions are pretty much never the basis for hearing a new trial (about the only way it is is by arguing incompetence of counsel).

but does this have any influence on the Justice Minister, i.e., is he bound by the same rules as the other appeal tribunals?  Or can he do as he pleases, assuming he would be sympathetic to the defendant's new position (which I doubt)?