A Calgary judge's decision to spare a convicted killer a prison sentence for a fatal stabbing in Banff has sparked debate, with the court finding the offender's moral blameworthiness was significantly closer to self-defence than murder.
A Sentence That Demands a Closer Look
On the surface, the non-custodial sentence handed to John Sproule on Wednesday, December 4, 2025, might appear lenient. However, Justice Johanna Price's detailed sentencing decision in Calgary Court of King's Bench reveals a complex case where context dramatically altered the legal outcome.
Sproule, a resident of Lake Country, B.C., was convicted by a jury in March 2025 for the manslaughter of Ryden Brogden from Priddis, Alberta. The fatal altercation occurred on September 3, 2022, outside a bar on Banff's main street.
The Night of the Fatal Altercation
The incident, which involved alcohol and what the judge described as "a good dose of testosterone," was not premeditated. Sproule was visiting the tourist town with his family. After dinner, he and his brother, Josh, went out for drinks.
Justice Price's June 2025 decision, which outlined the facts the jury accepted, noted Sproule was in "good spirits, dancing and having fun" at High Rollers bar shortly before the fight. Unbeknownst to the brothers, Brogden and his friend, Howard Pearce, had developed an unprovoked animosity towards them after entering the same venue.
When Sproule decided his brother was too intoxicated to stay, they left to return to their hotel. It was then that Sproule approached Brogden to ask for a cigarette—a decision the judge said he "will likely regret for the rest of his life."
Understanding the 'Near Self-Defence' Ruling
The violence was severe. Brogden was stabbed 12 times and slashed seven additional times with a pocketknife, left dying in a pool of blood near the doorway to the Dancing Sasquatch bar. Yet, Justice Price emphasized the killing was "much more happenstance than design."
The core of the judge's reasoning lay in assessing Sproule's moral blameworthiness. She concluded the circumstances were far more "near self-defence" than "near murder." The attack was not foreshadowed by any action from Sproule; instead, it was Brogden and Pearce who initiated the hostile attention.
This critical distinction led to the extraordinary sentencing decision. The court determined that a prison term was not warranted, despite the brutal nature of the attack, because the offender's culpability was drastically reduced by the victim's role in instigating the conflict.
The ruling underscores the nuanced application of Canadian law, where sentencing considers not just the outcome but the full spectrum of events leading to a crime. While the victim suffered numerous wounds, the legal system deemed the killer's actions a tragic escalation of a confrontation he did not seek.
