A man convicted of six counts of first-degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder in the 2007 Surrey Six slayings has now also been found guilty of contempt of court.
Cody Rae Haevischer is seeking a judicial stay of proceedings related to the murders based on abuse of process. The evidentiary hearing for that commenced on Nov. 4, 2024 and remains underway.
Justice Martha Devlin on December 3 found him guilty of contempt of court, in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster.
Six people were shot dead in suite 1505 of the Balmoral Tower in Whalley on Oct. 19, 2007. The Crown’s theory was that the killings were payback for an unpaid debt between rival gangs. Christopher Mohan and Abbotsford gasfitter Ed Shellenberg, 55, were innocent victims who accidentally stumbled upon a drug hit in progress. Edward Sousakhone Narong, 22, Ryan Bartolomeo, 19, and brothers Michael Justin Lal, 26, and Corey Jason Michael Lal, 21, were also slain.
Matthew Johnston, also found guilty of six counts of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, joined Haevischer in the stay of proceedings application but has since died.
Devlin noted that in the stay application Haevischer alleges police, Crown and Corrections officials “engaged in various forms of misconduct during the investigation and prosecution of the Surrey Six murders” and that these allegations primarily relate to “a broad strategy adopted by investigators aimed at shifting the loyalties of Mr. Haevischer’s criminal associates, including the girlfriends of these associates, to the police.” The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld Haevisher’s murder conviction in January 2021.
Devlin cited Haevischer for contempt of court on July 30, 2025, arising from his conduct while testifying during cross-examination. She noted in her reasons for judgment that Haevischer was on the stand for 19 days – 11 of which under cross-examination – and she citied him for contempt on the second day of the cross for refusing to answer certain questions the Crown put to him, despite her direction to answer them.
“Mr. Haevischer’s stated reason for refusing the Court’s direction was that answering the questions would violate the ‘inmate code,’ which according to Mr. Haevischer prohibits ‘ratting’ on fellow gang members or inmates who are still alive,” Devlin explained. “Mr. Haevischer testified to his belief that violating the inmate code would place his life in immediate danger within jail.”
“I understand by not being able to answer certain questions, or I’m being reluctant to answer certain questions, it may jeopardize my credibility and it could very well cost me my freedom, but if I did answer these questions and name names and talk about other people’s roles, it would put my life in danger. It would cost me my life…,” Haevischer told the judge.
Haevischer testified he attended the scene of the murders with Johnston to collect a $100,000 debt but denied having any knowledge before the murders of a conspiracy to kill Corey Lal.
“He admitted to confining the victims in the apartment in which they were murdered, but he testified that at the time of the murders he was in the hallway, near the elevator. He denied shooting any of the victims or being present in the apartment when they were killed,” Devlin noted, adding his “version of events is clearly inconsistent with the findings of guilt made against him by Justice Wedge. It bears emphasizing that those findings of guilt have withstood appellate review.”
Haevischer’s lawyer argued that his refusals to follow the judge’s direction should be “excused on the basis of duress” and that he was being presented with an “impossible choice.”
But Devlin noted the judiciary have made it clear that fear doesn’t constitute duress in the absence of a threat.
“That is precisely the circumstance in this case,” the judge decided. “Mr. Haevischer’s testimony about inmate dynamics, and his understanding of prison violence and culture, may be truthful and reasonable, considering his circumstances and experiences. However, his evidence does not provide the necessary foundation for the sort of express or implied threat which could render Mr. Haevischer’s decision not to follow the Court’s directions a decision made under duress, as it is understood at law.”