Article content continued

Loos and Kay, who court heard were friends, were drinking and smoking pot at Loos’ rental home on the night of the altercation.

Others in the home at the time testified the two were very intoxicated, putting them both at an eight or nine out of 10 in terms of drunkenness.

At some point, the two got in a disagreement. Court heard from a witness that Kay was “out of control” and would not leave the home or quiet down. Loos told court she was concerned about her children, who were in the home at the time.

Loos said she went into the kitchen and started to clean up in order to avoid the conflict. It was there she found the knife on the floor. Court heard she was angry, wondering why the knife was on the floor given there were young children there.

Loos said she then turned around and saw Kay coming toward her, looking angry with her arms outstretched as if to push or choke her. As they collided, the knife went into Kay.

A woman resting on a couch in another room described Kay stumbling into the kitchen with outstretched arms, and then stagger back clutching her torso. However, she could not see what happened in the kitchen, and did not hear anything.

After the altercation, Loos told a man who was in the house that she had “stabbed” or “stuck” Kay with the knife. However, Michalyshyn did not treat this as a confession of an “intentional act” owing to the “heat of the moment” and her level of intoxication.

Edmonton

A doctor who conducted the autopsy found the wound that killed Kay would only take a small to moderate amount of force, and that it was not possible to tell whether the knife was used “actively” to inflict a stab wound, or whether Loos had simply held it “passively” and Kay ran into the blade.