UPDATE 5: 28 p.m.

Cory Van Gilder and his family broke down in tears Tuesday when a jury returned a not guilty verdict on the charge of manslaughter.

It took more than a day for them to come back with the decision that means they found that Van Gilder was not criminally responsible for killing Zachary Gaudette by punching him in the neck.

His lawyers argued that Gaudette was drunk and looking for a fight Feb. 17, 2016 and dug up his criminal history and recent Facebook conversations to paint a picture of a volatile man battling some 鈥渋nner demons.鈥�

Although Van Gilder鈥檚 family had been at the entirety of the trial, they declined an opportunity to speak to media who had gathered outside. Their relief, however, was palpable.

ORIGINAL STORY:

Did Cory Van Gilder have to defend himself and the people he was with from a threat outside a 91大黄鸭 Cactus Club in 2016?

Or did he needlessly sucker punch Zachary Gaudette?

That鈥檚 one of the main issues jurors in Van Gilder鈥檚 manslaughter trial started considering when they were sequestered Monday afternoon to begin deliberations.

Defence lawyer Jeff Campbell said in closing arguments Monday that Van Gilder鈥檚 snap decision to deliver the blow that killed Gaudette Feb. 17, 2016 was made in defence of himself and others.

鈥淚n 20 seconds what was supposed to be a surprise birthday party turned into a fatal altercation,鈥� said Campbell. 鈥淚n 20 seconds one person鈥檚 life was lost. And in 20 seconds Mr. Van Gilder鈥檚 life was upended.鈥�

For past stories in this trial

Campbell said that the altercation was a sad and tragic case, of a 鈥渟enseless, unnecessary confrontation.鈥�

A confrontation he hangs the responsibility for on Gaudette.

Gaudette, he said, was sad, troubled and 鈥渂attling some inner demons.鈥�

He had a criminal record for assault and had, weeks prior to his death, been stopped by police for carrying firearms. He fled and ultimately ended up in 91大黄鸭 three days before his death.

Campbell also pulled up Facebook conversations to illustrate how volatile he was.

After allegedly assaulting his girlfriend, she wrote a Facebook message to his sister and said he was unsafe and needed medication.

In another conversation from later that day, Gaudette told the girlfriend he was going to steal a car and go back to Ontario. Then he sent her a picture of a vodka bottle. When he arrived in the hospital later that night his blood alcohol level was .276, which is three times the legal driving limit.

That, as well as witness testimony painting Gaudette as a crazy man looking for a fight with anyone, sets the scene for self defence, he said.

鈥淔or no reason he accosted this group of young people and there鈥檚 no question that he was aggressive and dangerous,鈥� said Campbell.

鈥淢r. Van Gilder鈥檚 reaction was one defensive blow. It was one punch that had tragic consequences. He had no intention to cause that kind of harm.鈥�

The essential issue to this case, argued Campbell, is when is a person entitled to defend themselves or others.

鈥淒oes he have to wait until he鈥檚 being attacked? The law does not require that,鈥� he said.

Campbell also pointed out that a secondary line of defence would be that Gaudette invited the fatal altercation.

Crown counsel Andrew Vandersluys pointed out that the hit was ultimately not justified and did not meet the standard for self defence.

Gaudette may have been drunk and agitated, and threatening a fight, but it was Van Gilder who stepped forward and swung a fatal right hook.

Before doing so, Vandersluys said he adjusted his cap, turning the brim backward. Afterward, he said, Van Gilder lurched forward, having to steady himself from the impact.

Gaudette, Vandersluys said, was 鈥渞eady to fight but did not anticipate the hit.鈥�

Gaudette鈥檚 arms, he pointed out, weren鈥檛 ever raised into a fighting position. He was merely yelling that he wanted to fight.

鈥淭his is essentially a sucker punch,鈥� Vandersluys said. 鈥淗e didn鈥檛 consent to this blow.鈥�

He was 鈥渁ggressive and angry,鈥� but not about to attack.

Van Gilder鈥檚 actions after the attack were also under scrutiny in closing remarks.

Van Gilder has said that he punched Gaudette to defend himself and the others standing outside the Banks Road restaurant that night, but he left without checking if the man he punched got up and whether the safety of others was secured.

鈥淚f leaving (before) is not an option, then why is leaving afterward,鈥� said Vandersluys.

He also highlighted Van Gilder鈥檚 comparative strength and condition to fight.

Van Gilder trained in jiu jitsu six years previous to the altercation and Vandersluys said someone with that knowledge and training, facing someone who is clearly very intoxicated has an advantage.

鈥淭hey have an ability to face that threat in more proportionate way,鈥� he said. 鈥淎 punch of this sort 鈥� a hard punch, was not that. It was not a proportionate response to anything.鈥�