Edward Mason was found not criminally responsible for the shooting death of Germain Gaulin near Watson Lake last year.

The decision was delivered in Yukon Supreme Court on Wednesday afternoon in Whitehorse.

In his decision, deputy Justice Rene Foisy, visiting from Alberta, ruled that Mason, 64, was afflicted by an episode of psychosis at the time of the murder.

This qualified him for defence of mental disorder under section 16 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

As a result, Mason is not being held criminally responsible for the murder of Gaulin, who was 43 when he died in April 2004.

'At the time of the shooting, Mason was not capable of knowing right from wrong,' Foisy said. '(He is) not criminally responsible due to mental disorder.'

As the decision was read out, Mason sat very still, as he had throughout the three-day trial. He looked down at his hands, and then up toward his Whitehorse lawyer, Gordon Coffin.

While he remains in custody at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre, Mason could be released as early as Monday.

Court will reconvene Monday afternoon for a bail hearing, to decide where Mason will stay pending a meeting of the Yukon Review Board.

The board is an independent panel that decides on the conditions to be abided by people who are found not criminally accountable or unfit to stand trial.

Coffin explained, after the trial had concluded, that the review board will decide where Mason will live and what kinds of responsibilities and restrictions he will face.

It has the jurisdiction, for example, to grant a person anything from an absolute discharge to hospitalization. It can set out conditions such as how frequently a person must see a doctor or visit a probation officer.

The review board has up to 45 days to meet and usually sits in a panel of three, Coffin said.

When asked for his reaction to the ruling afterward, Coffin said, 'I think it's the proper decision.' He said earlier in court that Mason needs treatment, not punishment.

At Monday's bail hearing, Foisy is also expected to rule on a lifetime ban on firearms for Mason and possibly a ban on consuming alcohol.

Mason already had a 10-year prohibition on firearms from a previous conviction in 1996.

In that instance, he stabbed a man he thought was trying to rob him. The man was not, in fact, trying to rob Mason. Both psychiatrists who stood trial testified that Mason was hallucinating at the time.

Earlier in the day, both lawyers presented their closing arguments.

Coffin relied heavily on the testimony of Dr. Shabehram Lorasbe, a Vancouver-based psychiatrist who interviewed Mason twice.

Lorasbe found that Mason was suffering from alcohol-induced psychotic disorder with hallucinations, an illness that resulted from his advancing stages of alcoholism.

Brought on by bouts of heavy drinking, the illness meant that Mason experienced episodes of psychosis and hallucinations. He also had blackouts during which he was unable to remember hours and up to a day of his life.

On two known occasions, this resulted in an abrupt and violent encounter. The first instance was the 1995 stabbing; the second was Gaulin's murder.

One piece of puzzling and bizarre evidence that supported Foisy's decision was the mutilation performed on Gaulin's body while he was dying.

Cut and stab wounds were found on his back and around his head. One of his earlobes was cut off and placed on his back.

Forensic evidence presented in the preliminary hearing suggested that the cuts were made during Gaulin's final stages of dying. Death is thought to have set in within five minutes of the shooting.

Both psychiatrists agreed that disfiguring the body was a sign of psychosis, which lent weight to Foisy's decision.

They disagreed, however, on how indicative this post-shooting behaviour is of a psychotic state during the shooting itself.

The defence of mental disorder applies when an accused is suffering from a mental disorder at the time he or she commits a crime.

It says the accused is not criminally responsible for the crime when, as a result of the disorder, he or she cannot understand the act committed or does not know it was wrong.

To qualify for the defence, a judge or jury must first rule that the accused has a 'disease of the mind.'

When asked outside the courtroom Wednesday if the Crown is planning to appeal the case, Crown attorney David McWhinnie said filing an appeal is a serious decision that required careful thought.

'It's a serious enough decision that it should not be made quickly, if we were ever inclined to do so,' he said.

The Crown has up to 30 days to file an appeal.