Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Criminal law Charge to jury Defence of provocation Post offence conduct Whether the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury that the appellant’s post offence conduct had no bearing on its deliberations on the defence of provocation Whether the charge to the jury undermined the defence of provocation by misstating the appellant’s position on motive Whether the charge to the jury improperly instructed that both the acts of extortion and the igniting remarks by the victim had to be sudden.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder. During a police interrogation, he confessed to shooting the victim and explained that the victim had been extorting money from him for months by threatening to reveal details about his offshore investments to the Canada Revenue Agency, and by threatening to harm his mother if he chose to stop paying or if he went to the police. The appellant also stated that at the time of the murder, the victim had once again threatened his mother and that as a result, something snapped in him. He retrieved the handgun he had brought with him and shot the victim twice. The appellant then tried to cover his tracks by setting a fire in the basement where he had shot the victim. He also dumped the body using the victim’s car, abandoned the car, discarded some of the victim’s belongings and numerous items of apparel stained with the victim’s blood, forged a cheque made out to himself and used the victim’s credit card. At trial, the appellant’s confession became part of the Crown’s evidence and the defence of provocation was put to the jury. In its final submissions, the Crown used the appellant’s post offence conduct to argue that the defence could not be made out. The appellant objected and as a result, the trial judge instructed the jury that the post offence conduct was not relevant to any of the issues it had to decide because the appellant had already confessed to killing the victim. The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing, among other things, that the trial judge should have specifically told the jury that the Crown’s statement with respect to the post offence conduct was incorrect. The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the instruction given by the trial judge, while very broad, was sufficient and amounted to the same thing as giving a no probative value instruction. Berger J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.