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.

(Publication ban in case)

Criminal law (Non Charter) - Charge to jury - Evidence - Appeals -Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that the learned trial judge’s Vetrovec instructions were in error - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that the learned trial judge’s “proven facts” error was prejudicial to the Appellant.

The Appellant was convicted of first degree murder. The Crown’s case at trial was derived in large part from the evidence of known criminals associated with the Appellant. The defence alleged that they concocted their stories in order to conceal their own guilt. The evidence of these “unsavoury witnesses” was bolstered in part by the evidence of their girlfriends and female associates. In his charge, the trial judge instructed the jury to exercise caution in dealing with the evidence of the unsavoury witnesses (the “Vetrovec” warning). He pointed out the danger in convicting based on their evidence and instructed the jury to look for confirmatory evidence before relying on it to convict. The trial judge suggested that the jury look at the evidence of the girlfriends and female associates, “remembering of course the defence have labelled them liars”. Later, the trial judge made a statement to which the Appellant has subsequently taken exception where it was suggested that, even with respect to defence evidence, inferences could only be drawn from proved facts (i.e. the “proved facts issue”). On appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the Appellant took issue with various aspects of the trial judge’s charge to the jury. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.