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 – Evidence – Procedural law – Trial – Charge to jury – Unreasonable verdict – Disclosure of benefits granted to informers – Police action involving informer – Post-offence conduct of accused – Whether trial tainted by procedure followed by trial judge on motion for disclosure of benefits granted to informers Stéphane Gagné and Sirois – Whether trial judge, in decision of February 26, 2002, and subsequently Court of Appeal erred in finding that accused's right to fair trial not violated by officer Pierre Samson's actions involving informer Bois – Whether trial judge and subsequently Court of Appeal erred in finding that charge given concerning post-offence conduct of Mr. Fontaine, Mr. Tousignant and Mr. Boucher was consistent with R. v. White, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72 – Whether trial judge erred in instructing jury pursuant to R. v. Vetrovec, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811 – Whether trial judge and subsequently Court of Appeal erred in concluding that charge as in R. v. MacKenzie, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 212, was not necessary in circumstances of instant case.

Maurice Boucher was convicted by a jury of two first degree murders and one attempted murder. The victims were prison guards. At trial, the prosecution's main witness was Stéphane Gagné, an informer. Gagné admitted that he had taken part in the murders with André Tousignant in the first case and Paul Fontaine in the second. The murders were apparently ordered by Boucher to discourage members of the criminal organization from becoming informers. Boucher appealed the guilty verdicts, arguing that they were unreasonable because of errors of law.