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 (Non Charter) - Charge to jury - Evidence - Offences - Elements of offence - Appeals -Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s. 231(3) of the Criminal Code, and thus erred in articulating the minimum evidentiary foundation required to leave “murder by arrangement” as an avenue for possible conviction of the Appellant to a jury - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the minimum, necessary elements of a sufficient “Vetrovec” warning by failing to require a warning that explained to the jury why a paid agent who was also an accomplice in the homicide was in a particularly good position to fabricate the involvement of the Appellant - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code to a significant error directly touching both the issues of “murder by arrangement”, and the insufficiency of the “Vetrovec” warning provided to the jury.

The Appellant was charged with three others with first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The Crown’s theory of the case was that a member of the Hell’s Angels in Halifax ordered the killing, the Appellant and the Crown’s key witness arranged it, and it was carried out by two others. The Crown’s position was that the Appellant was guilty of murder because he either counselled or aided the person who actually shot the deceased. The murder was a first degree murder either because it was planned and deliberate or because the killing had been carried out pursuant to an arrangement. The Crown’s key witness subsequently became a police agent. The Appellant challenged the witness’ credibility at trial and the trial judge warned the jury of the dangers associated with the evidence given the witness’ own role in the murder (the “Vetrovec” warning). The Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld the sufficiency of the Vetrovec caution. The court held that the trial judge erred in admitting a hearsay statement said to establish the “murder by arrangement” but that this error could be “traced”, ensuring that any wrong use of the statement by the jury could not have affected the verdict. The court thus applied the curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code and dismissed the appeal.