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 — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the trial judge was correct to instruct the jury that they did not need to be unanimous on at least one particular of the particularized indictment for perjury — Whether there are issues of public importance raised.

The applicant was called as a Crown witness and testified in connection with a trial of two individuals regarding the Air India flight 182. The Crown contended that the applicant had falsely and with intent to mislead the court sworn that he did not know or recall any details of the conspiracy in that case. The perjury charge against the applicant is based on statements he made on solemn affirmation. The perjury charge against the applicant particularized 19 instances of allegedly false statements. Before the case went to the jury, defence counsel asked the trial judge for “a ruling the question of whether the jury ought to be instructed that it must be unanimous as to at least one of the particulars in order to convict, or whether it must only be unanimous that in at least one of the 19 ways particularized each juror is satisfied that all the elements of perjury have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” The trial judge held that the proper instruction for the jury is that in order to convict, it must be unanimous that the accused committed perjury with respect to at least one of the statements particularized in the indictment, although the individual jurors need not be unanimous on any one of the particulars alleged to constitute perjury. After a trial by judge and jury, the applicant was convicted of one count of perjury contrary to s. 131 of the Criminal Code. The appeal was dismissed.