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 – Vetrovec warning – Curative proviso – Fresh evidence – Whether Court of Appeal could order new trial by overriding trial judge’s discretion regarding need for Vetrovec instruction without paying particular attention to minor role played by witness in determination of guilt – Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in declining to apply curative proviso of s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of Criminal Code without giving reasons – Whether, in context of application of curative proviso of s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of Criminal Code, this Court should grant leave to appeal in order to consider effect of exceptional fresh evidence, since that evidence, sworn statements by his spouse, had already resulted in respondent’s conviction.

A jury found the respondent, Daniel Patry, guilty of the second degree murder of Pierre Régimbald after two successive trials.

A first conviction had been set aside by the Court of Appeal on the basis that statements made to the police by Mr. Patry’s spouse should have been excluded, and a new trial was ordered. An application by the Crown for leave to appeal from that decision of the Court of Appeal was dismissed by this Court.

The Court of Appeal set aside the second conviction as well, because it was of the opinion that the trial judge’s instruction to the jury regarding a tainted witness had been insufficient. The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial. The Crown now seeks to appeal against that decision.