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 – Appeals – Whether inconsistency in the jurisprudence regarding jury cautions required by R. v. Vetrovec, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811 – Whether cases have watered down the circumstances in which courts will find that the caution is mandatory – Application of curative proviso in s. 686(1) (b) (iii) of the Criminal Code – Whether there has been a marked dilution of the test for the application of the proviso in recent appellate jurisprudence – R. v. Sarrazin, 2011 SCC 54.

The applicant was convicted by a jury of the first-degree murder of Ping Li and of discharging a firearm at Xing Li with intent to wound. Xing Li was the operator of a brothel in a Burnaby apartment building. A caller made arrangements to visit the apartment, went into a bedroom with Ping Li, and emerged a short time later holding a gun to her head and saying “robbery.” Xing Li was asked to lie on the floor, and when he refused to give access to the apartment building he was shot. Ping Li was also shot, and died from her wounds. There was evidence that the person who shot Ping Li and Xing Li had visited the apartment earlier that day.

At trial, the principle issues was whether the applicant was the assailant, whether Ping Li had been forcibly confined and whether the shooting of Xing Li constituted attempted murder. Eye witness evidence came from Xing Li. The Crown also adduced evidence regarding cell phone calls, and of the security camera tape from the apartment building lobby showing the person entering in the daylight and in the evening. The applicant’s sister was interviewed by police, and was asked if she could say whether the individual in the security camera tape was her brother. She was also called to testify at trial.

The applicant appealed his conviction, arguing the judge should have given the jury a Vetrovec warning about the credibility of the Li’s evidence and that he erred in admitting evidence from Wong’s sister.