Case information

Criminal law — Charge to jury —Vetrovec instruction — Testimony of accomplice having heard confession — Application of curative proviso — Instruction with respect to motive — Need for and phrasing of instruction — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that error of law had been made given absence of Vetrovec instruction, but applying curative proviso in section 686(1)(b)(iii) of Criminal Code — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in applying legal framework on instruction with respect to motive.

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.

The wife of the applicant, Yvon Durand, disappeared in August 2008. Her car was found a few days later. It was not until October 9, 2008 that her body was found. More than six months after the body was found, a friend of Mr. Durand made a statement to the police in which he alleged that Mr. Durand had murdered his wife, and admitted that he had helped Mr. Durand hide the victim’s car. Following a jury trial, Mr. Durand was found guilty of the second degree murder of his wife. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed his appeal, finding in particular that the trial judge had not erred in phrasing her instruction with respect to motive and that the real possibility that the verdict would have been different without the failure to give the jury a Vetrovec instruction was slim, if not non existent.