The Crown appealed a Court of Appeal decision that set aside the respondent's jury convictions for unlawful act manslaughter and unlawfully causing bodily harm in relation to two foster children who suffered severe malnutrition and dehydration in the respondent's care.
The Court of Appeal majority had found errors in the trial judge's mens rea instructions for the predicate offence of failing to provide necessaries of life under s. 215 of the Criminal Code, specifically regarding intermingling of foreseeability standards and failure to address the accused's circumstances as a secondary caregiver.
The Supreme Court majority held that the functional approach to jury charge review was not met for intervention, as the charge as a whole properly conveyed the requisite mens rea despite imperfections.
A concurring minority would have found the charge deficient but applied the curative proviso on the basis that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice resulted.
The appeal was allowed and convictions restored.
