Dana E. Sullivan

The accused was convicted of second degree murder at trial.

The Court of Appeal for Newfoundland and Labrador quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on manslaughter as an included offence, specifically by not explaining the distinction between murder and manslaughter with sufficient clarity regarding the element of intent.

The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

A majority of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the jury instruction on manslaughter was inadequate.

The order for a new trial was upheld.

The respondent was convicted of assault, aggravated assault, and mischief following a trial in Provincial Court.

He appealed on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing his trial counsel had failed to advise him of his right to elect his mode of trial.

The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada reversed, holding that ineffective assistance of counsel requires both a performance component and a prejudice component, and that the loss of the right to elect the mode of trial alone does not constitute a miscarriage of justice where the accused fails to demonstrate a reasonable possibility he would have elected differently.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remanded to the Court of Appeal to address the remaining grounds of appeal.