Evan J. Roitenberg

The accused was convicted of manslaughter at trial.

The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding a planned robbery and relied on this to infer the accused's presence at the crime scene.

The Court of Appeal partially based its decision on R. v. Beaudry.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction.

The majority held that Beaudry does not apply to mistakes as to the substance of evidence, which are governed by R. v. Lohrer.

Furthermore, the majority found the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence, as she did not rely on the existence of a planned robbery to infer the accused's presence at the scene.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal that substituted a conviction for aggravated assault in place of an acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed that defence of property under s. 41 of the Criminal Code alone could not justify the alleged aggravated assault.

However, the Court found that the trial judge's findings were insufficient to ground a conviction, as there was no finding of an intentional stabbing and the trial judge had reservations about the evidence's reliability.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault with intent to steal money, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable due to issues with identification evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from the bench, agreeing with the Manitoba Court of Appeal that the verdict was reasonable.