Dr. Paul-André Lafleur

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after shooting the victim in the back of the head while he slept.

At trial, the appellant argued self-defence based on an overwhelming fear of the victim, supported by psychiatric evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury on self-defence, the expert evidence, and character evidence, and erred by allowing the Crown to ask if he would submit to a blood test and a Crown psychiatric assessment.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while errors were made, they caused minimal prejudice and the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code applied because the evidence was overwhelming and the verdict would inevitably have been the same.

The accused was charged with sexual offences and made an initial confession to police that was later ruled inadmissible.

During a court-ordered psychiatric assessment, the accused made a 'protected statement' confirming the earlier confession.

At trial, the accused testified and denied the offences.

The Crown cross-examined him on the protected statement to challenge his credibility under s. 672.21(3)(f) of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the protected statement was inadmissible because it was derived from the prior involuntary confession.

The Court concluded that s. 672.21(3)(f) cannot be interpreted to permit the use of an involuntary confession, as doing so would violate section 7 of the Charter.