George Dangerfield

The appellants challenged their first degree murder convictions on the basis of the insanity provisions in the Criminal Code and alleged that the reverse onus in s. 16(4) violated the presumption of innocence in s. 11(d) of the Charter.

A majority held that s. 16(4) infringed s. 11(d) because it permits conviction despite a reasonable doubt as to sanity, but that the infringement was justified under s. 1.

The Court overruled prior authority holding that 'wrong' in s. 16(2) meant legally wrong, and held instead that the provision refers to morally wrong according to society's standards.

Because the jury had been instructed on the narrower legal-wrong meaning, a new trial was ordered.

The appellant was charged with criminal negligence causing death after driving through a red light and striking another vehicle, resulting in a fatality.

The appellant had been drinking but showed little sign of impairment.

The trial judge acquitted the appellant, finding the conduct was not a marked departure from the norm, but made comments suggesting consequences and intention were irrelevant.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial based on these comments.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that the trial judge's finding of reasonable doubt was supported by the facts and the comments did not affect the outcome.