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.
