On a criminal appeal from fraud convictions, the court considered whether trial counsel’s comment invited an impermissible adverse inference from a co-accused’s silence and whether the trial judge’s charge required an explicit remedial direction under s. 4(6) of the Canada Evidence Act.
The majority held that a trial judge may affirm the right to silence when there is a realistic risk of misuse, but found the charge as a whole adequately conveyed that silence is not evidence.
The court also found the erroneous admission of hearsay did not create a realistic possibility of a different verdict.
The conviction was upheld under the curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.
