John A. McAmmond

The Crown appealed a decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal that had overturned the accused's convictions for sexual offences and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the convictions, agreeing with the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeal.

The Court found that the trial judge had properly applied the principles from R. v. W. (D.), carefully explaining why she did not believe the accused, why his testimony failed to raise a reasonable doubt, and why she found the complainant credible despite a possible motive to fabricate.

The appellant challenged a Court of Appeal order setting aside his acquittal on a charge of second degree murder and directing a new trial.

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge's slip in the recharge to the jury constituted a serious misdirection and that it could not be said with the requisite certainty that the verdict would inevitably have been the same absent the error.

On the disclosure issue, the court held that full disclosure had been made before the second trial and that an appellate court had no jurisdiction to grant a stay where no such application had been brought at trial.

The court further held that ordering a new trial in the circumstances did not amount to an abuse of process.