The appellant was charged with two counts of robbery and tried separately on each count.
At the first trial, statements made by the appellant were ruled inadmissible following a voir dire, and he was acquitted.
At the second trial before a different judge, the statements were ruled admissible despite the appellant's argument that the Crown was estopped from relitigating the issue.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the doctrine of issue estoppel does not apply to interlocutory findings on a voir dire regarding the admissibility of statements, as such findings lack finality and are not fundamental to the substantive decision of guilt or innocence.
