The appellant killed his wife and raised the defence of insanity at his first degree murder trial, arguing he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and delusions.
The trial judge instructed the jury that 'wrong' in s. 16(2) of the Criminal Code meant legally wrong, relying on previous Supreme Court jurisprudence.
The jury convicted the appellant.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada applied its recent decision in R. v. Chaulk, holding that 'wrong' means morally wrong.
The Court found the jury was misdirected and ordered a new trial, while affirming that the presumption of sanity in s. 16(4) is a justifiable limit on the Charter right to be presumed innocent.
