The appellants were convicted of importing heroin and conspiring to import heroin after a controlled delivery of a package to a third party's apartment.
The Crown's case relied heavily on the evidence of the third party, who claimed the appellants orchestrated the importation.
The appellants appealed their convictions, arguing the trial judge's jury charge was fatally flawed.
The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the charge failed to properly instruct the jury on assessing credibility, gave an inadequate Vetrovec warning, improperly exhorted minority jurors to reconsider their views, and failed to separately review the evidence against each appellant.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.