Michel Denis

The appellant appealed his convictions for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, challenging the admissibility of the murder weapon found after statements he made following prolonged detention.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal as of right, substantially for the reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal of Quebec.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.

At trial, the judge instructed the jury on the concept of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' by comparing it to the degree of certainty used in everyday activities, specifically using the example of checking the oil level in an automobile.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that using everyday examples to explain reasonable doubt is misleading and can lower the requisite standard of proof.

The Court found a reasonable likelihood that the jury misapprehended the standard of proof, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.

The appellants appealed as of right from a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal that quashed stays of proceedings ordered by the Superior Court on grounds of unreasonable delay.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that in the exceptional circumstances of the case, it was open to the prosecution to exercise its discretion to declare a stay of proceedings by way of nolle prosequi, and there were no grounds for the stay of proceedings ordered by the Superior Court judge.

The appellant appealed a conviction for the unlawful use of a credit card.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Quebec Court of Appeal that even if the initial possession of the credit card was innocent, the appellant subsequently chose to keep it wrongfully, making his possession unlawful prior to its use to obtain goods.

The appellant appealed a judgment affirming the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that even if the magistrate erred, the error was made within the scope of his jurisdiction and therefore could not be the basis for a writ of certiorari.

The writ was quashed and the magistrate's decision restored.