The accused was charged with sexual assault.
The trial judge instructed the jury on reasonable doubt using the Lifchus model.
During deliberations, the jury asked for clarification on the difference between absolute certainty and balance of probabilities.
The trial judge repeated the original charge verbatim and stated that further explanation would lead to confusion.
The accused was convicted, but the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.
The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by failing to provide a responsive answer to the jury's question and by discouraging further questions, which raised a concern that the verdict was not based on a proper understanding of the standard of proof.
