The accused was convicted of possession of stolen property based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of his estranged girlfriend.
The trial judge provided boilerplate reasons that failed to address the conflicting evidence or explain the basis for the conviction.
The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial due to the absence of adequate reasons.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that a trial judge's failure to provide reasons that are sufficiently intelligible to permit meaningful appellate review constitutes an error of law.
