Ronald Prégent

The accused was arrested without warrant days after an alleged sexual assault and made an incriminating videotaped statement during police interrogation.

At trial, the judge refused to hold a voir dire on the lawfulness of the arrest under s. 495(2) of the Criminal Code, concluding that s. 495(3) deemed the arrest lawful so long as s. 495(1) grounds existed.

The Supreme Court held that s. 495(2) imposes mandatory limits on warrantless arrest powers and that an arrest contrary to those limits may be unlawful and arbitrary under s. 9 of the Charter.

Section 495(3) only protects peace officers from liability in proceedings against them and does not bar an accused from challenging the legality of the arrest in their own criminal trial.

The refusal to hold a voir dire was an error of law requiring a new trial.

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 Minister of Justice appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal regarding the surrender of a fugitive to a foreign state.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the dissenting judge in the court below.

The Court held that the Minister's surrender decision did not infringe the fugitive's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and restored the Superior Court's decision dismissing the application for habeas corpus.